Long Island Genealogy
Welcome to Long Island Genealogy

Please Consider a Donation - Asking for donations is never easy, sadly it's a fact our presence doesn't come without cost.  Because of that we are asking you to become a contributing member of "Long Island Genealogy" by making a donation to support it's work.  Without your support we can't continue.
Donations can be made by clicking on the Donate Button to the left or sending a check.  For directions on sending a check please follow this link.
Long Island Records
Cemetery, County, Village, Town and Hamlet
Surname Databases
Major Surnames from LI History
Reference Books
Online and CD Collections
Surname Books and Articles
Online and CD Collections

The Weeks(es) family of Long Island

The Descendants of Simon Weekes and his Son Francis
Notes taken from a Weeks GEDCOM,  original author is unknown
     It has been said that Francis Weekes came in 1635 to Salem, MA, but there is no record of that statement, but removed to Dorchester, where George Weekes had settled, but that is uncertain, although probable, as Roger Williams lived there.
    The first authentic statement as to the movements of Francis comes from Roger Williams, so included here is a brief sketch of him, and his founding of Providence Plantations, since it's here that Francis first met Roger Williams, a native of Wales was a regularly ordained minister of the Church of England, but when he accepted the views of the Puritans, he became obnoxious to the heads of the Church in England, so he immigrated to America and preached at Salem, MA. The authorities of the church in MA objected to his teachings, and in the autumn of 1635 a decree of Banishment was ordered, but he was permitted to remain for six weeks, but the time was extended to the following spring. When the officers went after him to send him to England, he had left Salem three days before. He traveled through the wilderness to a place called Seekonk. The memoir of Roger Williams by James D. Knowles says: "Mr. Williams' departure from Salem was sudden and unexpected." Mr. Williams wrote: "I first pitched and began to build at Seekonk." He also wrote "he was sorely tossed (as in a boat) for one fourteen weeks knowing neither bed nor board." Some claim that some of his friends went ahead and prepared a site for a settlement. Mr. Knowles says: "For his means of existence he must have depended upon the Indians." "Here he hoped that he might live in peace." "He was soon joined by several friends. His wife and children were still at Salem." The above statements refute the statement that friends went ahead of him.
    His first location was on the east side of the river known as Blackstone, Seekonk, and Pawtucket, and he settled there in January 1636. Planting of crops was made in the spring, but word came from Governor Winthrop, a friend of Mr. Williams, that the location was within the bounds of Plymouth Colony, and kindly suggested that if he would remove to the other side of the river, it might avoid trouble between the colonies of Plymouth and Massachussetts. Accordingly, Mr. Williams abandoned his plantation, and with his followers, embarked in a canoe and pushed down the river to its mouth, rounded a promontory and entered an estuary of Narragansett Bay, and then proceeded northward a short distance until they reached the confluence of the rivers Woonasquatucket and Mashassuck, where they landed near a great spring of sweet water. Here they made their new settlement, which Mr. Williams called "Providence" (later Providence Plantations, officially). Mr. Williams purchased a tract of land from the Indians, with whom he had always been friendly. Herbert Smith says further: "The commonly reported advent to Salem, MA, of Francis Weekes, is not sustained by immediate proof, and seems to have been a misreading of evidence given by Williams and reported in Court record in 1677. The statement made by Williams is quoted in an affidavid: "My soul's desire was to do the natives good, and to that end, to have their language, which I afterward printed, and therefore desired not to be troubled with English company, yet out of pity I gave leave to William Harris, then poor and destitute, to come along in my company. I consented to John Smith, miller at Dorchester (banished also) to go with me and at Smith's desire, to a poor young fellow, Francis Wickes, as also a lad of Richard Waterman's. These are all I remember." This refers to the final leave taking in 1636 of Williams from the Massachussetts Bay Colony, because of religious differences. In coming from Salem down towards his future settlement he met four persons who requested permission to accompany him and he consented rather unwillingly. These four were Harris, Smith, Weekes and probably Angell, Verin appearing later. Search of the records of Salem, MA, has yielded no immediate record of Francis Weekes. The text of Williams' statement clearly indicates that he met John Smith at Dorchester, and inasmuch as Francis Weekes joined the party at the request of Smith, the inference is plainly that Williams picked him up at Dorchester as well. The qualifications further on Williams' part that he was a poor young fellow would be consistent with the fact that he sponsored his joining the Williams expedition. Francis Weekes does not appear of record in or before 1636 in Dorchester as far as we can ascertain and therefore Williams' statement is all we have. It may well be supposed that a possible minor, and even a runaway indenturee (apprentice) would be a member of someone else's household and consequently escape regarding by the town fathers. John Smith with whom he seems to be associated first had been an humble settler with Barnaby Fower in the marshed near Dorchester.


