Individual Details

The genealogy of Thomas Arnold that appears in print in many places is faulty. His family and that of William Arnold, a contemporary in Rhode Island, are not related. For the most up-to-date and careful research, I would recommend that descendants of Thomas purchase or read The Arnold Family of Smithfield Rhode Island, by Richard H. Benson, Newbury Street Press, Boston, 2009.

Wrong family for Thomas:
From: Historic Homes and Places and Genealogical and Personal Memoirs Relating to the Families of Middlesex County, Massachusetts, 1908, digitized at MyHeritage, p.223. Repeats the very wrong data that Thomas was the son of a Thomas from Cheselbourne, Dorset, and came to America in the ship "Plain Joan". Later you will that his father was either Richard or William of Suffolk - not a Thomas. States that he had some 20,000 acres bought of the Indians - no, he didn't.

This story from Comstock book, etc:
This Thomas Arnold along with his half-brother William is the first of the Arnold ancestors to come to America. The Arnold Home Page says he arrived on the ship "Plain Joan" in 1635. According to "Genealogies of Rhode Island Families, Vol A-M, by Gary Boyd Roberts, if he sailed on the Plain Joan which sailed for Virginia on 15 May 1635, they had his age wrong.
[The statement that the age is wrong was based on the fact that William Arnold's half brother Thomas was born in 1599 - the Thomas Arnold on the "Plain Joan" was age 30 in 1635. Likely there is much more wrong with this than just the age discrepancy, see next.]

From THE ARNOLD MEMORIAL:
"The Thomas Arnold who was in Watertown MA before July 1636 and who removed about 1656 to Rhode Island, is not that half brother [of William Arnold who was a son of Nicholas Arnold who married Alice Gully in England], but is probably the son of Richard and the grandson of William and Katherine Arnold of Kelsale County, Suffolk....where his wife Phebe Parkhurst, daughter of George Parkhurst, was baptised....and where they were probably married." [Note: Phebe was married first in England, but she didn't marry Thomas Arnold until they were in Massachusetts.]
"His cousin Richard Arnold, Goldsmith, London, in his will 8 Nov 1644, left a legacy of 20 shillings to be paid to 'Thomas Arnold who is now supposed to be in New England or some other part beyond the seas'"
[This book was written 1935, some years after the earlier half-brother theory. There is no question that the immigrant William Arnold did have a half-brother named Thomas because there is a Bible record. However, the author found evidence that the half-brother of William Arnold named Thomas never left England. Based on good evidence given in the book, I'll go with the more reasonable connection to Suffolk. Certainly it makes sense that Thomas Arnold's family would have lived near and been acquainted with the Parkhursts. All other earlier Arnold books do have Thomas as a half-brother of William, as do most of the books written about the Comstock family. This connection seems to have accepted without question except by Elisha S. Arnold, author of THE ARNOLD MEMORIAL and unfortunately continues to be perpuated.]

THE AMERICAN GENEALOGIST in an article in Vol. XX, p.120, 1943, by G. Andrews Moriarty, makes a correction to an earlier lineage given for Thomas ARNOLD. Says to "Delete Cheselbourne Co Dorset, and the ancestry as given by Austin." This refers to Austin's "GENEALOGICAL DICTIONARY OF RHODE ISLAND." But then this article makes a slightly different conclusion about relationships. It states that this Thomas Arnold was probably the Thomas of Hollesley Co, Suffolk, named in the will of his father William Arnold of Hollesley, husbandman, dated 22 Nov 1616 when Thomas was underage. Then another reference is that Richard Arnold, goldsmith, from Gillingham Co Kent, in his will, dated 8 Nov. 1644, left a legacy to Richard Arnold of Kelshall Co Suffolk [which is 13 miles from Hollesley] who was the son of the testator's uncle William Arnold, and also to Richard Arnold of Killingworth, Co. Warwick, a son of his uncle Richard, and these two Richards were to "pay to their brothers and sisters 'except Thomas Arnold who is now supposed to be in New England or some other part beyond the seas'". The uncle Richard, of Offchurch, near Kelworth, husbandman, also had a son Thomas as named in his will dated 2 Jul 1604 and proved 3 Aug 1604, who was also at the time underage. But the Thomas, son of William and not the Thomas, son of Richard, must surely be the correct man for two reasons. 1. Thomas of Providence RI had married, probably in England, the daughter of George Parkhurst who came to Watertown MA from Ipswich Co Suffolk [12 miles from Hollesley]. 2. Watertown, where Thomas Arnold first settled on coming to New England before moving on to Rhode Island, was almost entirely an East Anglican settlement, made of persons from Essex and Suffolk. [CF. NEW ENG. HIS & GEN. REG., Vol 69, p.68-69; Vol 48 p.374-75]
There is a problem with the conclusion in THE AMERICAN GENEALOGIST in that Thomas Arnold apparently married Phoebe Parkhurst after he arrived in Watertown as he was admitted as a
in May of 1640 and married there in Dec of the same year. However, the likelihood that this is still the son of William exists because of the fact he did come to Watertown.

