ORIGIN OF THE NAME

When surnames became a necessity, soon after the Conquest, former nick names, residence near a wood, a bec or brook, or a forest, as well as occupation, as "le carter, le walkere, le fullere", became the sources from which surnames were assumed.

Long, in his

Personal and Family Name, 127

believes that the name Beach was derived from "a bee", and adds, on page 281, "Beach -- beekeeper."

There does not seem to be any foundation for this theory, as far as the compiler can see. On the other hand, the name has been spelled by various members of the same family, both Beach and Beech, and almost all writers or compilers of local histories, parish registers, etc., have found it necessary to treat the two names as of one family.

[Begin page 2] The name, Beech, various writers on surnames persist in ascribing to residence near a tree of this species.

Lower: Patronomica Britan. .23
Edmunds: Names of Places, 137
who says "Beech, from 'Baece", the beechtree.
Bardsley: English Surnames, 128

While it is quite true that many surnames were derived from similar sources, it does not seem to be the case with this family. Lower, above mentioned, although he says that Beech was derived from "a residence near a tree of this species", significantly adds: see, however, Beke.

Beke means in Low German a brook or stream, (the beck of Yorkshire), and is of Flemish origin, spelled Bech, Bek, Beche, Beke, Beck, Bec, de Becce, del Bec, Beck, Beak, Beake, Beech and Beach.

It appears at a very early period in England, with Goisfridus de Bech.

"fuit primus, et venit com Conquere et
habuit haerditatem suma in Flandria"

i.e. "the first one of the family, in the Conqueror's company, from Flanders." Domesday Book.

[Begin page 3] He had various possessions of lands in Hertfordshire,

Liber Domesday

but no further trace of the family can be found in Hertfordshire, while it appeared very soon after in Lincolnshire, with

Walter Beke
"proavus Johannis Beke"
Chart. Joh. Beke

who married Agnes, filia Hugonis filii Pineionis, uxor Walteri proavi Johannis Beke. She gave lands at Kirkly to Kirkstead Abbey.

Coll. R. Glover

Her father, "abavus Johannis Beke, dom. de Evesly", had 1139 lands adjoining Hugh of Eudo.

Harl. MSS. 245

Walter Beke between 1141-1155 had gift of lands from Ranulf de Glenons, Earl of Chester, was Lord of Bresly in right of his wife; after 1167 gave the Church of Newton to the Priory of Almingham.

Reg. de Almingham

[Begin page 4] Walter Beke gave lands to Kirkstead Abbey after his son, Hugh, had been made a knight.

Coll. R. Glover

He had issue:

Reg. de Alvingham, in Bibl. Bodl. (Arch. Cant. F. 119, fo. 147)

1. Hugh, [illegible]... from Holy Land.
2. Henry, of whom presently;
3. Walter, "filius Wal. Beke, fratri Henrici."  Had two sons, of which Henry left issue;
4. John, of Boby, obtained, 1206, license to marry the widow of William Bardolph.
5. Nicholas,
6. Margery and
7. Emmeline, nuns in Alvingham.

II. HENRY BECK

lord of Bresly, "avus Joh. Beke"; was a witness to his mother's deed of gift to Kirkstead Abbey; in 1195 defendant in an act for one knights fee [Begin page 5] in Totenahll, Wisperton, and Kirkby.

Abbr. Placita

He married Alice de Multon, sister of Thomas de Multon, who gave her in free marriage, lands in Breitoft, etc. They had only one son

Reg. de. A; Glover Coll.

III. WALTER

"pater Johnnis Beke",

Chart. Joh. Beke

In 1222, he married Eve, niece of Walter de Grey, Archbishop of York.

Dugdale: Baronetage

Paid that year a fine in Exchequer on his marriage; held 1237, four knights fee in Tateshall, etc. of the Bishop of Durham.

Testa de Neville

1. John, who married and had issue. He made his will, 1301.

Inq. de. quo warr. .4 Edw. III

2. Thomas, Bishop of St.David's [Begin page 6]
3. Anthony, Bishop of Durham, died 1310;
4. William, of whom presently;
5. Margaret, who married Galfridus de Thorp;
6. ........, a nun at Alvingham.

Alvingham Reg.

IV. WILLIAM

who settled in London, where he made his will, 1297:

"To Juliana, his wife, all his rents in the city of London,
for life, and also his tenements and rents in Walsbrook."

