• General Notes

  Children
  i Sarah2, b. about 1608.
  ii Bethia2, bapt. Oct. 29, 1612.
  iii Mary2 bap. September 15, 1615; bur. July 26, 1625.
  iv Abigail2, bap. Sept. 30, 1618.
  v Elizabeth2, bap. Mar. 25, 1621.
  vi Isaac2, bap. Feb. 25, 1623-4.
  
  LEARNED GENEALOGY.
  
  In the parish records of Bermondsey, County of Surrey, England, are found the following:
  Baptised.
  1612, Oct. 29, Bethia, daughter of William Larned.
  1615, Sept. 15, Mary, daughter of William Larnett.
  1618, Sept. 30, Abigail, daughter of William Larned.
  1621, Mar. 25, Elizabeth, daughter of William Larned.
  1623-4, Feb. 25, Isaac, son of William Learned.
  
  Married.
  1623-4, Jan. 13, Thomas Ewer to Sara Learned.
  
  Buried.
  1625, July 26, Mary Larnett, a child.
  
  Savage, in his Genealogical Dictionary, vol. ii, p. 132, says that Thomas Ewer, of Charlestown, came in the James, from London, in 1635, aged 40, with his wife Sarah, daughter of William Larned, aged 28, with his children, Elizabeth, aged 4, and Thomas, aged 1 1/2. (See also Hotten's List of Emigrants for the ages and names of Ewer and of his children.) He united with the church in 1636, and died in 1638.
  
  In the Rev. John Lathrop's Records of Scituate and Barnstable, printed in the N. E. Hist. and Gen. Reg., vol. ix, p. 246, is the following:
  
  Marryed since my coming to Barnstaple, being Octob. 11, 1639 * * * my son Thos. and Brother Larnitt's daughter, widow Ewer, in the Bey, Decemb. 11, 1639." There can be no doubt, then, that the widow Ewer who was married to Thomas Lathrop was the Sara Learned, who had been previously married in England to Thomas Ewer. And since her father is spoken of as "Brother Larnitt, " we may be confident that he was in this country and known to Rev. Mr. Lathrop. William Learned was here as early as 1632. Thus William Learned and his son Isaac, the first of the name in this country, are identified with the William and Isaac of Bermondsey parish.
  
  There are no other entries of the name in the records of Bermondsey parish than those which are given above. Sarah must have been born about 1607, and there is no record there of her baptism.
  
  A marriage license was granted by the Bishop of London, June 4, 1612, for James Hull, of the city of London, gentleman, and Ann Larned, spinster, daughter of (???) Larned, deceased. This Ann may have been a sister of William.
  
  These are the only traces of the name which have thus far been found in England, either of an earlier or of a later date. Col Joseph L. Chester has examined his own MSS. collections from Parish Registers (some 110 folio volumes containing about 400 pages each); the calendars of wills in the General Registry, from 1383 to 1700; the various lists of names at the Public Record office, the British Museum and Herald College, without finding the name. The name does not appear in the army lists of the civil war period, though that of Learner does. Col. Chester has also examined, with the same want of success, the lists of wills in the Prerogative Court of Canterbury, the calendars of the local registries covering Essex, Hertfordshire, Surrey, Berkshire, Buckinghamshire, Oxfordshire, Wiltshire, and the portion of Kent included in the diocese of Rochester, and the parish registers of Ware and the indexes at the Public Record office; the registers of the oldest Dissenting churches, and of the old French churches, now deposited in the office of the Registrar General, and many other lists of names.
  
  In the lists of the French emigrants who were naturalized the name is not found; nor is any found which is like it. Nor was there any French name in England, at the date of the Bermondsey records, which could be translated into Learned.
  
  The name is not found in the directories of the present day, either of London or of the counties in England; or in the poll lists, or indexes to county histories.
  
  There has been a belief that the name was French. Perhaps this has arisen from the circumstance that the name begins with Le, or with L; thus suggesting L'Arned. But there seems to be nothing to justify this belief, so far as any thing can be learned from the names of the French emigrants to England. Yet the absence of the name from any English records appears to indicate a foreign origin. The fact that James Hull would seem to have been ignorant of the Christian name of his wife's father may also be a slight indication of this. William, the emigrant, wrote his name Learned. The variations in the spelling in the Bermondsey parish register and the spelling in Rev. Mr. Lathrop's records, show that the accent was on the first syllable, as it was then pronounced.
  
  The name of William Learned's wife, Goodith, whether a corruption of Goditha, or a mistake for Judith, seems not to be foreign.
  
  The name seems to have been pronounced "Larned, " judging from the Bermondsey records, and from Dr. Lathrop's diary. It is not probable, therefore, that it was a corruption of Leonard.
  