    The settlement of Providence may be said to hinge, not upon the passage of the act of banishment of Roger Williams, for he did not then leave, but upon the decision to send Capt. Underhill to seize him, for it was to evade that seizure that Williams decided to leave Salem, and not simply on account of the act of banishment. Even before the act of banishment he, foreseeing trouble with Massachussetts Bay Colony, went among the Indians and negotiated with them concerning a possible settlement in their lands at Narragansett Bay. "Be it known to all men by these presents, That I, Roger Williams of the Towne of Providence in the Narragansett Bay in New England, having in the yeare, one Thousand Six hundred thirty Foure And in the yeare one Thousand Six hundred and Thirty Five, had severall Treatyes with Counancusse, And Maintenome, the Two cheife Sachims of the Narragansett: And in the End, purchased of them the Lands and Meddowes upon the Two Fresh Rivers called Moshosick And Wanasquattuckett." The reason was, because he had drawn above twenty persons to his opinions and they were intended to erect a plantation about Narragansett Bay.


    "After the Colony of Massachussetts Bay had passed upon Roger Williams in the autumn of 1635, Gov. John Winthrop, who was a friend of Williams,wrote privately to him and suggested that he should go and settle at Narragansett Bay." In his letter to Major Mason, dated Providence, 22 June 1670, Williams
wrote: "First when I was unkindly and unchristianly (I believe) driven from my Howse and land and wife and children (in the midst of New England winter now about 35 years past) at Salem; that ever honrd Go'r Mr. Winthrop privately wrote to me to steer my Course to teh Nahigonset Bay & Indians, for many high & heavenly & Public Ends, incoouraging me from the freenes of the place from any English claims or pattents. I took his (most) prudent Motion as an Hint & Voice from God & (Waving all other Thoughts & Motions) I steered my Course from Salem (though in Winter snow wch I feele yet) unto these parts wherein I may say as (Jacob, Peniel, that is I have seene the face of God")." Williams' first idea was to go alone amongst the Indians to do missionary work, and to learn their language thoroughly. In his letter of 17th 9, 1677, he wrote "My soul's desire was to do the natives good, and to that end therefore desired not to be troubled with English Company yet."
Yet he changed his plans even before he left Salem, for while still there he, with more than twenty of his followers, was considering the erection of a plantation at Narragansett Bay. These plans may have been under contemplation even before the act of banishment was passed. (The governor and assistants met at Boston to cnsider about Mr. Williams, as he had drawn about twenty persons to his opinion, and they intended to erect a plantation about Narragansett Bay from whence the infection could spread. A warrant was sent to him to come to Boston immediately but he said he could not come without hazard to life, so a pinnace was sent with commission to Capt. Underhill to apprehend him and carry him aboard ship, but he had left three days previously.)
    His plans were to be suddenly changed, for instead of leading his followers to Narragansett Bay in warm weather, he was obliged to leave Salem in winter to esape Underhill's expedition which was to seize him and send him to England. This flight was sometime early in January 1635/6. "When Roger Williams first came to Providence, he was accompanied by a young domestic servant of his Family named Thomas Angell." It has been stated that someof his friends went to the place appointed to make provision by housing &c. ready for his coming, otherwise he might have gone either southward or eastward. Williams' own letter contradicts the statement and is unlikely, for he had a better knowledge of Indians than any of his associates. He could not have anticipated the summons which caused his flight. In his letter to the town of Providence, dated 21 November 1650, Joshua Verin wrote: "Some of ou Cannot but Remember that we six which Cam first should have the first Convenience as it ws put in practis first by our Whom (home) lots & 2li by the medowe in Wenasketucket River." Verin may have been the next one to arrive after Williams and his four companions. The family record of Benedict Arnold says: "We came to Providence to Dwell the 20th of April 1636, per me Benedict Arnold." and from the statement of his father, William Arnold 27th April 1659,"for as much that I was one that the very first day entred with some others upon the land of Providence, and so laid out my money to buy and helpe pay for it....." It would appear that the Arnold family joined the colonists at the settlement at Seekonk 20 April 1636 and moved with the colony to Providence.