Cal. Court of Hustings,
Roll 26: 38

V. JORDAN

his son, made his will, about 1300 , "it is not dated", but appears among the wills of that year:

"son of William; Juliana, his mother, all his rents and tenements
in the City of London and suburbs, to pay [Begin page 7] his father's creditors."

"Whereupon Hugh de Lancaster and Matilda, his wife, put their claim
upon said testament, in as much the testator was under age when he made it."

Rolls of Hustings, 29: 55

VI. THOMAS BEEC

married Alice de Wunne, and had a son, John, who resided in Redbourne, and had a son,

Bourne Coll.

VII. JOHN BECHE

who made his will, July 20, 1445:

"Legacy to the High Altar of Harpden,
son, John Beeche.
the light of St. Marie Pyte,
Item, fratribus infra Newgate, London
ija. vid.
Item filia Thomae Beeche ija.
wife, Margerie and son John, x'rs.

rev. Nov. 28, 1445, Archd. St. Alban: Stoneham, 46 [Begin page 8]

VIII. JOHN BEECHE

married Marie, daughter of Thomas Harding, and had a son, Walter, who married Margaret Hysling, and had:

Hysling Coll. 74

1. Walter, whose grandson, Waltar Beach, of Redbourn and Ovens, had a daughter,
Katherine, bapt. Nov 17, 1599

Parish Reg. Redbourn

2. Robert
3. John,

all of Redbourn, where they were taxed, 1545.

Subsidy Rolls

4. Thomas, of Weltwich, 1545, taxed with his brothers in Hundred of Cayasho, whom see. [Begin page 9]
5. Robert, of Warminster, Co. Wilts, from whom descends the Beach-Hicks.

X. THOMAS BEECHE

of Weltwich, taxed, 1546, married Sarah, daughter of George Gifford, of New Sarum, Co. Wilts, and had:

Gifford Gen. Coll.

XI. GEORGE BEACH

of New Sarum, Co. Wilts, who paid 12 d. 1602, to the Churchwarden's account for pewes, was April 23rd, 1615 to April 12, 1616, churchwarden of St. Edmund, Sarum, paid in 1630, Jan 28, 10 pounds the knighthood composition tax, as having, at least, 40 pounds per annum in freehold lands; married Abigail, daughter of Richard Foschete, and hadL

Foschete Coll.
Wilt. IAQ. 1. 108

1. Richard, born Jan 2, 1620, emigrated to [Begin page 10] New Haven, Conn., 1639;
2. John, born Febr. 17, 1621, of whom presently;
3. Benjamin, born June 6, 1622, emigrated to New England;
4. Thomas, born March 22d, 1623, emigrated to Milford, Conn.

XII. JOHN BEACH

born Febr. 17, 1621, of New Sarum, Wilts, emigrated, 1659, and purchased land, May 21, 1660 in Stratford, Conn. He married, June 3rd, 1651, Elizabeth, daughter of Nathaniel Peck, and had

Peck MSS. Coll. 52

1. Elizabeth, born March 28, 1652, married Eliaph. Preston;
2. John, born April 5th, 1654, married Dec. 18, 1659, Hannah Staples of Fairfield, Conn. and had issue.
3. Mary, born Sept 9, 1656; [Begin page 11]
4. Thomas, born May 1659 (evidently in Stratford, Conn.), settled in Wallingford, 1686, married Ruth Peck, and 2d., Phoebe Willcoxen, and had issue.
5. Nathaniel, born March 1662, married Sarah Porter;
6. Hannah, born Dec. 1665; married Zechariah Fairchild;
7. Sarah, born Nov. 1667;
8. Isaac, born June 27th, 1669, of whom presently;
9. Joseph, born Febr. 5th, 1671, married Abail [sic] Booth;
10. Benjamin, born March 8, 1673/4

Stratford Records
Hist. Torrington, 663

XIII. ISAAC BEACH

Born June 27th, 1660, married March 3rd, 1693, Hannah, daughter of John Birdsey. He was a tailor and acquired large estates in and near Stratford. Will dated Sept 12, 1746, proved June 15 [Begin page 12], 1741.