  In regard to the orthography of the name there is some uncertainty. William, the ancestor in this country wrote "Learned." (Bond's Watertown.) The name must have been sometimes pronounced "Larned." (See Rev. Dr. Lathrop's diary above cited, and the extract from the minutes of the court.) Sometimes, "Lerned, " as in the town orders and in the discharge of his son, Isaac. The extract from the records of Bermondsey, has "Learned" and "Larned" and "Larnett."
  
  In may reasonably be conjectured that the true spelling was "Learned, " and that the true pronunciation was "Larned." The other pronunciation, "Lerned, " may have come from a desire to pronounce according to the spelling.
  
  Many of the North Oxford branch of the family have spelled the name "Learned" and pronounced it "Larned." The old epitaphs are generally "Larned" and some of the Oxford branch have so spelled the name. The Thompson branch has spelled and pronounced it "Larned;" excepting, however, most of the descendants of Ebenezer5, who have spelled and pronounced it "Learned." In Oxford, Webster and Dudley it has generally been spelled "Larned."
  
  The members of one family in Hopkinton, N. H., have spelled the name "Lerned." Some in Boston have spelled it "Learnard, " and some "Larnard."
  
  In the following pages the variations in spelling are sometimes, but not always, noted.
  
  1 WILLIAM LEARNED1. The first admission to the present First church of Charlestown was, according to its records, as follows: "1632, 10 mo., day 6, William Learned and Goodith, his wife, were admitted." (N. E. H. and G. Reg., vol. xxxiii, page 191). This name Goodith, is said by Rev. Samuel Sewall to be, not a corrupt spelling of Judith, but an old English name, from the Saxon, Goditha. It was common at that time. In one instance, at least, about this period a child, baptised Goodith, was, however, always called Judith. (Col. Joseph L. Chester.)
  
  It has been said, but whether upon good authority is not known, that William Learned came over in Feb., 1624. But this seems improbable, since his son Isaac was born that month, and his daughter Mary was buried in England, July, 1625.
  
  He did not belong to the Boston church. The last admissions to that church, prior to the going off of the Charlestown residents, are those of Anne, wife of John Elliott, Thomas and Elizabeth James, and William Pierce; who doubtless came in the Lion of Sept. 16. (Letter from Hon. James Savage.)
  
  The Charlestown members were dismissed Oct. 14, 1632, and formed a distinct church, Nov. 2, 1632, (Frothingham's, Charlestown, p. 70.) See the original covenant, stating that the thirty-five persons were dismissed "the 14th of the eaght moneth, 1632." (N. E. H. and G. Reg., vol. xxiii, 190.) It must have been about two months afterwards that William Learned and his wife were admitted to the church. But in the Charlestown Records, at page 6 is a list of such as were admitted inhabitants of the town in 1630, unto whom planting lots were given; and among them his name appears.
  
  Mr. Palfrey, however, says that these records are not of the best authority, not having been made till more than thirty years afterwards. (Palfrey's New Eng. I., 289, n.) And if this be so, the later date for the coming over of William Learned is the more probable, viz, 1632.
  
  His name also appears in a list of inhabitants, the 9th of January, 1633, and again in 1635 and in 1636. Shares of hay ground were assigned to him; and again a portion of marsh land, Feb. 11, 1637. In Wyman's Charlestown Genealogies, vol. ii, p. 611, seven different parcels of land are described, which belonged to him.
  
  In 1634, May 14th, he was admitted freeman. His name appears as one of the signatures to the town order for the appointment of eleven selectmen, February 13, 1634-1635. (Frothingham's Charlestown, p. 50.) On Feb. 13, 1635-6, he was appointed a selectman. About this time he is mentioned with twenty-eight others as having "willingly surrendered for the good of the town part of their land on Mystic side."
  
  March 2, 1637, he was chosen one of four, instead of Goodman Brakenbury, to divide for stinting the common land.
  
  April 6, 1637, he and Goodman Thomas Ewer, were desired to lay out widow Wilkin's two acres. About the same time he and several others were desired "to goe with Mr. Winthrop to lay out bounds between us and him."
  
  At the time of the controversy which originated with Mrs. Anne Hutchinson, when the general court condemned and banished Rev. John Wheelwright, William Learned was one of the signers of the remonstrance against that proceeding. (Frothingham's Charlestown 73; see Palfrey's New England I, 485.) In the minutes of the court, I, 205, it is recorded, "Willi. Larnet, acknowledged his fault in subscribing the seditious writing and desiring his name to be crossed out, it was yelded to him and crossed."
  
  Feb. 12, 1637-8, it was referred to Mr. Greene and to William Learned to settle Mr. Witherell's wages for the year past. William Witherell was the schoolmaster.
  
  "1638 the 26 of the 2d moneth, Mr. Increase Nowell, Mr. Zach. Sims, Mr. Jno. Greene, Mr. John Hayward, Sergt. Ralph Sprague and William Learned were desired to consider of some things tending toward a body of laws." As he was thus made one of a commission of some importance, we may suppose that he was a man of good sense, and as his name has no title prefixed, he was probably not a man of any high position.
  