    Elder James Brown wrote; "The first Setling of the towne of providenc was on this wise. Aboute the year 1634 Mr. Roger Williams was banished from Boston, hee differing from them im sum religus pints was forsed to fley in the winter seson by reason thereof he was forsed to great hardships so that If the Indians which were the natives of the land had not hope (helped) him hee might have sufered deth but they was very kind to him and hope him a long in his Jurne tel hee came to a place senc caled mantons neck where hee had much kines sheued him from the Indians there hee abode the latter part of that winter." (Manton's Neck was in Seekonk, now Rehoboth.) (Probably Williams first went from Seekonk with Thomas Angell and purchased land from the Indians and probably in or about June 1636 the colonists removed from Seekonk. It would seem that the colony consisted of Roger Williams, William Harris, John Smith, the miller, Francis Wickes, Thomas Angell, Joshua Verin and William Arnold and their families, either already with them, or soon to join them at Providence. In this undated letter of August or September 1636 Williams mentions "those few families here" and also speaks of "the masters of Families."


    With the arrival of more settlers in 1639-40 the transaction of all business at a general town meeting became cumbersome and ineffectual. Difference had arisen which had been settled by arbitrators. The Combination contained twelve "agreements", signed by 35 persons, one being a woman. Soon after his purchase Roger Williams executed a deed, known as the "Initial Deed" in which the initials only of the grantees are given. Staples, in the Annals of Providence, says, "Among those who joined him while at Seekonk were William Harris, John Smith (miller), Joshua Verin, Thomas Angell, and Francis Wicks. These, with Mr. Williams, composed the first settlers of Providence. The number is ascertained from a letter from Joshua Verin."
    Other settlers came in and an agreement was entered into, as follows: "We, whose names are hereunder desirous to inhabit in the town of Providence, do promist to subject ourselves in active or passive obedience to all such orders or agreements as shall be made for public good of the body in an orderly way by the major assent of the present inhabitants, masters of families, incorporated together into a town fellowship, and such others whom they shall admit into them, only in civil things." This was signed by thirteen men, of whom Francis Weekes and Thomas Angell were the only ones who came in the canoe with Williams. Francis Weekes signed by mark, as also wherever else his name was signed that we have found. Four of the other men signed by mark. The mark made by Francis Weekes was always " W ". Others had different marks. In 1640 anothr agreement was entered into and signed by 39 persons, of whom Francis Weekes and nine others signed by mark. This shows the lack of education among the early settlers in New England. "1637. Agreements and orders of the Plantation, it is agreede that William Carpenter, Benedict Arnold, Francis Weekes, William Renolds, Thomas Angell, Mrs. Daniel, Mary Sweete shold pay in consideration of Ground at present Granted unto them, 2s apiece." The government was unique in being without precedent. The inhabitants "masters of families" incorporated themselves into a town and made an order that no man should be molested for his conscience. In the records of Providence the name of Francis Weekes is spelled various ways; Francis Wickes, ffraunsses wickes, francis weekes, francis Wicks, ffrauncis wicks, francis wickses. Evidently the use of capital letters in proper names had no fixedplace in the minds of the early record keepers. The ff was always used instead of the "F" and is to be seen in records where all proper names had capital letters. (A note from the late 20th C.: in earlier times the ff signified the capital F that we use today.) One writer said that Francis Weekes held the office of Secretary of the Colony, but it is hard to credit this, as Francis Weekes signed by mark wherever we have seen copies of records. If he was Secretary he must have had an amanuensis to do the pen work. In 1638 deeds were given to heads of families, but Weekes, Angell, Arnold and Cope, not having families, did not receive their deeds until later. This shows that Francis Weekes did not marry until after 1638.


    Roger Williams' lot was No. 38, northward from Mile End Avenue, at the south end of town; William Harris, No. 36, John Smith, 41, Verin 39, Francis Weekes, No. 35, and Court House on No. 34. "These first six settlers all became proprietors, though Weekes and Angell did not receive full shares until they became of age." Francis Weekes received a home lot of about 5 ½ acres in Providence, in addition to a 6 acre lot at a distance from his home lot. Each settler's share comprised the home lot, the upland for planting, and the meadow, consisting of salt marsh, or bog, where the winter fodder was cut.

Home Lots of the Early Settlers of the Providence Plantations
by Charles Wyman Hopkins

Original owners of Providence Plantations.
Home Lots beginning at Mile End Cove.
Francis Weekes, 45th.
Six acre lots. By the river side beginning at Mile-End Cove, Francis Weekes,2nd.
At a Small Brook, 60 acres, Francis Weekes.