"... wife Hannah 1/2 of all movable [illegible]
"... two daughters, Mary Wilcox and Hannah Prince, the other half.
"... three sons, William, Elnathan, and John, "already given them my lands and buildings
by Deeds";

his
Isaac Beach
mark

Fairfield Probate Court, 1741-48, 87

Had issue:

1. William, born July 7th, 1694, married Nov. 30th, 1725, Sarah, daughter of Capt.
Jos. Hull, was great great ancestor to General W. Hull, and had issue,

Abel, Isaac, Ann, Abijah, and Henry, mentioned in will, probated Aug. 5, 1761, "wife L 5000"

2. Elnathan, born Jan 17th, 1698, of whom presently:
3. John, born Oct 6, 1700, Pastor of Congr. Church of Newton, etc. [Begin page 13]
4. Mary, born Dec 16, 1705.
5. Hannah, born May 26, 1706.
6. Dinah, born Oct. 14, 1713, d. y.

XIV. ELNATHAN BEACH

born Jan. 17th, 1698, married, May 9th, 1790, Abigail Uffoot, who died Nov. 2d, 1738, when he married, 2d, Febr. 8th, 1742, Hannah Cook of Cheshire, New Haven Co., Conn., to which place he removed; issue:

Ibid, & Fairfield Per.

1. Isaac, who died 1724,
2. Isaac, born March 3d, 1725,
3. Elnathan, a M.D.
4. John, of whom presently;
5. Samuel,
6. Sarah
7. Hannah, born Nov. 12th, 1728,
8. Abigail, born Dec. 17, 1730.
9. Lois
10. Esther, [Begin page 14]
11. Abraham, born Aug. 29th, 1743, a lawyer in New York.

XV. JOHN BEACH

born Jan. 3d, 1727, married Sarah Burton, daughter of Lewis Burton, the Town Clerk of Trumbull, Conn., and had:

1. Lucina, born April 14th, 1765,
2. Lewis (Burton), born July 1767, of whom presently;

                                        [EDITOR'S NOTE: See, however, the Commentary below]

3. Silas, bapt. May 5th, 1771,
4. Silas, born July, 1776,

John Beach, of Trumbull, April 1st, 1799, conveyed to Silas Beach, for a consideration of L 70, two parcels of land in Trumbull, containing 9 acres.

Trumbull Town Records, I.161

John Beach, June 19, 1800, was administrator of the estate of Joshua Curtis, and as such conveyed to Ephrian Thomson, for a consideration of 75 pounds 18 shillings, land in Trumbull.

John Beach had, March 21st, 1801, of Abel G. Northrop [Begin page 15] for a consideration of L 25/6 1/4 acres with dwelling house and shop in Trumbull, at a place called Daniel's farm.

Ibid, I. 315

John Beach, June 6th, 1803, conveyed to Charles Burton, a Negroman, for a consideration of $ 150 land in Trumbull, called Daniel's farm.

II. 44

John Beach of Trumbull, May 1st, 1807, leased to Ester Beach of Huntington, land in Trumbull.

III. 138

John Beach, May 5th, 1807, to Abel S. Northrop, land in Trumbull for a consideration of $65.00.

(For other deeds, see under Lewis B. Beach)

John Beach of Trumbull made his will, Jan 2nd, 1809, proved March 8th, 1809.

"... son James
"... son Lewis
"... daughter, Eunice Harrison, $16.
"... grandson, Beach Curtiss 6sh.
"... three sons, Burton Beach, Silas Beach, and James Beach, $60; to son Lewis,
one feather [Begin page 16] bed and under bed, one blue bedquilt, also one pair of linen Sheets.

Stratford Probate Court, V. 359

Inventory appraised by Lewis B. Beach, ex.

... a piece of salt meadow,
... a note of hand of Lewis B. Beach $372.78
" Lewis B. Beach $125.56
" James Beach, Jr. $164.30
" James Beach, Jr. $ 33.35
etc.

V. 305

XVI. LEWIS BURTON BEACH

born July 1767, of Trumbull, had April 18th, 1798, of James Down, of Trumbull, for a consideration of $206.31, land with building in Trumbull, called Daniel's farm, containing 1 1/2 acres, bounded... west on John Burton in part and in part on widow Sarah Beach.

Trumbull Town Rec. I. 44

Lewis Burton Beach had, Febr. 4th, 1800, of Robert Charles Johnson, of New York City, for a consideration of L 300 land in Trumbull, called Daniel's [Begin page 17] farm, containing 32 acres and purchased by said Johnson of J. Hinman, April 8th, 1799.