Without doubt Thomas was the son of either William & Katherine Arnold of Hollesley, Suffolk, or the son of Richard & Alice Arnold of Offchurch, Warwickshire. The will of his cousin Richard Arnold is ambiguous.

The will of Richard Arnold, citizen and goldsmith of London, dated 8 Nov 1644 and proved 20 days later on 28 Nov 1644 was printed in THE REGISTER, periodical of the New English Historical & Genealogical Society as early as July,1894 in Vol.48. He obviously had no wife or children and made bequests to many nephews and nieces, naming his father and mother's siblings and in many cases, where they lived. The footnote to this article in 1894, did suggest that at the time the will was written there was a Thomas Arnold residing at Watertown, Massachusetts. It is very curious that not until the 1930's did anyone seem to pursue this line of research, but blindly accepted that of Austin & Somerby. Somerby's pedigree, also printed in THE REGISTER, 1879, Vol. 33, was said to be entirely erroneous in the 1943 article that appeared in THE AMERICAN GENEALOGIST.

Any Arnold researcher would do well to study all of the above.

Watertown Records:

The Great Migration Newsletter, Vol. 11, No. 3, Jul-Sept 2002 explains about the division of the land at Watertown. About 1634, the leaders of Watertown tidied up the allotments that had previously been made [there is no extant records of these although in 1630 homelots were granted in some manner]. The New England proprietary system was that a homestall carried certain proprietary rights to share in any future divisions of town property. During 1634 and 1635, two small pieces of land, one of meadow and one of arable upland was granted to the holders of the homelots. 25 Jul 1636, the Great Dividend allotted additional land. The Beaverbrook Plowlands were allotted 28 Feb 1636/7, and the Remote Meadows, 26 Jun 1637. The next division was for town lots - the grantees being requested to build on and remove to these lots. The town lots were granted to 40 men and women 9 Apr 1638. Then on 17 Jul 1638, those that had no town lots received 12 acres lots beyond the Beaver Plain and the townsmen to have 6 acres lots - these were referred to as the upland beyond the Further Plain, on land in Lieu of Township. There is no surviving list of these but they can be reconstructed from the land inventories. The last division of Watertown lands was 10 May 1642, with granting of the Farms - large parcels in the far western end, which was later set off as the town of Weston.


Thomas Arnold was present for the division of land 25 Jul 1636 [Great Dividend. He was in the 3rd Division, received Lott 1, 30 acres. He is named many times in the land records.
First Inventory of Grants and Possessions: Original Index:
p.81. George Parkhurst
p.82 Thomas Arnold

Thomas Arnold
1 An Homestall of 1a bounded S & E with the highway & N with John Knolls
2 12a of upland more or les bounded E with Thomas Wincoll, W with George Phillips, S with Edward How & N with the highway
3 10a and halfe of upland beyond the further Plaine & the 33 lott*
4 30a upland being a great Divident in the 3 Division & the 1 lott
5 A Farme of 97a of upland in the 6 Division
6 6a of Meddow more or les bounded W with the highway S & E with Edward Garfield & N with his owne ground
7 8a of upland more or les bounded the East with Richard Amler the W & N with the highway, the S with Miles Ives,, Edward Garfield, N with his owne ground
8 7a upland more or les bounded E with the highway, West with Samuel Garfield, North with highway to Beverbrooks meddow
*crossed out and noted in the margin: This sold to Nicholas Thele.


