Ancestors of Martha's Vineyard IV: The Descendants of Henry Luce

Birth, marriage, and death records are not plentiful on Martha's Vineyard. Fortunately, more care was taken with land records. In the case of the Luce family, land records provide information on the family's movements, and even establish relationships within the family. (Jackson, 245) When added to details pieced together from newspapers, books, magazines, and other sources, it's possible to gain some insight into their lives on the Vineyard. 

We descend from two families on Martha’s Vineyard, the Luces and the Merrys, beginning with two sets of 9^th great-grandparents: Henry and Remember (Litchfield) Luce and Joseph and Elizabeth (Parkhurst) Merry.   

See posts: 27 Oct 2025 Ancestors of Martha’s Vineyard I: the Merry Family

                10 Jan 2026 post, Ancestors of Martha's Vineyard II: The Immigrant Henry Luce

This post 

• covers our four direct descendants of Henry Luce and Remember Litchfield who have the Luce surname, 
• has a brief overview of Henry and Remember's children (our 8th great-grandfather, Robert, and his siblings), and 
• presents three general observations about the Luce family.

 

− DIRECT LINE DESCENDANTS OF HENRY LUCE & REMEMBER LITCHFIELD −

 

Henry Luce was the first person of that surname on Martha’s Vineyard. He and his wife, Remember Litchfield, began what would become a long line of Luces. 

 

Robert Luce (1667-1714)

Desire (last name unknown) 

maternal 8^th great-grandparents 

 

*See the 20 Jan 2026 post, Ancestors of Martha's Vineyard III: The Homestead of Robert Luce, for details about Robert.

  

Henry Luce II (1690-1769)

Hannah Merry (1692-1780)

maternal 7th great-grandparents

 

Henry, a landowner and farmer, was born 28 Mar 1690 in Tisbury. He was the second of Robert and Desire's children. His wife, Hannah Merry, born on 10 Jun 1692 in Chilmark, was the daughter of Samuel Merry and Remember Luce. Hannah died in Tisbury on 11 Aug 1780, outliving Henry by 11 years.

 

Henry and Hannah married 11 Feb 1710, and eventually had nine children. Eleazer, their first child, became a mariner. Their sons, Robert and Adonijah, were both landowners and farmers; Adonijah also served as constable.

 

Jonathan Luce (1722-1791)

Urania (or Urana) ----- (1723-1808)

maternal 6th great-grandparents  

 

Jonathan Luce, the fifth child of Henry II and Hannah, was born in Chilmark on 15 Jun 1722. He and his wife, Urania (surname unknown), married when he was about 22. Unlike many others on the island, Jonathan was not a farmer, but a weaver. 

 

Jonathan and Urania had ten children, including my 5th great-grandmother,

Ruth. Ruth's younger brother, Shubael, who was born in 1757, served in the

Revolutionary War in 1776 as part of the Sea Coast Defense on Martha's Vineyard. He never married and died at sea in 1781.  

 

Left: An 18th century loom at Colonial Williamsburg (Photo credit: Darlene Schenck Dec 2021) 

 

Jonathan wrote his will on 8 Mar 1790. In it, he bequeathed his loom and weaving gears to his daughter, Nancy. (Ancestry.com) He died a little over a year later on 12 Jul 1791. 

 

Ruth Luce (1745-1839) 

Silas Bartoo (1742-1831)

maternal 5th great-grandparents 

 

Ruth was the first person I encountered with the surname Luce, and the last of that name in our direct line. She was born in Tisbury on 20 Jan 1745, the second of Jonathan and Urania’s ten children. Ruth Luce and Silas Bartoo married in Tisbury on 12 Oct 1768.

 

Silas was born in Hempstead on Long Island, over 150 miles from Tisbury by sea. Given the distance, it seems improbable that they even met. However, young Silas was a whaler, so it's not unreasonable to assume he was on Martha's Vineyard at some point. 

 

− LUCE: THE SECOND GENERATION −

 

The second generation of Luces were the children of Henry Luce and Remember Litchfield. They had ten children, all born on Martha's Vineyard. 