I. 177

Lewis Burton Beach of Trumbull had, June 8th, 1800 of Charles Burton, a negroman of Trumbull, for a consideration of $100 land called Daniel's farm.

II. 171

Lewis Burton Beach, Febr. 21st, 1805, conveyed to Abel G. Northrop, for a consideration of $253.10, 5 acres land called Peter's farm in Trumbull.

II. 295

Lewis B. Beach had, Febr. 21st, 1805, of John Beach, of Trumbull, for a consideration of $400, 10 acres of land called Daniel's farm.

II. 295

Lewis Burton Beach of Trumbull, Febr. 7th, 1805, for a consideration of $20 conveyed to James Down land called Daniel's farm.

II. 307

Lewis B. Beach, 1808, Apr. 5, to Neh. R. Edwards, consideration $425;
Lewis B. Beach of Moses and Ann Osborn, 6 acres, Sept. 30, 1806 [Begin page 18]
Lewis B. Beach had of John Burton, 1808, Apr. 8, 12 1/2 acres called Daniel's farm. Cons. $500.
Lewis B. Beach had, 1808, Apr. 8, of Silas Beach, land in T., Cons. $133.34.
Lewis B. Beach, 1810, March 19, to Solomon Plant, cons. $500, land ... near widow Esther's land.

Lewis Burton Beach and James Beach withdrew from the Congregational Society of North Stratford, and united with the Episcopal Church, April 2d, 1811.

Hist. Stratford, II. 1030

Children:

Lewis, of whom presently,
Manson, who, Apr. 29th, 1820, conveyed to John Burton Beach, for a consideration of $250, Daniel's farm.

V. 125

XVII. LEWIS BEACH

Born in 1796, as per family record, married Sophia Grenzebach, and resided in Bedminster, Somerset County, N.J., as appears from deeds. [Begin page 19]

Lewis Beach of Somerset Co., N.J., for a consideration of $100 conveyed to David Beach and Francie Beach, both of Trumbull, Conn., land in Trumbull, 5 acres, 1815, May 16th, witnessed by

Asa P. Ufford Trumbull Records

Elijah Ufford IV. 407

Lewis Beach of Bedminster, Somerset Co., N.J., for a consideration of $500 conveyed to Hanson Beach of Somerset Co., N.J., Daniel's farm in Trumbull, Conn., 1818, June 20th.

IV. 667

Children:

a. Lewis
b. William Nichols, of whom presently;
c. Margaret
d. Sophie B.
e. Emily

Family Record

XVIII. WILLIAM NICHOLS BEACH

Born in New York, Dec. 31st, 1833, married Sophia Virginia Hall, daughter of Alvah Hall and Sophie Pettigrew, and had [Begin page 20]

XIX. WILLIAM NICHOLAS BEACH

Born June 6th, 1872 in New York, married Nov 22d, 1894, Marie Adele Bonner, daughter of David Bonner.

By Eugene H. Beach, Jr.

The "Anjou Typecript", reproduced above, presents an excellent opportunity to illustrate the techniques of "critical genealogy", i.e., the careful analysis and evaluation of a genealogical reference to determine its accuracy and trustworthiness. Before any lineage is accepted at face value, the reader must ask such seemingly obvious, yet nonetheless vital questions as "Who is the author?"; "What are his sources?"; "How does the information presented square with what is known from other references?". The failure to do such "detective work" serves only to perpetuate errors as author C uncritically repeats as fact what author B believes a reasonable possibility based on the unsupported speculations of author A.

The document in question is a twenty page typescript. Its authorship is not given within the text itself, although it is catalogued by the L.D.S. Family History Library as the work of New York genealogist, Gustav Anjou, born 1863 and died 1942. The document is likewise undated, but cannot have been written prior to 1894 since it refers to the marriage of William Nicholas Beach in that year.

