Mills-Martin Family Records - Person Sheet
Mills-Martin Family Records - Person Sheet
NameLt. Francis GRISWOLD 
Birth1635, Kenilworth, Warwickshire, England3254, p 17
Birthabt 1629, Kenilworth, Warwickshire, England1846, p 217,3544, p 247; date only,3545
Removal1639, Windsor, Hartford, Connecticut3545 Age: 4
Memowith his parents
Removal2bef 1652, Saybrook, Middlesex, Connecticut3545 Age: 17
Removal31660, Norwich, New London, Connecticut3545 Age: 25
DeathOct 1671, Norwich, New London, Connecticut2101, p 327; year & place only,3544, p 247; date only,3545 Age: 36
Probate4 Jun 1672, New London, New London, Connecticut3544, p 248 Age: 37
Memodate inventory presented
FatherEdward GRISWOLD (1607-1691)
MotherMargaret HICKS? (-1670)
Individual Notes
• He was one of the founders of Norwich who had moved there from Saybrook, Connecticut, with the other original settlers.3544, p 247
Francis Griswold had held several public offices. He was Deputy for Norwich to the Connecticut General Court for eleven sessions, between 1664 and 1671, and was Lieutenant of the Norwich Train Band. His social standing was therefore comparable to that of Major William Bradford, who likewise served in several offices of public trust.3544, p 248
Francis Griswold had held several public offices. He was Deputy for Norwich to the Connecticut General Court for eleven sessions, between 1664 and 1671, and was Lieutenant of the Norwich Train Band. His social standing was therefore comparable to that of Major William Bradford, who likewise served in several offices of public trust.3544, p 248
Spouses
Deathbef 16773278, p 3
Individual Notes
• Torrey gives as [?Mary/?Sarah Post?].2101, p 327
• Name unknown but she is said to be a Widow Wiswall, maiden name Fitch, for which there is no primary evidence.3278, p 3
• The chief reason why a satisfactory identification of the “widow Wiswall” has eluded Bradford family researchers is that there simply was no widow Wiswall who could have married Major William Bradford about 1673.
For all of these reasons I would like to propose the hypothesis that Major William(2) Bradford’s second wife, identified by Bradford family tradition as “a widow Wiswall,” was actually the widow of Francis(2) Griswold. According to this hypothesis the pronunciation and spelling of the name became garbled after a few generations of oral transmission, or perhaps through the smearing of an early written record that is no longer extant.
In summary, I believe it to be highly likely that Major William(2) Bradford’s second wife, heretofore identified as “a widow Wiswall,” was actually Sarah (____) Griswold, the widow of Francis(2) Griswold of Norwich.3544
• She was probably Mary Post.3545
• Name unknown but she is said to be a Widow Wiswall, maiden name Fitch, for which there is no primary evidence.3278, p 3
• The chief reason why a satisfactory identification of the “widow Wiswall” has eluded Bradford family researchers is that there simply was no widow Wiswall who could have married Major William Bradford about 1673.
For all of these reasons I would like to propose the hypothesis that Major William(2) Bradford’s second wife, identified by Bradford family tradition as “a widow Wiswall,” was actually the widow of Francis(2) Griswold. According to this hypothesis the pronunciation and spelling of the name became garbled after a few generations of oral transmission, or perhaps through the smearing of an early written record that is no longer extant.
In summary, I believe it to be highly likely that Major William(2) Bradford’s second wife, heretofore identified as “a widow Wiswall,” was actually Sarah (____) Griswold, the widow of Francis(2) Griswold of Norwich.3544
• She was probably Mary Post.3545
Marriageabt 1652, Saybrook, Middlesex, Connecticut2101, p 327,3544, p 247 & p 248
Marr Memobased on birth of 1st child in 1653
Family Notes
• Francis and Sarah Griswold were the parents of nine children, the eldest of which was born in Saybrook in 1653.3544, p 248,3545