"Lands and Meddowes Lotted on Waubasset Side, beginning at Saxifrage by
the Water Side, 5 acres to Francis Weekes."
"In land by Waunasquetuckett, On hether Plaine adjoyning unto Robert
Williams' 20 acres, 20 acres of Francis Weekes."
    The above was copied to show that Francis Weekes came into possession of a considerable portion of land at Providence, and if he had remained
there might have become a fairly prosperous citizen, but some motive, possibly religious, induced him to remove to another habitation. It has been reported that the wife of Francis Weekes was Elizabeth Luther; (there is no proof of this as of this date,1998, even among those of the Luther Society). G.W.Cocks, in the Cocks Genealogy, said that she was a daughter of Samuel Luther, of Swansea RI, &c. Mr. Clarence A. Torrey, of Dorchester, MA, a professional genealogist and a descendant of Francis Weekes, says, "I feel doubtful about the Luther line. Capt. John Luther's known children were born after 1634. Elizabeth, wife of Francis Weekes was born, it is supposed, about 1620. (I) have never seen proof that her name was Luther." His marriage to Elizabeth took place before 1640, and in 1642 his lot is referred to as "formerly belonging to Francis Weekes," so at that time he had already left Providence. "He may have been led to separate himself from the Providence settlement on account of religious differences caused by the change of faithin its promoter, for we read that Roger Williams afterwards embraced some of the leading opinions of the Baptists."
    "But it is more likely that Francis Weekes' removal, as well as that of many of the early settlers in this part of New England was caused by the arbitrary and intolerant attitude of the Boston hierarchy, who claimed religious supremacy and persecuted all heresy with great severity. The early history of Rhode Island is full of these quarrels, and the rumor of them traveled afar."
    In a description of New Netherland written in Dutch in 1649 appears (translation): "Also these (English) of Rhode Island, when they are at variance with those of the Bay (Massachussetts Bay Colony) begged shelter and to be adopted among the Dutch. In short it is thus situated that the English know very well the Dutch when it is to their interest to know them, or if they can use them as a cloak to cover some of their deeds, but otherwise they do not mind a fig, and set them up as a laughing stock, and this is only produced by egotism and self interest." "Tracing Francis Weekes' next move by actual records we find that in the Register of the Provincial Secretary, " 21 September 1645 Francis Weeks plaintiff vs. Mr. Spicer for loss of a gun; judgment for def." It is possible that Francis Weekes lived for a time in New York, following his removal from Providence. G.W.Cocks said that in 1641, he removed to the vicinity of Manhattan, possibly Gravesend. Lady Moody and her son received a patent for the Gravesend settlement in 1645, and it might be that no settlement had been made before that time. In an early plan of Gravesend, Francis Weekes is designated as the owner of Lot. No. 123.  "One of the tenets of the Anabaptists is that children who had been baptized in infancy must be re-baptized before being admitted to any sect of the Anabaptists. This perhaps explains an entry in the records of the RDC of New Amsterdam for March 1647. 1647, March 31. Ouder (parents)             Kinder (children) Sponsors
 Frans Wyck          Samuel  Enam Benam Jan (John)   Sara Cornelis  Joseph   d'huysv. van  Thomas Sanderson 1651, 9 July   Francois Wicks   Annetje (Ann) Enam Benam  Thomas  Thomas Baxter en syn huys vrouw Annetje Stilwell 1652, 24 November Francois Wick    Jacobus (James)  "As there is no record of the baptism of the youngest child, Daniel, he must have been born after the removal of the family from Gravesend." (Also, the son may have been born after the conversion of the parents to Quakerism.) Alice Delano Weeks writes: "On 25 March 1650, Francis Weekes was appointed the arbitrator of a dispute between Thomas Cornell and "ye Lady Moody". A gap of five years following now ensues, during which we have no record, but it is known that Gravesend settlers had hard times, first with the constant attacks of the Indians, and then with the quarrels between the Dutch and English governments. This may account for the fact that we find Elizabeth Weekes selling her husband's property in Gravesend under a power of attorney in 1655, &c. (Alternatively, there may be some truth to
