One of my favorite maxims – “genealogy is not for the faint of heart” – is the underlying premise of this multi-part article, a collection of challenges I’ve run across in my “research adventures” in pursuit of my own family history or that of my clients. Genealogy is fraught with challenges and the all-too-often need to untangle twisted history, but untangle I must (or at least try!) – whether it’s a client with family lore they wish to prove (or disprove) to scaling brick walls built on years of misleading information via either genealogical fraud, inheritance scams or Internet speculation. In recognition of October being Family History Month, this article has been excerpted from the May-June 2020 issue of Digging History Magazine.
We’ve Always Been Told: Family Lore (Part 1)
I’ll start this off with my least favorite (by far) research objective. It is the “we’ve always been told we were related to [someone famous (or infamous)]” or just about any variation thereof. First and foremost, I loathe these “challenges” because there is considerable pressure on the researcher (me) to uncover the real story, especially when I know the client really, really, really wants to be related to so-and-so in order that they may join this or that heritage society.
To be honest, I much prefer just letting the natural course of research take us to whatever interesting (or not so interesting) conclusions regarding ancestry. I had a client some time back (and I didn’t keep the notes, unfortunately) who had a penchant for joining multiple heritage societies. Personally, I’m not particularly interested in such things, but she certainly was. She wanted to join one associated with early Jamestown settlers.
Looking back, I think the reason I didn’t keep many notes was the fact I made fairly quick work of disproving the connection she was sure was hers. That was an easy one – most aren’t.
Dr. John Briscoe: The Society of the Ark and the Dove
One such case I encountered wasn’t necessarily family lore, but a client’s desire to be directly descended from Dr. John Briscoe, an early Maryland settler who purportedly came at the invitation of none other than Lord Baltimore (Cecil Calvert, the Second Lord Baltimore) himself. Still, it’s a classic example of “untangling the web of twisted history”.
A wedding announcement (of all things) published in 1904 proclaimed the bride a direct descendant of Dr. John Briscoe and provided the following background:
The bride of last night is a great-grand-daughter of the late Major Thomas Briscoe of Jefferson county, W. Va., who was a direct descendant of Dr. John Briscoe, the first by that name in this country, having sailed by invitation from Lord Baltimore, as the following indicates:
Briksheugh, New Biggin,
Cumberland County, England.
September 1, 1633
Dr. John Briscoe, Greeting:
Dear Sir: As the privy council have decided that I shall not be disturbed or dispossessed of the charter granted by his majesty, the ‘Ark’ and pinnace ‘Dove’ will sail from Gravesend about 1st of October, and if you are of the same mind as when I conversed with you, I would be glad to have you join the colony.
With high esteem,
Your most obedient servant,
CECILIUS BALTIMORE
Furthermore, the Briscoe family “may” have been been connected to Pocahontas:
Among the many interesting alliances of the Briscoes none is more so than that which brings a connection with the descendants of Pocahontas. This comes through the Edward Tayloe Briscoe line by his marriage to Miss Sallie Ferguson Vaughn, whose lineage goes directly back to Pocahontas, the beautiful Indian princess, and to her father, the great Powhatan.1
The first thing I noticed about this letter addressed to Dr. John Briscoe was the language. It didn’t sound very seventeenth century-like as evidenced by the phrase “I would be glad to have you join the colony”. The person who discovered the letter deemed it to be original. However, after the Maryland Historical Society examined the document, its originality was deemed questionable. The Society believed it to be a copy, hoping the original would eventually be discovered.
By the early twentieth century it appears to have been a foregone conclusion that Dr. John Briscoe was indeed a passenger, and likely the first Briscoe to walk on American soil. Genealogists often refer to the first person in their ancestry to arrive in America as the progenitor of all descendants. However, whether Dr. John Briscoe was the progenitor of ALL subsequent Briscoe lines is debatable, and actually a bit difficult to trace. It seems there were more than a few men of distinction who were subsequently named “Dr. John Briscoe”.
According to British Roots of Maryland Families, written by Robert W. Barnes, an article by Alexander H. Bell, published in the September 1933 issue of the National Genealogical Society Quarterly (NGSQ), questioned “whether a Dr. John Briscoe ever really came to Maryland, and whether the person referred to in Maryland records was not really a John Biscoe [different name, different person]”. In 1958 another NGSQ article, “The John Briscoe Story” was written by Vice Admiral and Mrs. William S. Pye with the purpose of refuting the “negative article published some twenty five years earlier by A.H. Bell.”2
Although Barnes cautioned that another source, Visitation of the County of Cumberland in the Year 1615, must be used with care since some generations likely needed more documentation, he traced the ancestry of Dr. John Briscoe back to Robert Briscoe, Lord of Brisco in County Cumberland (ninth great grandfather).