  In 1640 a movement was on foot to settle Woburn. The first meeting for the purpose was held at the house of Mr. Thomas Greene, December 18th; and town orders were there signed by thirty-two persons, and among them by William Learned, (spelled by the clerk Lernedt). He was one of the seven who, the 14th of August, 1642, formed the first church of Woburn, (Woburn town records; Sewall's Woburn, p. 20; Johnson's Wonder Working Prov., p 17.) On the 24th of November, it is recorded that he freely gave up his lot for the use of the town, which gave it to Thomas Richardson, and agreed to give to William Learned the like for quantity and quality. It was afterwards ordered that he should have seventy-two acres laid out to his son Isaac, in recompense for the sixty-six which he had thus given.
  
  On the 13th of April, 1643, he was chosen constable and one of the selectmen; and again February 9, 1644-5. Some additional land was given him in Sept., 1645. Another order, two months later, says that he was to have six acres and a half for a house lot and farm in meadow, and the residence, being sixty acres, "the one-halfe in forest field and the other halfe in playne field."
  
  He died March 1, 1646, two days before the selectmen were chosen for the third term; and thus he held the offices of selectman and constable at his death. (Qu. 1646-7; as he is named in the town rate, 22d of 10 mo. 1646.) Judging from the age of his daughter, Sarah, he must have been born as early as 1590; and would thereefor have been at least 56 at his death. He left a widow who had an annuity. On the 4th of October, 1648, his son "Isack Lerned was discharged of his accompt consarning his father, who, deseased, constable." The account had been settled in part, Sept. 26.
  
  A petition to the General Court, signed by thirty-six women "of Malden and Charlestown of the Mystick side, " Oct. 28, 1651, in favor of Rev. Marmaduke Matthews, has among the signatures that of Jane Learned. (Frothingham's Charlestown, p. 126.)
  
  The will of Gabriel Wheldon, Malden, 1653, 11, 12, has, as one witness, Janes Larnard. In N. E. Gen. Reg. vol. xvi., 75, this is printed "James." But a careful examination is said to show the word to be Janes. The other witness is John Upham; probably the same with the appraiser mentioned below. A fac simile is here given.
  
  
  
  
  In Middlesex County Records, under date of 1660, 11 mo., 24 day, appears the death of "Widow Sarah Learned, of Malden." (N. E. Gen. Reg., vol. x., 162.)
  
  An inventory of the estate of Widow Jane Learned, deceased, in Malden, was made 12 mo., 1660, of which Job Laine and John Upham were appraisers and administration was granted 1661, 2 mo., 2 day, to Ralph Shepard. This Ralph Shepard may probably be the person who came from London in 1635, and who d. Sept. 11, 1693, ae. 90, and was buried at Malden. (N. E. Gen. Reg., vol. iv., 66; Savage Gen. Dict.)
  
  This inventory amounts to Ã..."41, 18s. 11d., and includes an item, "Widow Learned, at Chelmsford, debtor, Ã..."6." (Appendix A.)
  
  By the inventory of Isaac2 Learned's estate, mentioned hereafter, it will be seen that he was indebted to the Widow Learned three pounds per annum during her widowhood. That was undoubtedly an indebtedness to the widow of his father, William1, with which he had been charged either by the will of his father or on the settlement of the estate. In 1660 Isaac2 was dead and his estate, since April 6, 1658, had been in the hands of his widow, Mary, and her father, Isaac Steans, as administratrix and administrator. This Mary, not then married to her second husband, Burg, must have been the "Widow Learned at Chelmsford, " who was indebted to the estate of Widow Jane Learned, deceased; and the Ã..."6 for which she was thus indebted were probably the two years' annuity, which had accrued since the death of Isaac. We may therefore feel confident that Jane Learned, whose inventory is above mentioned, was the widow of William1. Probably, also, "Widow Sarah Learned, " mentioned in the Middlesex records, is the same person, the dates come so closely together. There is not, so far as can be learned, any one except William1 Learned whose widow either of these could be. It is not unreasonable to believe that the witness to the Wheldon will was also the same; and that "Janes" was in some way written for "Jane." If so, "Sarah" is perhaps a mistake. (Bond's Watertown; Barry's Framingham.) Jane may have been a second wife of William1. Nothing is known of Goodith except her admission to the church, as mentioned above. It may be that Jane and Goodith are the same person.
  
  The children of William1, so far as known, are those mentioned above; all born in England except, perhaps, Sarah, whose place of birth is not known.
  
  Nothing more is known of any of these except of Sarah and Isaac. A fac-simile of the signature to the town order is here given.

Details of William's family with Judith Gilman