the story that a group of men, Francis Weekes included, went to Virginia for a period of about two years.) (As the next removal of Francis Weekes ws to Hempstead, Long Island, and as his wife ran afout of ne of the laws, we quote from the Annals of Hempstead.) "Sunday Law, 18 October 1650 -- made at General Court. "Forasmuch as the contempt of God's word and Sabbath is the desolating sin of Civil States and Plantations; and the public preaching of the Word by those who are duly called thereto, is the means ordered by God for edifying, converting and saving the souls of men; it is ordered by the authority of this Court that all persons in this town shall duly resort to the public meetings on the Lord's day and public days of Fasting adn Thanksgiving, forenoon and afternoon, under penalty of 5 guilders for the 1st absence, 10 for the 2nd, and 20 for the third. Those who remain refractory shall be liable to further censure of the Court, either for aggravation of the fine or for corporal punishment or banishment. One half the fine to be given to the informer." (After the appearance of the Quakers at Hempstead this order was re-enacted.) Hempstead records show the following:
    "Hempstead ye April A.D. 1658. At a Court holden this present day stilo nove. Present Mr. Richard Gilders Leeve, Mr. John Hicks, Mr. Robert Firman, Mr. Richard Willetts. Forasmuch as Mary Schott, the wife of Joseph Schott, together with the wife of Francis Weekes, have, contrary to the Law of God, and the las established in this plae, not only absented themselves from public worship of God, but have profaned the Lord's Day by going to a conventicle or meeting in the woods, where there were two Quakers -- the one of them as named, the wife of Francis Weekes, being there, and the other being met with near the place, who, upon examination, have justified their acts, saying they did know no transgression they had done, for they went to meet the people of God -- be it therefore ordered that each party shall paye for this offense 20 guilders ($8.00) and all costs and charges that shall arise therefrom." Alice D. Weeks said, "This seems, after all, but a light penalty, when we remember that in 1660 Mary Dyer ws hung in Boston for this same crime of Quakerism."
    "Whether it ws owing to this trouble or some other cause, we can never know, but it is a fact that Francis Weekes and Joseph Schott sold their land in Hempstead shortly after this and their names disappear from the records of the town."
     Letter from the Town of Hempstead to Governor Stuyvesant
"Honored Sir.
     Yours wee received bearing Date the 4th of July 1656 wherein you demand the tenths which iff they bee due according to Covenant then wee are ready to paye them iff there be any deputed to receave them according to covenant. But we know off no General peace was made with the Indians till this year. Sr., wee alsoe expect that you will make good unto us such Damages as you by covenant have bound your selffe to make good vnto vs. Sr. wee take our leaves & subscribe ourselves yours." (This had 41 signers, of whom Francis Weekes and 16 others signed by mark, no two of them being alike.)
Quoting again from the Annals of Hempstead; "March the 17th 1657 Stylo novo, Chosen for the towne of Hempstede for Townsmen for the aforesaid yeere, Francis Wickes, Richard Brutnall,
Richard Vallengtyne, Robard Marville, Adam Mott. We the magistrates of Hempstead doe hereby ingage ourselves to stand by and bare with full power the above named Townsmen in all such acts and orders as shall conduce for the good and benefit of this towne for this preasant yeere, giving oute of land and resaiving in inhabbetantes onely exsepted."
(In the following quotations from the Hempstead Town Records, it appears that the "Neck" was a pasture used in common by the inhabitants.)
"Number of cattle kept in the Neck, ffranses wickes, Sixe."
"An account of Calves given to bee kept, 1657, Franses Weeckes, fower."
"Number of Cattell turned into the neck, 1657, 11 June, ffrancis wickes hath 3."
"Property in neck, Francis Weecks 15."
"goodman ellison had of weeckes, 15."
"Order that no calves be turned into the Neck but such as have cows. Any calf found without mothr, sucking, shall be forfeit, &c."
"Number of aders of meadow, ffransis weekes hath 28 akers."
1658. Debtors to teh town. Rec'd. of Francis Weekes, £2 8d."
"These presents do testify, That I, Nathaniel Denton, of Hemsteede have soulde vnto Francis Weecks, a parcell of Grounde Lyeing neare a peece of Grounde that Richard Vallentine has there. In witness whereof I have sett my hand this 25th of March stilo novo, Anno Domino 1656."
"The Townes land belonging to the ministers howes sette oute by the townesmen this 30 of Aprell 1657 for the Crope this yeare. Goodman Weeckes five peeses of hollow of the townes Land, the name of one being the wannutte holow and fower peeses more for the croope this yeer for three pounds one shilling in current paye to be payd at Croop being said to be 3 Akers."