1. Robert (1667-1714), 8^th great-grandfather (above).

2. Remember (1669-1708), 8^th great-grandmother and wife of Samuel Merry (above).

 

The remaining eight children were all boys. 

 

~ EIGHT 8^TH GREAT-GRANDUNCLES ~ 

 

3. Israel (1671-1727) lived in Tisbury until about 1708 when he moved to Windham, 

    Connecticut. He and his wife, Grace Baker, had eight children. Israel and two of his

    sons all died within a three-week period in May 1727, likely from a contagious 

    disease. [Fifteen-year-old Israel died on May 3, 16-year-old Eleazer died on May 

    12, and their father died on May 20, at the age of 56.]

 

4. Experience (1673-1747) resided in Tisbury. He was a weaver and a deacon in the     

    West Tisbury church. While there is no record of his marriage to Elizabeth Manter, it's 

    likely it took place about 1694 since the first of their seven children was born in 1695.

 

5. Eleazer (1675-1740) was a sheepshearer in West Tisbury until 1795 when he moved 

    to Southold, Long Island, New York. He married Sarah Wines of Southold the 

    following year. Eleazer was a member of the Southold Militia Company in 1715.  

 

6. Henry (1677-unk) was called White-eyed Henry due to what is presumed to be a 

    congenital defect. He was a blacksmith by trade, and also served as a constable in 

    Edgartown in 1736. Henry married Sarah Look about 1698. He died sometime 

    between 1737, when he wrote his will, and 1743 when it was proved. 

    

    Henry’s son, Sylvanus, died about 1747 at Cape Breton, Nova Scotia during King 

    George’s War (1744-1748), the third of the French and Indian Wars. 

 

 

7. Thomas (1679-1727) was a poor Tisbury farmer who was killed in April 1727 while 

    wrecking a stranded boat, perhaps for firewood. He married Hannah, last name 

    unknown, about 1707. There is no record of their marriage, but their first child was 

    born in 1708. Hannah and their children, ranging in age from one to 19, survived 

    him. Thomas’s brother, Experience, was named administrator of his estate on 7 Jul 

    1727. 

 

8. William (1681-1734) resided in Tisbury and Chilmark. He was a weaver by trade. 

    There are no records of his marriage to Ann Crosby or of his death. His will, which 

    was probated 7 May 1734 named his wife as executor.  

 

 

9. David (1683-1752) was a husbandman. He and Elizabeth Pease were married in 

    Tisbury on 9 Dec 1707. They moved to Windham, Connecticut about 1709, where 

    they had six children.  

 

10. Josiah (1685-1748) lived in Tisbury when he married Sarah Allen in 1703. They 

      were in Windham, Connecticut by 1705 when their first child, a daughter, was born. 

      (Tabb, 129) 

− THE THIRD GENERATION AND BEYOND: SO MANY COUSINS! −

 

~ OBSERVATIONS : BIRTHS ~  

 

In 1689, Henry's two eldest children were married. Each of them had a child. These two children were the beginning of the third generation of the Luce family. 

Since Henry and Remember had ten children, and nine of them were boys, I began to wonder how many males vs. females were born into the family through subsequent generations. I recalled from my college statistics class that there was a 50/50 chance of a couple having a boy or a girl. I decided to do an informal investigation to find the answers to two questions.   

1) Do the Luces born in Generations 2-6 fit the 50% prediction for males vs. 

    females?

2) Is the 50% likelihood still true nearly forty years after I took statistics class?

 

*I used The History of Martha’s Vineyard, Vol III by Charles Banks as my source for this. Details 

  about how I arrived at my conclusions are at the end of the post.

 

RESULTS:

 

If Generation 2 is excluded, there is only a 1% change for each sex in the final total: 54%/46%.

CONCLUSIONS:

Question 1: No, Generations 2-6 don't fit the 50% model. The percentage of boys born 

                  into the family in those generations ranged from 52% to 90%. Girls 

                  ranged from 10% to 48%. 

Question 2: The Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health conducted a study from 

                  1956-2015 on the randomness of sex at birth. The results were published 

                  in July 2025. The study concluded that the 50/50 ratio is no longer true, 

                  nor is the sex random.