Grants & Possessions of the Lands in Watertown
According to order of the Court of 9 (7) 1639
Attested Feb 27 1714/15
Thomas Arnold
1. An Homestall 1a bounded E & S with the highway & N with John Knolls granted to him
2. 12a upland by estmation bounded E w/ Thomas Wincoll, W with George Phillips, S w/ Edward How & N with the highway granted to him
3. 10 acres & halfe of upland by estimation beyind the further Plaine & the 39 lott granted to him
4. 5 acres of remote Meddow by estimation & the 60 Lott granted to him
5. 8a of upland by estimation bounded E with Richard Amler, W & N with the highway the S with Miles Ives Edward Garfield & his owne granted to him
6. 7a of upland by estimation bounded the East, with the highway, W with Samuel Garfield, N with the highway granted to him
7. 30a of upland by estimation being a great Divident in the 3rd Division & the first lott granted to him
13 May 1640 - Thomas Arnold admitted as freeman in Watertown

Watertown, 1st & 2nd Books
p.11 28 (10) 1647
ordered that Thomas Arnall shall have three trees upon the Comon which he accepts as full satifaction for all the trees have been taken of that part of Land which was added to his dividend: when John Shearman layd it out

p.14 8 Feb 1647
John Knight & Thomas Arnall is apoynted to warne al the Comoners in Bowmans field to the next meeting of the 7 men and the foresaid men to warne in all the Comoners in Howes field to come to the same meeting.

Thomas settled at Watertown MA on 30 acres purchased from his father-in-law George Parkhurst, 20 Dec 1648.

Oct 1651 Thomas was fined 20sh for offence against the law concerning baptism [possibly he had not a child baptized in a timely fashion, or not in the Anglican church - Eleazar had been baptized in June of 1651.]

2 Apr 1654 Thomas Arnold fined 5£'s for neglecting public worship for 20 days.

p.45 12 Feb 1655
In answer to Thomas Arnoll it is agred to inquire concerning the land in difference with Mrs. Philips.

30 Mar 1655 Thomas Arnold sold to George Parkhurst [his brother-in-law] 30 acres which he had bought in 1648 "of our father George Parkhurst and his wife Susanna".

2 Apr 1655 Thomas Arnold fined 10£'s for negliecting public worship 40 days.

6 Apr 1655 Thomas Arnold of Providence bought land from William Burrows of Providence.

p.53 8 Dec 1657 Thos. Arnol on list of the acompt of the men deputed by the towne to see to the keeping of the Order of hogs.

18 May 1658 - Date of Admission to Rhode Island Colony as a freeman.

17 Oct 1661. Thomas Arnold of Providence sold land in Watertown to John Whitney.
20 Oct 1662 Thomas and wife Phebe sold to John Wincoll, 16 acres, the house and barn in Watertown.

19 Feb 1665 Thomas Arnold was granted Lot #83 in a division of Providence lands.
1666-1672 He served as a Deputy
1872 Thomas Arnold served on the Town Council.

Early Town Records of Providence
Vol II, p. 109 Quarter Court 27 Jan 1657. Ordered Tho. Arnold turn the way of going through his meadow, making another way sufficient for caring. Ordered Tho. Arnold have an addition to his house lot as his Neighbours ground will admit. Ordered Tho. Arnold have 10 acres of upland in liew of 2 shares of meaddow.
Vol II, p.116 27 July 1659 Quarter day meeting. Complaint by the surveyors about the spoiling of the highway before Thomas Arnold's house lott by his rolling stones into the highway. Thomas is given 7 days time limit to remove all stones and mend what he has marred or the Surveyors shall commence an action and bring him to trial.
Vol II, p.121 Quarter Court 27 Jan 1659. Thomas Arnold chosen one of the jury men.
Vol II, p.132 Quarter Court 27 July 16?? Thomas Arnold again chosen for jury.
Vol II, p.133 Town Meeting 1 Oct 1660. Commissioners chosen to serve at Warwick at a Court of Commissioners included Thomas Arnold
Vol II, p.142 Town meeting 9 Mar 1661. Tho. Arnold granted his desire to exchange a small parcel of land provided he make and maintain a passable way down to the River for water.
Book IV, p.115 (201) Settlement of estate of Thomas Arnold who died in September of 1674. Names wife Phebe, Sons Thomas, John, and Eleazar; Samuel Comstock husband of Elizabeth Comstock, daughter. Dated 29 Jun 1685. Other children usually found must have been deceased or provided for in some other way. There is also the possibility that some of these children do not even belong in this family but are a part of the other Arnold family that co-existed in Providence.

