The Real Housewives of Whitehall

IDENTIFYING THE MAYFLOWER LINES OF RUTH FULLER FRANCISCO

"Old Phil"

Above: Phillip Skene of Skenesborough

(Author's note: I believe I have successfully re-patriated the Mayflower Fullers to Whitehall in more ways than one. However, have I successfully linked Henry Francisco's wife, the lovely and elusive "Ruth Fuller" to Whitehall, and thusly tp the Mayflower Fullers living there? You be the judge...Remember, it's all a part of the process called, "A Preponderance of Evidence.")

Edited by ghosts.

                               PART FIVE

This is the part where we've had to go back. (Remember, I told you this was coming...) 

This is the part where we have to "talk" to strangers like "Old Phil" pictured above, or talk to the nice lady "Doris" who wrote the book with the list of Old Phil's "tenants" below. We need to "talk" to them to get the whole story, indeed to get the whole picture of the Mayflower descendants of Ruth Fuller Francisco and on down to Paige. And yes, I know it's a bit like walking in on a movie that's already started - a movie from way back in 1620 - but I think if you hang in there with me that you'll get the gist.

This is the part too where we have to argue against it. 

It's the part where we argue that we're utterly wrong about Ruth - and (once again) to cite all the opposing sides that say "Ruth Fuller was not the daughter of Aaron. " We have to do so yet again so that there can be no mistake about it - and that she, Ruth Fuller Francisco, daughter of Aaron, is the only logical choice. As they say, "sometimes in genealogy you have to work as had to prove yourself wrong as right to be successful." 

So hey, if you need to bail out now and go get a coffee or a super-size Red Bull, or take the dogs out to potty to keep from feeling obligated to read this diatribe no one would blame you.

Well, maybe "Phil and Doris" might, but I surely won't. 

(Oh, and don't tell my cousin Dan you caught me with another dang Red Bull)

Above: Morton, Doris Begor. Philip Skene of Skenesborough. Bicentennial issue. Granville, NY: Grastorf Press, 1959.

   

                           Above: "Doris"

Remember, all of this started in a place called Whitehall, New York. It's here where we first found Henry and his wife Ruth. We know that it's his wife, Ruth that is, because he mentions her in his pension application.       

Above: As taken from the National Society Daughters of the American Revolution. Application of Harriet Leas Hatfield (No. 238950) on Ancestor Henry Francisco (No. A041636). Member Applications and Supplementals, 1890–present. DAR Library, Washington, D.C. Digital image, DAR Genealogical Research System (https://www.dar.org/).

But before all of this, yes even before there was a place called Whitehall, New York, that same place was called something else. It was called, Skenesborough.

 It was land made by royal grant, made about 1759-1765 to a wealthy Englishman by the name of Philip Skene. "Old Phil" advertised the heck out of his royal grant of 25,000 acres, and as per author Doris Begor Morton, also handed out "three years free rent." No doubt this helped attract the Fuller family out of Connecticut and into Skenesborough, or what would become known of as Whitehall. It must have also enticed a guy we've come to know as Old Henry Francisco to also make his way there to Skenesborough. 

The dates of Old Henry's arrival at Skenesborough are a little vague. He's said to have been an Innkeeper at Fort Edward, New York, and that he was burned out by the British in 1777. I'm told that the distance between the Fort Edward and Skenesborough is about twenty miles along the river road. What's noteworthy is that Morton's list of Old Phil Skene's tenants at Skenesborough show Old Henry Francisco living there alongside the Fullers as early as 1759 and as late as 1775, implying that Old Henry Francisco was in Skenesborough before he went to Fort Edward, and then subsequently returned as evidenced by later census and tax records.

Above: The birth of Old Henry and Ruth's son Solomon and mention of Solomon's son John - Paige's direct line.

Why does this matter? The birth of Old Henry and Ruth Fuller Francisco's son Solomon Francisco is documented in a Bible record as October 2, 1768. This date falls within the time frame of Morton's list of Skene's tenants. Old Henry's marriage to Ruth circa 1766 is often disputed. Critics argue that a Whitehall marriage in 1766 is unproven. However, the business records of Philip Skene (Re: Morton, 1959) place Henry Francisco in Skenesborough as a tenant at the same limited era that Aaron Fuller and family arrived from Connecticut. Old Henry’s later move to Fort Edward was a temporary commercial venture that ended in fire, leading him to retreat back to the protection of his wife’s family—the Fullers of Whitehall—where he remained for the final 40 years of his life." 