 

           An article published on 18 Jul 2025 in the Washington Post, summarizes 

           some of the findings in the study in layman's terms. Two of the factors 

           that can influence the sex of a child include the number of boys (or girls) 

           previously born to a couple and the mother’s age.

 

By 1680, there were about 40 families on Martha's Vineyard. In 1790, the Luces alone consisted of 41 distinct families. 

 

Left: This chart shows 21 of the largest households on Martha's Vineyard in each Federal Census from 1790 to 1850. (Banks, Vol. 3, p. x)  

 

Given the number of boys born into the family over the years, it's no wonder the Luce surname tops the list with the largest number of individual families in each census. 

  

~ OBSERVATIONS : OCCUPATIONS & MILITARY SERVICE ~

 

While doing my research, it appeared that a large number of Martha's Vineyard residents were farmers or fisherman. I decided to see if those were the primary occupations in the seven generations of the Luce family that Banks has in his third volume. 

 

Banks was thorough, but limited to the information that was available at the time. (His research spanned 20 years; his books were published in 1911 and 1920.) For that reason, this chart represents only a portion of the actual number of Luce males, since many didn't have an occupation listed.

 

In spite of that, the results show an interesting mix of occupations. Keep in mind there are some overlaps between the occupations and military service. For example, a man can be counted for his occupation and also for his service in the Revolutionary War. 

 

Out of 72 men whose occupations were listed by Banks, 22 (30.6%) were marine-related, 21 (29.2%) were some type of farmer, and 10 (13.9%) were weavers. Surprisingly, only one man was a whaler, a type of fisherman.  

 

 

 

 

 

 

  Left: “The 12-gun Continental  

  Sloop Providence” by John 

  Mecray. (Navsource.net) 

 

 

  

Right: "The Action Between the Frigates USS Bonhomme Richard and HMS Serapis during the Battle of Flamborough Head, 1779. The Alliance fires on the combatants," by Thomas Mitchell.

(Navsource.net) 

  

[In the group of three on the far right, Bonhomme Richard, is on the left, Serapis is in the middle, and Alliance is on the right, firing at both ships.]

 

 

 

 

 

 

Left: The "Continental Frigate Boston (1777)" painting by Rod Claudius, 1962. (Navsource.net) 

~ OBSERVATIONS : MARRIAGES ~

 

When I started researching the Merry family, I noticed that my 7^th great-grandparents, Hannah Merry and Henry Luce, were first cousins. Then, while working on the Luce family, I noticed there were a number of similar situations in later generations. 

 

  

 

Once again, my curiosity got the better of me. How many other first or second cousins married through the generations? I went back to Charles Banks, Volume III and made a spreadsheet to keep things organized. His numbering system made it possible for me to keep track of people, since many given names were often repeated through the generations. [My spreadsheet is at the end of this post.] 

 

GENERATION 1: 9^th GGPs - Henry Luce & Remember Litchfield and Joseph Merry & 

                                        Elizabeth Parkhurst 

GENERATION 2: 8^th GGPs/GGUs/GGAs - their children

GENERATION 3: 7^th GGPs/GGUs/GGAs - their grandchildren     

GENERATION 4: 6^th GGPs/GGUs/GGAs - their great-grandchildren

 

RESULTS 

 

GENERATION 2: Seven out of the 10 Luce children in this generation had children who 

                        married each other. The Merrys had none. 

 

GENERATION 3: Out of 64 Luce & Merry children in this generation, there were 5

                        marriages among ten 1^st cousins (15.6%). 

 

GENERATION 4: Out of 89 children in the two families, there were 3 marriages among 

                        six 1^st cousins (6.7%) and 5 marriages among ten 2^nd cousins

                        (11.2%).

Martha's Vineyard has never had a large population, and in the second through fourth generations, there would have been limited options for finding a spouse. Meeting people of a similar age and gender could have been a challenge. This would have been particularly true for the large Luce family. However, the percentages show a downward trend, which would continue in the next generations as more families settled on the Vineyard.