Records of the Court of Trials of the Colony of Providence Plantations
Vol. 1 1647-1662
Providence, 1920
p.70-71 Thomas Arnold served on Petit jury 12 Mar 1660/1
Vol. 2 1662-1670
P,46-47 Tho Arnold on Grand Jury Newport, 24 Oct 1666
p.79-80 Tho Arnold on Grand Jury 20 Oct 1669


Early Records of the Town of Providence, Book IV, p.115-122
29 Jun 1685 Agreement of Heirs of Thomas Arnold. He having died in September, 1674, as was declared, leaving an estate of lands, goods, and cattle behind him not disposed of by will but only by word of mouth, leaving his mind with his wife and children how they should settle his estate: It was therefore agreed between his widow Phebe, and Richard the eldest son, Thomas, John, and Eleazer, also sons of deceased, and Elizabeth Comstock, his daughter, that there should be five instruments of covenant prepared and signed by all of them, Samuel Comstock signing as husband of Elizabeth. "whereas the said deceased, Thomas Arnold, did by word of mouth leave his mind with his wife and children how they should divide his estate of lands, goods and cattle amongst them after his decease; the aforementioned persons all and every of them, the same do hereby endeavor to propagate and perform to the best of their understanding and abilities" &c. To Phebe, the widow, the lot bought of William Fenner, with orchard, and at her decease to revert to son Thomas. To Phebe also, land east of Moshassuck river, said home lot, at her decease going to son John. To Phebe also, all household goods, two cows and nine swine at her own disposal. To Elizabeth Comstock, 20 £'s. To Thomas Arnold, a house lot in town, two other lots, a meadow, a tract of 50 acres, and rights of common. To John Arnold, three lots, an orchard, a piece of land of 17 1/2 acres, share of meadow. To Eleazer Arnold, 50 acres near place called "World's End", a fifteen acre lot, 3 shares of meadow &c. To John and Elezer, an equal share in certain land. To Thomas and John equally, the tackling and tools of the deceased. To Richard, eldest son, all the rest of the lands.

1 Sep 1687 The widow was taxed.

Posted, Ancestry family tree:
No Arnold Royal Line
Ancestry Daily News
9/19/2002

Editor's Note: The 10 September Ancestry Daily News, contained an article by Karen Frisch regarding a castle in Wales. In it, she referenced a previously published connection between an ancestor of hers and the historical residents of Abergavenny Castle. (www.ancestry.com/library/view/news/articles/6314.asp ).
As Kory explains below, that connection turned out to be inaccurate and his message serves as a reminder to us all of the need to be wary when using compiled lineages. Thanks much to Kory for sharing this!