    I'm including here a few more of the stories that have been passed down in some of the Weeks lines, but which have been since disproved, or for which there was no evidence. It has been said by some genealogists that there were four Weekes brothers, George, Thomas, Francis and Joseph, who came to Massachussetts in 1635, and that Joseph was drowned in landing. (A certain Joseph Weekes, with wife and baby daughter, did sail for America in 1635. but no
further history of him or family appears, so he may have drowned.) Quoting: "George, Thomas and Francis were brothers; they all wrote their names 'Weekes'; they all came from England and to Boston Harbor the same year, 1635; traditions among their posterity tend to corroborate the theory. Joseph, who left England the same year, was possibly the brother of those and was drowned in landing. William and John Weeks, of Falmouth, may have been nephews of these named above; family likenesses among descendants indicate a probable relationship."
    Other records tend to disprove the above statements. "George Weekes was, in all probability, of a junior branch of the family of Roger Wykes, of Bindon, Axmouth. He did not leave England in 1635, as stated in the History of Dorchester, as he signed an inventory of a will - in England - in October 1636. (It does not necessarily follow that this George was the George of Dorchester.)


    "Material for a genealogy of the descendants of Francis Weekes of Oyster Bay, Long Island, New York, were collected and published by the late Robert Dodd Weekes in 1885. Mr. Weekes was not particularly interested in those whom he believed to have been his Long Island collaterals, and consequently the connections listed in the publication were not treated with a critical spirit. Chiefly interested in the descendants of George Weekes of Dorchester, MA, he disposes of Francis Weekes and Thomas Wickes by stating that they were probably brothers of George Weekes. Since that time, this supposition has appeared in subsequent publications and has passed as a positive fact. Much of the biography of Francis Weeks appears in the Cock, Cocks, Cox Genealogy, published in 1914, and also lists certain of his descendants. Several other genealogies also take part of their research from Robert D. Weeks. Mr. Herbert F. Smith, of Baltimore, in American Genealogist, October 1932, advances strong arguments to disprove such assumptions. He refers to the Cocks Genealogy, to Robert D. Weeks, to Alice D. Weeks, and to Bunker and Frost. Quote: "The commonly reported advent to Salem, MA, of Francis Weekes, is not sustained by immediate proof and seems to have been a misleading of evidence given by Roger Williams and reported in Court record in 1677. In the same year, and probably within three months of Francis leaving Dorchester, George appears as a resident. For some reason, these earlier researchers used this to prove a relationship between the two Weekes'. In reality, George was old enough to have been Francis' father, with years to spare. Francis Weekes was illiterate; George and his connections, for the most part, were not only literate, but possessed of a cultured background which was different from that of Francis. George was conventional, accepting the religious life of Dorchester, thus of the Massachussetts Bay Colony. Francis associated with a decidedly heterodox minister, and removed from two towns because of religious discrimination. As for Thomas Wickes of Wethersfield and Huntington, since he first wrote his name as Wickes or Wilkes, he is likely to have been a son of Edward Wilkes of Warwickshire. As for the Weeks in Exeter, Joseph and his wife Mary Molford, daughter of Thomas Molford and Susannah Southcott, nothing is known of their children other than the names Joseph and Mary, both of whom were born before the Herald's Visitation in 1620. It is worthy of note that Thomas and Richard Southcott  were in charge of the first two expeditions to Dorchester, and it is possible that they were related to Francis Weekes, and may have brought him over. (Only if Francis were born AFTER the Visitation.) In that event, were Francis the son of Joseph such relationship could be easily explained and the fact that Francis named one of his sons Joseph as well.
    Skipping ahead, a note is made of the many ways the name Weeks is spelled; the excuse is used of the illiteracy of the census takers, but the truth is, there were no set rules for spelling in the early times, and words and names were often spelled as they were heard. It is said " The names of the North Wyke family appear in a variety of forms, even in the same document, referring to the same person, the leading forms being Wykes and Weekes, and more than sixty forms have been discovered, with no established form. John A. Weekes, in "Prominent Families in New York" says: "Coming originally from Devonshire, England, one branch of the Weekes family has been settled on Long Island for more than two hundred and fifty years, (written probably at the turn of the 20th century). The name and the family alike are of ancient origin. In the old records the name appears in various forms,...........It is derived originally from the Saxon, Wic, Wyc, Wich or Wiche, akin to the Latin Wicus or the Greek Oikos, having the general signification of a dwelling place, and would seem to indicate that those who adopted it were especially home lovers. (Which is why they opted for the completely UNKNOWN!) Those families known as the Wykes of North Wyke, England, the Wykes of Cocktree, adn the Weekeses of Honey Church are closely allied and belong to the same stock from which the Weekeses of Long Island and New England are derived. It's thought both Francis and George belonged to a branch of the family that had been seated at North Wyke, in Taunton Hundred, about 20 miles from Exeter, long before the latter part of the 14th C. On one side their ancestors were of the Wrey family and of Huguenot descent, it is said by some authorities; others assert that they were among those refugees who had fled from Holland to England to escape the persecutions of the infamous Duke of Alva.