*               *               * 

 

− INTERESTING READING –

 

~ “Alliance—The Last Continental Navy Frigate” by Louis Arthur Norton is an engaging account of the 

   ship that was captained by John Paul Jones for a time. Among other things, it was chosen to 

   transport the Marquis de Lafayette back to France.  Naval History Magazine, August 2008, Volume 

   22, Number 4.

   www.usni.org/magazines/naval-history-magazine/2008/august/alliance-last-continental-navy-frigate

 

~ Navsource.net has details on Alliance, Boston II, Providence, Warren and many other ships.  

   https://www.navsource.net/archives/09/86/86323.htm 

 

~ Tall Ship Providence Foundation. “The Sloop Providence: Its Role in the Revolutionary War and its 

   Rebuilding,” 21 Oct 2023. Small State Big History. 

   smallstatebighistory.com/the-sloop-providence-its-role-in-the-revolutionary-war-and-its-rebuilding/

 

*               *               * 

 

− SOURCES −

 

Banks, Charles E. The History of Martha’s Vineyard, Duke’s County, Massachusetts, Vol III (1931). Google Books https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=wu.89067299883&seq=26

 

Dukes County, Massachusetts, Wills and Probate Records, 1635-1991, p. 224 (image 496). Ancestry.com

 

Jackson, B. Darrell. “The Family of Henry and Remember Luce of Martha’s Vineyard,” The New England Historical and Genealogical Register 177 (Summer 2023):245-257.

 

Malhi, Sabrina. “Your baby’s sex isn’t random. A study shows what could influence it.” (July 18, 2025). https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2025/07/18/baby-sex-not-random-study/

 

McCourt, Martha F. The American descendants of Henry Luce of Martha’s Vineyard. Boston, MA: New England Historic Genealogical Society, 1994. Internet Archive. www.archive.org

Norton, Henry Franklin. Martha’s Vineyard. Henry Franklin Norton and Robert Emmett Pyne, Publishers, 1923.  http://history.vineyard.net/hfnorton/history.htm

Tabb, Jeanne Mitchell Jordan, compiler. Ancestor Lineages of Members Texas Society/National Society Colonial Dames Seventeenth Century. Baltimore, Maryland: Genealogical Publishing Co., Inc., 1991. Ancestry.com.

*               *               *

 

~ METHOD USED FOR MALE VS. FEMALE BIRTHS ~ 

I used The History of Martha’s Vineyard, Vol III by Charles Banks as my source for this and the marriages. Banks is considered the authority on the history of Martha’s Vineyard and its residents. His third volume contains family genealogies where each member in a family is assigned a unique number using the Ahnentafel numbering system, along with whatever information he had about each person. This made for easy tallying. 

NOTES: 

• Generation 2 is an outlier since the data is significantly different than the next four generations. I included it because there were only 10 children born in that generation, and the effect on the final outcome was slight (1%). 
• Values are rounded to the nearest whole percentage (< 50 round down, ≥ 50 round up).   

 *               *               *

 

~ MARRIAGE SPREADSHEET ~

 

In each generation, the sibling parents of the bride and groom are in bold. 

 

 

   

*               *               *

 

Bradish-Scott Family History − February 2026

 

Ancestors of Martha's Vineyard II: the Immigrant Henry Luce

 

Dr. Charles Banks was an authority on Martha's Vineyard and its residents. His three-volume series, The history of Martha's Vineyard, Dukes County, Massachusetts, published between 1911 and 1925, was the result of twenty years of research and writing. The volumes contain a wealth of information about the history of the island and its residents. The quote below, taken from the third volume, refers to my 9th great-grandfather, Henry Luce, the progenitor of the Luce family in Colonial New England. 

   

− ORIGINS –

 

Henry Luce I (1640-1687)

Remember Litchfield (1644-1708)

maternal 9th great-grandparents

                                                               

Unfortunately, Banks wasn't wrong. Finding information about Henry has been a challenge. Little is known about his early life or what circumstances motivated him to make the long voyage across the Atlantic to the New England colonies. The lack of information also extends to his children and other descendants. 