The central claim presented is that the Beach family of New Haven descends from the Beke/Beche/Beeche/Beach family of England. Specifically, it is asserted that one George Beach, of New Sarum, Wiltshire, married Abigail Foschete and had sons Richard, John, Benjamin and Thomas; all of whom emigrated to New England in the early 1600's. In support of this claim the document cites two references: "Forschete Coll.", presumably a collection of genealogical records of the Forschete family, and "Wilt. IAQ. 1. 108", believed to be an English quarterly publication on Wiltshire history and antiquities. Your editor has thus far not located either of these sources to examine them first-hand. Until then it is uncertain whether they (1) merely establish the fact that a George Beach indeed married an Abigail Forschete, (2) show that the couple had sons as named, and/or (3) affirmatively claim that such sons emigrated to New England. In any event, it seems clear both the "Forschete Coll." and "Wilt. IAQ" are themselves only secondary references, prompting the question from whence their own information came.

There is reason to suspect, however, that at least some of the data attributed to such sources was in fact supplied by Anjou. The references to brothers Richard, John, Benjamin and Thomas is clearly a version of the "four brother theory" concerning the New Haven Beach family, first advocated by Deacon Lewis M. Norton and later popularized by Davis in his History of Wallingford, Connecticut. As is now known, however, Benjamin² was in fact the son of Richard¹, rather than his brother, See: "Beach of New Haven", Beach Family Journal, Vol. I, No. 2, pp. 32-33. While not conclusive, this suggests that Anjou, familiar with Norton and/or Davis, himself included Benjamin in whatever list of children the English sources might give.

Another questionable aspect of Anjou's lineage concerns the dates of birth for Richard, John, Benjamin and Thomas. As those familiar with English parish records can attest, the usual practice was to record dates of baptism - which the church administered - rather than actual birth. Moreover, events occurring in January through March were generally recorded in "double date" form, i.e., 1620/21, reflecting both Julian and Gregorian reckoning. In the case of the four brothers, however, Anjou purports to give actual birth dates and does not employ "double dates".

The birth date given for brother Richard¹ is itself suspicious for another reason. As is well known, Richard Beach first appears in the records of early New Haven on June 4, 1639, when he affirmed the Covenant of the colony and was admitted a "planter" or "freeman" with full civic privileges. If born January 2, 1620 [which would be 1621 in Gregorian reckoning], however, he would have been barely 18 at the time, well below the traditional age of majority of 21 years and thus unlikely to be trusted with the responsibilities of citizenship in a strict Puritan colony.

Anjou's further assertions about the Beaches of New Haven cast doubt on his thoroughness as a researcher and thus the reliability of all of his conclusions. For example, it is claimed that brother John Beach¹ "... emigrated, 1659, and purchased land, May 21, 1660, in Stratford, Connecticut," yet the New Haven records show John Beach to have arrived sixteen years earlier in 1643. Anjou likewise claims John¹ married "Elizabeth, daughter of Nathaniel Peck", whereas the records give his wife's name only as Mary, with her maiden name remaining unknown to this day.

Perhaps the most egregious error Anjou commits, however, is in giving the ancestry of Lewis Burton Beach as John¹, Isaac², Elnathan³, John⁴, Lewis Burton⁵.  Although this same lineage has been suggested by others [e.g., Charles C. McClaughry, Genealogy of the Beach Family of Connecticut, p. 94, following Orcutt, History of the Old Town of Stratford], the true line is actually Richard¹, Benjamin², Benjamin³, Benjamin⁴, John⁵, Lewis Burton^6.  See: Beach Family Magazine, Vol. 4, No. 1, p. 333. While Elnathan³ had a son John⁴, the latter was born June 16, 1734; not January 3, 1727, as Anjou asserts. Moreover, John⁴, Elnathan³ had no son Lewis or Lewis Burton, Beach Family Magazine, Vol. 1, No. 3, p. 68. Indeed, even John⁵, Benjamin^4-3-2 - apparently the true father of Lewis Burton Beach - was born May 16, 1745; not 1727, Beach Family Magazine, Vol. 1, No. 4, p. 88. For Anjou to make such a mistake in tracing more recent generations should give one pause when considering his claims regarding earlier portions of the lineage.

In conclusion, it should be noted we are not alone in finding fault with Anjou's work. On the contrary, his general reputation is most "unsavory". As Milton Rubincam writes in Pitfalls In Genealogical Research, p. 64, "In the Anjou pedigrees that I have seen, he gives no clues that point to the main stock in the British Isles. He offers no reasons for assigning the American families to the lines he claims. He died in 1942, after making and losing a fourtune selling pedigrees at prices ranging from $250.00 to $9000.00." As much as we might wish his Beach family lineage is an exception, the evidence suggests otherwise.