In the end this part of the timeline doesn't matter. What matters is that all the Fullers listed in the Morton's list of Skene's tenants are from the same family, that of Aaron Fuller, Sr. The Proof: Aaron Fuller Sr. is recorded in Colchester/Kent, Connecticut, with children named Aaron Jr., Ephraim, Judah, and Ruth. (Bruce Campbell MacGunnigle, Mayflower Families Through Five Generations: Volume 4, Edward Fuller (Plymouth, MA: General Society of Mayflower Descendants, 2006)  AND as you find that exact same "set" of Fuller names appearing together in Whitehall (Skenesborough) in the 1760s/70s, it appears to satisfy the somewhat lofty notion of the Genealogical Proof Standard for "Unique Identity."

I believe that this also holds true for Ruth.

Above: Daughters of the American Revolution (New York). "New York State GRC Report, Volume 117: Bible and Family Records." Digital images, FamilySearch (https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:3Q9M-CS8M-DS5X-P : accessed 28 January 2026), image 700; citing DGS 007949717, "Supporting Documentation for DAR Ancestor A041636."

Henry Francisco’s wife is the only "Ruth" who fits the Fuller Cluster in Whitehall. This is proven by physical nearness: Henry lived and farmed for fifty years in a "fraternal stronghold" alongside Aaron Jr., Ephraim, and Judah Fuller - and others directly related to Aaron Fuller, Sr, and the Mayflower Fullers.

Because these men are verified in the Silver Book (Vol. 4) as the brothers of a daughter named Ruth, the family bond is clear. In the small Skenesborough settlement, Henry’s life in the middle of the Fuller family lands confirms his wife’s identity through constant association with her known kin. By the way, "I’m not looking for a needle in a haystack; I’m showing you the whole haystack (the family cluster) is in the right place."

II. - Or have we just hallucinated this whole Mayflower thingy?

There are those who will say that as there is nothing more than circumstantial evidence that "Ruth" was "a Fuller" at all. They will cite (and perhaps rightfully so) that the four hundred and forty pages of information found on the Francisco family on FamilySearch and elsewhere mean nothing without some yellowed document somewhere that says something like this among the records of Aaron Fuller: 

"To my daughter Ruth, wife of Henry Francisco..."

But there isn't. There are however a plethora of D.A.R and S.A.R. applications that say she was "Ruth Fuller," with Ruth's association with the "Fullers of Whitehall" being arguably, well, previously discussed, logically proven by geographic location and, if I might say so, self-evident.

But before we just chalk up Ruth to those Whitehall Mayflower Fullers, (where she no doubt belongs) or to those "not those Fullers" at all, let's take just one more look at the other possible Ruth Fullers.

Let's look at this one first. I like to call this one the "Original Baby Ruth" (Fuller) 

(Well, I'm nothing if not a smart ass...)

Above: Fuller, William Hyslop. Genealogy of some descendants of Edward Fuller of the Mayflower. Palmer, MA: C.B. Fiske & Co., 1908, p.180

 

As far as "alternative Ruths" go, I gotta say, this one spelled out in William Hyslop Fuller's (1908) book is perhaps my favorite, the most alluring, and the most misleading. 

You see, "this Ruth Fuller" is our Ruth. She matches the Ruth found in the Silver Books (Bruce Campbell MacGunnigle, Mayflower Families Through Five Generations: Volume 4, Edward Fuller) and W. H. Fuller's 1908 book pretty much mirrors the family of Aaron Fuller of Whitehall. In case you need a reminder, here is "the current" (2006) Silver Book version of Ruth Fuller below:

The Silver Books don't lend any more information about "Ruth Fuller, born 15 November 1747." The W.H. Fuller book however generously says that she (Aaron's daughter Ruth) married Job Gould on February 29, 1767. So did she?

The first sign of trouble here is: 1767 was not a leap year. Duh.

Above:"Gould, Job, Jr., of Sharon, m. Ruth Fuller, of Kent, Apr. 23, 1767." (Source: Sharon Vital Records, Vol. LR7, page 15)

The second sign of trouble is that "Ruth and Job, Jr." got married in 1773 - not 1767 like W.H. Fuller's book says. They never left Sharon, Litchfield, CT. In fact W.H. Fuller appears to have conflated his "Ruth Fullers" and "Job Gould, Jr.'s" quite badly.