 

Henry, the immigrant ancestor in our Luce line, arrived in Plymouth Colony in the early 1660s. Neither his origin nor the exact year of his arrival is clear. Some sources say Henry was from Gloucester, England, while others claim he was from Wales. There are valid arguments for both. 

 

An informal study done in 1990 (Swanström) found the surname Luce in only two places: the Isle of Jersey in the Channel Islands and in southwestern England north and northeast of Bristol. In that study, the Jersey Islanders were ruled out as Henry's possible forebears, since members of that group appear to have emigrated to Canada. On the other hand, Gloucester is about 20 miles from the River Wye (pronounced "why") which forms the southern part of the border between Wales and England. It seems reasonable to say Henry was from that region, even though the exact location hasn't been determined.  

 

Map of Wales-England Border. (Wikimedia Commons - User:DankJae CC BY-SA 4.0)

− THE ELUSIVE HENRY LUCE I − 

  

The first record of Henry is found in Scituate, Plymouth Colony where his name is recorded as a juror on 13 November 1666. There are no records of his marriage to Remember Litchfield, but it probably took place in Scituate in 1666, since their first child, Robert, my 8th great-grandfather, was born there in 1667. Their daughter, Remember Luce, my 8th great-grandmother, was born 16 November 1668, in Rehoboth, Plymouth Colony where Henry had purchased land. The family's final move was to Martha's Vineyard after Henry bought a home lot in West Tisbury on 1 February 1671. 

 

Eight more children were born on the Vineyard — all boys:    

 

        Israel (1671-1727)                   Thomas (1679-1727)

        Experience (1673-1747)            William (1681-1734)

        Eleazer (1675-1740)                 David (1683-1752) 

        Henry II (1677-unk)                 Josiah (1685-1748)

 

Henry's home lot was located on the west side of Old Mill River (now called Mill Brook), about forty rods (220 ft) north of Scotchman's Bridge Road (now Scotchmans Lane). There is still a house there the same distance from the road as Henry’s.

 

(added labeling)

 

In addition to his home lot, Henry also owned property at Great Neck near West Tisbury, in Kuppiegon (now Cape Higgon), and 60 acres in Christian Town bordering James Pond. Through the years, family members bought, sold, and transferred land among themselves, as well as with other island residents. These land records provided Banks with valuable information about the family in the absence of vital records. 

 

Henry Luce's property locations on Martha's Vineyard.

 

− THE PURCHASE & SETTLEMENT OF MARTHA’S VINEYARD –

 

Henry Luce bought his land on the Vineyard 30 years after its purchase by Thomas Mayhew, Sr., a merchant and Puritan who was originally from Tisbury, Wiltshire County, England. Thomas, his wife, Abigail (Anna) Parkhurst, and son, Thomas, Jr., arrived in New England with Winthrop’s fleet of 1630. The family settled in Watertown about six miles west of Boston. In 1641, while Mayhew was doing business near Boston, he learned about Nantucket, the Elizabeth Islands, and Martha’s Vineyard. All the islands were owned by William Alexander, Earl of Sterling who had been granted a charter by King Charles I. Thomas, Sr. purchased the islands for £40 (about $11,630 in 2025) and two beaver hats. Not long after, Mayhew sold Nantucket and the Elizabeth Islands. 

 

Thomas, Sr. intended to live on Martha’s Vineyard, home to approximately 3,000 Wampanoag who were the first inhabitants of the island over 10,000 ago before. But first he sent his son, Thomas, Jr., to establish a settlement. Thomas, Jr. and about a dozen families founded Edgartown in 1642. That same year, his father appointed himself governor of the island. It was a harbinger of things to come.

 

Thomas, Jr. learned the Wampanoag language, and became a successful missionary to the tribe. The Wampanoag and the English lived in peace due to Thomas, Jr.’s ministry and his father’s fairness when purchasing parcels of Wampanoag land. In 1657, Mayhew sent Thomas, Jr., who was about 37, to England on business. After its departure, the ship and all that were aboard were never seen again. It was a tremendous loss for Thomas, Sr. He then turned to his grandson, Matthew Mayhew, to assist him in managing the affairs of the Vineyard.