    According to Playfair's British Antiquities, the first member of the Wrey family of whom there is a definite historical account was Robert le Wrey, his wife being Sybil Abbott, who was living in 1135. In the sixth generation from Robert le Wrey, a daughter of the family, Jane le Wrey, married John Wykes of Cocktree, and their son Roger held a quarter part of a knight's fee, Charleigh in Broney, in Oakhampton, in 1346. In the 14th C Roger le Wrey, the head of the family, held a quarter part of a knight's fee in North Wyke. His son, William le Wrey, married Catherine, daughter and co-heiress of John Burnell of Cocktree, who, in the time of
Richard III -- 1377-99 -- assumed the name of Wykes. It is from this ancient family (supposedly) that Francis and George Weekes, the American pioneers, are descended. Robert Wrey ws succeeded, in succession, by Elias; Elias; Richard; Stephen; Thomas; Walter. the latter had a daughter who married John Wykes, of Cocktree, a relative of the family, who had adopted the surname. Many families in England, in early days, took the name of their residence as their surname, and Wykes could have evolved from North Wyke.


    "The connection between this family and that of which (I) have just previously treated, must doubtless be referred to a certain Robert Wyke, whose daughter Joan m. John de Honeychurch late in the 15th C., who resided at Tavistock, but was the owner of land in Honeychurch, situated 7 mi. from Oakhampton, from about the reign of Henry III. This Robert Wyke was a contemporary with Willima Wykes of Northwyke, who (I) consider must have been his first cousin, and nephew of his father, John Wykes, who was living in 1435. Otherwise the arms of Wyke of Northwyke would not have been admitted to "Weeks of Honeychurch" as they appear to have been at the Herald's Visitation of 1620. That the primary settlement of this branch at Honeychurch was due to the marriage of Joan Wykes with John de Honeychurche is tolerably certain, but there is a hiatus in their history for three generations, since the ancestor of Weekes of Honeychurch as recorded at the Visitation referred to, was "Sir Richard Weekes, Knight, of Honeychurch," (contemporary with John Wykes of Northwyke "aged 20 years and more" in 1545), and who is reputed to have married an unknown daughter of Cary of Clovelly. Sir Richard was the grand- father of Simon Weekes, also of Honeychurch, whose son William married Arminell, daughter of John Yeo of Hatherly, by his wife Anne, daughter of William Honeychurch of Honeychurch and Tavistock. Their son Simon seems to have removed to Broadwood-Kelley, and their eldest son, Francis Weeks, aged 30 in 1620, married Wilmot Coffin of Portledge, and had 6 sons and 1 daughter. Of these, Richard Weekes, the third son, resided at Hatherleigh, was a "gentleman pensioner", that is to say, a member of the body known as "The Honorable Corps of Gentlemen at Arms" (those many times in debt), and died in the Fleet Prison in 1670.
    The arms of Northwyke, allowed also to Weekes of Honeychurch in 1620, are Ermine, three battle-axes, Sable. The Honeychurch branch was entitled to
quarter by Kelley by marriage of Richard, eldest grandson of Sir Richard Weekes with Alice, daughter and heir of Henry Kelley. South Tawton extends over 10,878 acres of land, 5,000 of which were owned by the Wykes of Northwyke for many centuries. Sir William Pole (or Poole) who died in 1635, in "Collections toward a
Description of the County of Devon" gives the following account of the North Wyke family: The family of Wrey was originally Wrey Barton, in the parish of Moreton, Hampstead; they also held North Russell and North Wyke. William le Wrey held the fourth part of a knight's fee in North Wyke of the barony of South Tawton, 1242. From him followed Walter (1277), Roger, Walter, Roger, who in 1345 held a fourth part of a knight's fee in North Wyke, of the Barony of Oakhampton. He had a son William who married Katherine, daughter and co-heiress of John Burnell of Cocktree, South Tawton, and who in time of richard II (1377-99) assumed the name of Wykes. By this marriage he became possessed of Cocktree and Ilton Manor. William Wykes had sons, Richard and Roger. Roger of bindon, Axmouth, had John, who had John and Richard; John had William (living in 1600) who, as well as his uncle Richard, died without male issue. Richard, Esq., of North Wyke and Cocktree, son of William, married Elizabeth Avenell and had William, Margaret and Joan.