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For most genealogists, the possibility of royal or noble ancestry is attractive. After all, if our interest is to trace a family as far back as possible, royal ancestry allows us to do that better and easier than most of our lines. Besides, it helps give us a solid connection to history. Hence, I can understand and share the interests of Karen Frisch in learning "about ancestors so ancient they exist more in the realm of imagination-before photographs or even surnames" (Ancestry Daily News, 10 September 2002).
Unfortunately, in her comments about our mutual ancestor, William Arnold of Rhode Island, and his descent from a Twelfth Century Welsh princess, she has fallen into a trap common to many American genealogists. That trap is ready acceptance of a long-disproved connection to royalty.
A royal line was apparently first suggested for William Arnold by Horatio G. Somerby in 1870. It was published in the October 1879 issue of the New England Historical and Genealogical Register. Unfortunately, Somerby was a very accommodating genealogist who was remarkable for providing his patrons what they wanted, even if documents had to be re-written or falsely cited to provide the links to royal lines. His work is routinely shunned by experienced genealogists today.
Without passing judgment on the earlier generations of this ancestry, the alleged lineage eventually descends to a Thomas Arnold, second son of Richard Arnold. Thomas is named as the father of William, who is what we often call the "gateway" ancestor, the immigrant who left Great Britain and settled in the colonies. Here, with the gateway ancestor, is where the lineage breaks down, as is the case with a large number of so-called royal lines.
The Rhode Island Arnold family kept a remarkable family record (begun by the immigrant William), which documents William (born 1587), his siblings, and his mother. It does not document his father. That record identified a younger half-brother of William as Thomas Arnold (born 1599) whom many early researchers wrongly believed to be the New England immigrant of that name who settled first at Watertown, Massachusetts, and 20 years later moved to Rhode Island.
A 1796 obituary of a descendant of this Thomas Arnold identified the immigrant Thomas as the son of a "Thomas Arnold, a native of England." Hence the faulty connection was made (and published as early as 1819) that William was the son of a Thomas. Armed with this information, Somerby found an early Arnold pedigree, adjusted generations 13 through 16 to fit in Thomas and his alleged father Richard. He then plugged in the immigrant "brothers" Thomas and William as sons of this Thomas Sr. and presto, a royal lineage was pasted onto another worthy American family's lineage.
The problem is, it just was not so! The January 1915 issue of the "New England Historical and Genealogical Register" has an article by Edson S. Jones, which explains this all quite clearly. It also shows that the immigrant Arnolds (Thomas and William) were not brothers, and that neither of them is connected to the royal line published earlier. It further reports accurate research in English parish registers regarding the parentage of William Arnold. In 1902, the author, Jones, had visited Northover parish in Somerset where he found two church register entries, which matched William Arnold's family record exactly. In a neighboring parish he found additional records, which matched information about the Rhode Island immigrant.
In 1921, Fred A. Arnold elaborated in-depth on these and other findings about the Arnold origins in the Rhode Island Historical Society Collections. His 24-page article explains exactly and clearly that William was the son of Nicholas Arnold, born about 1550 and who was buried 26 January 1622/23. His half-brother Thomas married and remained in England, as did all of his siblings. William is not related to the immigrant Thomas Arnold, and the ancestry of his father, Nicholas Arnold is unknown. His mother's parents are known, but no further. There is no known (or even suggested) royal ancestry for this Arnold family.
This same article was transcribed and included in the 1921 Arnold Memorial by Elisha S. Arnold and the original 1921 article was reprinted in 1983 in a collection by Genealogical Publishing Company, Genealogies of Rhode Island Families from Rhode Island Periodicals.
The true ancestry of William Arnold has been known now for a hundred years. It has been in print for 87 years, in at least four different publications. It is time to leave mythical royal ancestries behind us, not only for the Arnolds, but for the hundreds of other gateway ancestors who have been plugged into faulty, sometimes fraudulent, lineages.

Immigration	Bef Jul 1636	Watertown, Middlesex County, Massachusetts
Marriage	20 Dec 1640	Watertown, Middlesex County, Massachusetts - PHEBE PARKHURST
Death	Sep 1674	Providence, Providence County, Rhode Island
Marriage		[ARNOLD]

Spouse	[ARNOLD] (1600 - 1635)
Child	Susannah Arnold (1629 - 1717)

Spouse	PHEBE PARKHURST ( - 1688)
Child	Ichabod Arnold (1640 - )
Child	Capt. Richard Arnold (1642 - 1710)
Child	Thomas Arnold (1646 - 1721)
Child	John Arnold (1647 - 1722)
Child	Eleazar Arnold (1651 - 1722)
Child	ELIZABETH ARNOLD (1654 - 1747)

Father	WILLIAM ARNOLD ( - 1616)
Mother	KATHERINE [ARNOLD] ( - )