 

− THE SEEDS OF DISCONTENT –

 

When Henry and his family arrived on Martha's Vineyard in 1671, the island been under the rather lax jurisdiction of Massachusetts Bay Colony for decades. Consequently, the self-proclaimed governor had experienced little oversight. It enabled him to establish what would be a long-lived, self-serving Vineyard government. From the beginning, Mayhew surrounded himself with family members who would support his policies in the affairs of the island. They were not beneficial to the general population, but there was no one to challenge his authority.

 

After the English took Manhattan from the Dutch in 1664, King Charles II included Martha’s Vineyard in lands he gave to his brother, James, the Duke of York. Thomas Mayhew became concerned — he didn't want his authority challenged. Did Massachusetts still have authority over the Vineyard or was it now New York and, if so, how would that affect him?

In 1671, Mayhew traveled to New York to meet with New York’s Governor Francis Lovelace. A settlement was reached that left Thomas Mayhew in a very good place. Martha’s Vineyard was now officially under the jurisdiction of the Province of New York. It was farther away than Massachusetts, so he expected there would be little oversight due to the distance. Even better, Governor Lovelace named Thomas Mayhew “Governor for Life” of Martha’s Vineyard. He didn't waste any time beginning to wield his newly enhanced power. But there would be repercussions. This arrangement had few supporters outside the Mayhew family.

 

At that time, there were about 40 individual families on Martha's Vineyard, including Thomas Mayhew and his extended family. Even as a newcomer, it wouldn't have taken long for Henry to become aware of the tension between the general population and the Mayhews.  

 

The settlers, some of whom had been on the island since the beginning, had many grievances, including

• a tax collection agency packed with members of the Mayhew family, 

• unfair trials because the court was filled with Mayhew family members, 

• no elections because Mayhew was now “Governor for Life” on Martha's Vineyard, 

• some residents paying a disproportionate share of taxes without having any say in the government, 

• a feudal system where landowners were required to pay rent on their own properties because they happened to be within the bounds of Thomas Mayhew's newly created Tisbury Manor. 

Needless to say, the majority of Islanders were incensed. 

 

Then, in August 1673, the Dutch regained control of New York. 

 

− A WINDOW OF OPPORTUNITY –

After the Dutch seizure of New York, it was unclear if Massachusetts now had jurisdiction over the Vineyard. The majority (by only one) of Vineyard landowners, led by Simon Athearn, decided to use the situation as an opportunity to take action. A letter authored by Thomas Burchard was sent to 80-year-old Thomas Mayhew, politely requesting that he step down and allow an election. They even guaranteed that he would be reelected, but that subsequent elections would take place. It was signed by twenty men, including Henry Luce. (Banks, v.1, 156)

Thomas Mayhew flatly refused. 

The signature of Henry Luce. (Banks, v. 2, 54) 

The twenty men who signed the Thomas Mayhew letter. (Banks, v.1, 158)

 

On October 15, Simon Athearn and Thomas Burchard sent a petition to Massachusetts Governor John Leverett in the hope that he could help them. The same men signed it. Governor Leverett, not wanting to insert himself in the contentious matter, turned them down.

 

− THE “DUTCH” REBELLION of 1673 –

 

Even though Thomas Mayhew still had a firm hold on the island and its affairs, the people didn't give up. The settlers of Martha's Vineyard had been guaranteed certain freedoms and rights in the original 1641 purchase agreement with the Earl of Sterling — Mayhew was ignoring them.

Per the original agreement, if Mayhew founded a new colony, which he had, he was bound by the terms of that agreement, specifically, “… it is agreed that the government that the said Thomas Mayhew and Thomas Mayhew his son and their associates shall set up shall be such as is now established in the Massachusetts aforesaid.” (Banks, v.1, 82) 

 

[The Massachusetts government allowed only Puritan men who were church members and owned property to vote for the governor and representatives to the General Court. While restrictive, it did allow a segment of the citizens to take part in the selection of their leaders.]