    The following account of the Honeychurch branch is taken from the record, in the Royal College of Arms, at London, of the Visitation of Devonshire by the Heralds, in 1620, and partly from more recent family records. Sir Richard Weekes (Note: William, Esq., son of Richard, m. Jane Prideaux and had John, RICHARD, William and Jane. This Richard appears to have been contemporaneous with Sir Richard of Honeychurch and may have been the same person. Refers to Sir Richard, above) of Honeychurch, m. Cary, or Carey, of Clovelly, Devon, by whom he had Richard, who had Richard and Symon. Richard had a daughter but no sons. Symon, armiger, m. ??Hopwood and had Henry (no issue) and William. William of Honeychurch m. Arminell Yeo of Hatherleigh, Devon, and had Ann, Matilda, Symon, John, William, Joseph, Arminell and Izott. Symon--living in 1620--eldest son of William, married Mary Stukely of Ashton, Devon, and had Catherine, Francis (Lord of the Manor of Honeychurch and Broadwood Kelley according to Samuel Lysons in Magna Brittania), John, Granville, Mary, Isabella, Arminell. Francis married Wilmot Coffin of Portledge and had Symon (b. 1618) and Mary.
    It seems certain that Francis Weekes, of Oyster Bay, Long Island, was a son or grandson of one of the Wykes (pronounced "Weeks") or Weekes men named above. That is left for some future investigator to work out, and we will start a new chapter with the life of Francis, as we are able to read it from public American records, &c.

Notes on Joseph Weeks and Elizabeth Reddocke
    Joseph Weekes was baptized at the RDC at New Amsterdam in 1647, and died probably before 1700, many publications to the contrary notwithstanding. He and his brother Samuel had a house and home lot on the east side of South Street in ye Town, and likewise removed to Killingworth after the settlement of the Reddocke estate and occupied the residence plot on the north side of the beach and Hog Island. He was known as Captain Joseph Weekes, probably holding such official position in the County Militia. He married first, Hannah Reddocke, sister of his brother Samuel's wife Elizabeth. She died perhaps in 1688, but certainly before 1698, in which year, Joseph Weeks, senr., of Matinecock, in consideration of 6s annually to be paid to "my daughter", gives to "My youngest son Samuel Weeks, ¼ of my right in Oyster Bay New Purchase, ½ Right in Matinecock old Purchase, ½ of my rights in Oak Neck and Pine Island, a share of meadow that was his grandfather Reddock's, and all my Home lott of land northward from fffeekes's old footpath. I do reserve for myself power, privilege and liberty to use any part of said premises during my natural life and after my decease I reserve power and privilege for my NOW wife, Hannah during her widowhood to make use of all ye north end of my home lott from ffeekeses now cart path and ye one half of my orchard and ye share of meadow and ye great meadow, but after my decease to return to my said son Samuel."
    The NOW wife Hannah is explained in an old bond of father and Michael Weekes, the son, to the executors of James Cock, deceased: "Whereas Hannah Forman, alias Hannah Weekes, did in ye lifetime of Moses Forman, her husband, late of Oyster Bay, deceased, put twelve sheep in care of James Cock at a certain Rent, and the executors have compounded with John Weeks ye son-in-law (daughter's husband) of Hannah, and ye said Michael her grandson, for ye said sheep, and arrears of rent, and said John and Michael declare themselves well satisfied."

NOTE Found on http://home.nycap.rr.com/sconard/Weekes.html -  Most accounts say that Samuel married Elizabeth (Betsy) Ruddick, but Clarence Almon Torrey points out: "The will [of Henry Reddick] was lost or destroyed many years ago, but there is a copy of the agreement of his heirs in Oyster Bay Records (printed), vol. 1, pp. 88-89. His heirs were five daughters, three of whom were married. They are named in the order of their births and signed the agreement in the same order: Mary Hauxhurst, Hannah Weekes, Elizabeth Weekes, Jane Readuck, and Sarah Rudick. Christopher Hawxhurst, Samuell Weekes and Joseph Weekes signed in that order, indicating that Samuel signed as the husband of Hannah and Joseph as the husband of Elizabeth Weekes. In all previous accounts which have come to this writer's attention, it is erroneously stated that Samuel married Elizabeth Reddough and that Joseph married her sister Hannah."