According to Barnes, Dr. John Briscoe was the son of Leonard and Mabel (Sands) Briscoe, born circa 1612 at Crofton Hall, County Cumberland, England:
He is said to have accepted the invitation of Cecilius Calvert and to have come to Maryland as one of the Gentlemen Adventurers on the Ark and the Dove Expedition. He was a member of the Court that met at St. Mary’s City. He should not be confused with a contemporary named John Biscoe. The ancestor of the Briscoe family of MD is usually referred to as “Dr.” Dr. John Briscoe m. Elizabeth Dubois who was b. in England, and said to have been a descendant of the Huguenot family of County De Roussey, Marquis Du Bois. Dr. Briscoe was believed to have been an Anglican, but his descendants m. into the leading Roman Catholic families of Maryland.3
This family appears to begin its twisted history here as not everyone can agree on the children of John and Elizabeth:
Some sources say that Dr. John had a son, John, Jr., who was the father of Philip Briscoe, but if the latter was in fact born in 1648 he is most likely to have been a son and not the grandson of the Doctor. [One researcher determined] that Dr. John and Elizabeth DuBois Briscoe had at least three children: GEORGE; JOHN; m. Ann Jackson (Worthington) and had issue; and PHILIP, b. c1648, d. c1724; m. Susanna Swann.4
Yet another Maryland source prefaces Briscoe family history by refuting previously published research:
The ancestry of Dr. John Briscoe [another Dr. John], who settled in Frederick (afterwards Berkeley) County, Virginia, about 1752, and his brother George Briscoe, who accompanied or more probably followed him, as given in Colonial Families of the United States of America, Vol. III, p. 84, is incorrect. They were, it seems, sons of Dr. Philip Briscoe, son of Philip, usually called Colonel Philip, and Susanna (Swann) Briscoe.5
This particular source (Colonial Families of the United States of America) states Dr. John Briscoe was born around 1590, versus Robert Barnes’ claim of 1612. This twenty-two year difference is substantial, but not uncommon in genealogical research. Sometimes we simply don’t know for certain.
Sometime after William Pye wrote his article for NGSQ, The Society of the Ark and the Dove rejected the claims due to contrived material (e.g. “twisted history”) in John Briscoe’s lineage. Some went so far as to wonder whether there ever was a Dr. John Briscoe who married Elizabeth DuBois.
The Society seems to have set aside their doubts about Dr. John Briscoe, however. In 2005 they published a book, The Ark and the Dove Adventurers, listing him among the gentlemen adventurers. It is a bit curious, however, that they don’t list him under the “Adventurer List” link on their web site, while still offering their publication as a source.
The book provides the lineage of four or five generations of descendants, beginning with their children George (who may never have married), John and Philip. Philip’s line of descendants is prominently featured and doesn’t appear to link with my client’s Briscoe line (as far as I can tell). Only John Jr.’s children are listed (Thomas, (yet another) Dr. John Briscoe, James, Mary, Anna, and perhaps another daughter named Elizabeth). Nothing in that book, however, jumps out as a link to my client’s Briscoe family in Virginia. Her second great grandfather, Thomas Briscoe, was born in Virginia and later migrated to Morgan County, Alabama.
If there were a connection to Dr. John Briscoe, I would be inclined to assume it was through John, Jr., although I’ve been unable to find any proof whatsoever. The farthest back any of the Alabama Briscoes have been confidently able to trace is Thomas.
My client was just sure she is related, however – as she pulled out her pendulum and it answers “yes you are related to Dr. John Briscoe”. I am not kidding about the pendulum . . . she seemed quite serious! Of course, I told her that proves absolutely nothing, nor will it gain you entry into a heritage society. Without definitive proof of a direct link to Dr. John Briscoe, it won’t happen (most societies are quite particular about sources, proof and such).
(Update: In all fairness, some time later the client informed me that her pendulum had apparently changed “its” mind – she was NOT related to John Briscoe!)
As one lecturer pointed out in a webinar I attended years ago, sometimes we just have to “let it go”. Not everything we’ve always heard via family lore, or for that matter, famous people we wish to be connected to, materializes. Beware – sometimes the truth can be a bit deflating. Next week: Debunking a Family Legend: Escaping the Bataan Death March.
Thanks for stopping by! Please consider subscribing to Digging History Magazine. The current series features the history of individual states and how to find the best historical and genealogical records. Purchasing a subscription entitles you to subscriber benefits (20% off all services, including custom-designed family history charts) AND a chance to win your very own custom-designed family history chart! Details here (or click the ad below).
Footnotes:
- Evening Star (Washington, D.C.), September 15, 1904, accessed at www.newspapers.com on August 4, 2026, 5.
- Robert W. Barnes, British Roots of Maryland Families (Baltimore: Genealogical Publishing Company, 1999), 76 (accessed at https://ww.ancestry.com/search/collections/49095/ on August 4, 2026).
- Barnes, 77.
- Ibid.
- L.W. Reid, “Some Descendants of Colonel Philip Briscoe”, Maryland Genealogies, Volume 1 (Baltimore: Genealogical Publishing Company, 1980), 77 (accessed on August 4, 2026 at https://www.ancestry.com/search/collections/48198/).