 

When guaranteed freedoms are taken away by someone whose goal is to have complete, unrestricted control, resistance or outright rebellion become the only options. The disgruntled, disgusted citizens chose the latter and formed their own government. It was short-lived. In November 1674, the English regained control of New York and Thomas Mayhew was once again backed by the Governor of New York.

 

− THE AFTERMATH –

 

The vengeful, elderly Thomas Mayhew (1593-1682), Governor for Life of Martha’s Vineyard and Lord of Tisbury Manor, levied fines and made arrests. Some of the petitioners left the island permanently. Simon Athearn, in particular, paid dearly as the main instigator of the rebellion. 

 

Whether Henry Luce suffered significantly under the Mayhew regime is unclear. It’s possible he didn't endure the heavy fines and other punitive measures imposed upon Simon Athearn, Thomas Burchard, the Nortons, and others for two reasons. Henry was a relative newcomer on the Vineyard and didn't have an extensive history with the Mayhews. Also, Henry’s daughter, Remember, was the daughter-in-law of Thomas Mayhew’s niece, Elizabeth Parkhurst Merry. 

 

[Elizabeth's husband, Joseph Merry, was one of the men who didn't sign the petition to Governor Leverett. Elizabeth and Joseph are my 8th great-grandparents. See the 27 Oct 2025 post, The Ancestors of Martha's Vineyard I: the Merry Family.] 

 

Thomas Mayhew died in 1682. He was succeeded by his equally oppressive grandson, Matthew Mayhew. In reference to the Athearns, Charles Banks wrote that, “for the remaining years of their lives it was a vendetta that knew no surcease”. The Mayhew-Athearn feud would continue for generations.   

 

Even under the ongoing Mayhew regime, Henry served as surveyor of highways in 1675, juror in 1677 and 1681, and a selectman in 1687. He died sometime between 3 February 1687, the date of his last land transaction, and 12 March 1689, when his wife, Remember, purchased land in her own name.

 

The rule of the Mayhew family ended when a new charter under King William III and Queen Mary II took effect in 1692. It directed the Province of New York to cede Martha's Vineyard to the Province of Massachusetts Bay. Fifty years of Mayhew oppression was over. 

 

Descendants of Henry Luce and Remember Litchfield still live on Martha's Vineyard. 

 

Sunset at Tisbury, Martha's Vineyard (taken by Jody Bradish 19 May 2025)

 

 *               *               * 

− SOURCES −

Banks, Charles E. The History of Martha’s Vineyard, Duke’s County, Massachusetts, Vol I. Boston: G.H. Dean, 1911. Internet Archive. https://archive.org/details/historyofmarthas01bank/page/n8/mode/1up

 

Banks, Charles E. The History of Martha’s Vineyard, Duke’s County, Massachusetts, Vol II. Boston: George H. Dean, 1911. Internet Archive.

https://archive.org/details/historyofmarthas02bank/page/n12/mode/ 

 

Banks, Charles E. The History of Martha’s Vineyard, Duke’s County, Massachusetts, Vol III. (1931). Edgartown: Dukes County Historical Society, 1925. Google Books. https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=wu.89067299883&seq=26

 

Jackson, B. Darrell. “The Family of Henry and Remember Luce of Martha’s Vineyard.” The New England Historical and Genealogical Register 177 (Summer 2023):245-257.

 

McCourt, Martha F. The American descendants of Henry Luce of Martha’s Vineyard. Boston, MA: New England Historic Genealogical Society, 1994. Internet Archive. www.archive.org

 

Norton, Henry Franklin and Pyne, Robert Emmett, publishers. Martha’s Vineyard. 1923. http://history.vineyard.net/hfnorton/history.htm

Norton, James H.K. "Mayhew, Tear Down This Wall." February 10, 2011. The Vineyard Gazette. https://vineyardgazette.com/news/2011/02/10/mayhew-tear-down-wall

Swanström, Justin. "The English Origin of Henry Luce." (1989, 2006). Yellacat Ranch: A genealogical journal. https://www.yellacatranch.com/about/

*               *               *

 

 

Bradish-Scott Family History — January 2026