Here's another example:

  

Above: Fuller, William Hyslop. Genealogy of some Descendants of Edward Fuller of the Mayflower. Vol. 1. Palmer, MA: C.B. Fiske & Co., 1908, p.49

William Hyslop Fuller’s Fuller Genealogy (1908) contains a significant internal contradiction: on page 49, he attributes the Job Gould, Jr marriage to the daughter of Joseph Fuller, yet on page 180, he attributes the same marriage (with an impossible date of Feb 29, 1767) to the daughter of Aaron Fuller. 

Two different Job Gould Jrs marrying two Ruth Fullers with one Ruth born in 1747 and one in 1733, and one married on a leap year date that never existed? Yeah, beyond her father and birthdate, I think we can count much of this version of our Ruth out. 

You see, "Our Girl Ruth Fuller" was living with her family in Skenesborough, soon to be Whitehall, New York, where she married Henry Francisco and, as per that Bible record shown above, her reported son, (and Paige's ancestor, Solomon Francisco) was born 2 October 1768.

Yeah, any dang naysayers can zip it here.

III.

But wait there's more.

We gotta go back a bit. Remember that other Ruth? The one always said to have married Old Henry? She's the Ruth that's been copied and pasted into family trees ad infinitum. She said to be a daughter of Daniel Fuller and Mehitable Broughton. She's said to have been born on "May 17, 1746."

Let me remind you how the illustrious Mr. Doherty writes about Ruth without sources here:

Above: Frank J. Doherty’s error in The Settlers of the Beekman Patent 

Yeah, she "fits" all those records, at least on the surface. But even Doherty is careful not to commit to a birthdate like "May 17, 1746." 

These folks aren't either:

 

    

Above: "Flagler, Marion, Iowa, United States records," images, FamilySearch (https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:3QHK-Q35S-4QN?view=explore : Jan 30, 2026), image 172 of 1574; . Image Group Number: 008934193

Above: The reference that "Ruth Francisco and ... husband" lived in Pittstown "as early as 1770" is in direct conflict with Skene's Tenant's list for Henry Francisco in Washington County - and the birth of his and Ruth's son Solomon (presumably) in Washington County in 1768.

The secondary sources claim Henry lived in Pittstown, yet the 1790 Census shows no such man there. (Please feel free to double check me) Instead, we find 'Henry Sisco' exactly where the family cluster predicts him to be: in Whitehall, living as a neighbor to the sons of Aaron Fuller. 

Did he move from Whitehall to Pittstown and back to Whitehall after marrying some other Ruth Fuller about 1766? 

But his son Solomon was born in 1768 in Whitehall. 

AND he's on Skene's tenant list possibly as early as 1759 ...so again just exactly how did he end up marrying some rando Ruth Fuller that we aren't even sure existed of Pittstown again?

He's not our guy. She's not our Ruth - or please show me literally anything about her.

In fact, try as I might, there doesn't seem to be a birth record for ANY Ruth Fuller born on that date to anyone, let alone one married to Old Henry Francisco.

A search for Ruth Fuller and the date May 17, 1746, comes up empty.

Frank J. Doherty’s error in The Settlers of the Beekman Patent stems from some parentage attribution based on geographic proximity (but to who Daniel Fuller?) rather than primary records connecting  Daniel to Ruth. Doherty incorrectly identified Ruth Fuller (wife of Henry Francisco) as the daughter of Daniel Fuller. And because he found no record for her (seemingly if any kind), he (or perhaps some interloper) estimated her birth as "ca. 1746" to fit into Daniel's family timeline. 

This attribution is direct contra distinction to the Colchester Town Records, which document no such daughter for Daniel, but instead do record Ruth Fuller (b. Nov 15, 1747) as the daughter of Aaron Fuller. Furthermore, census and military records place the Francisco family in a cluster with Aaron Fuller's sons (Ephraim and Aaron Jr.) in Whitehall, NY, proving a pretty dang likely biological connection for Ruth to the Aaron Fuller branch rather than Daniel’s.

Hey, find any  record for Doherty's account of Daniel's Ruth Fuller - if you can...

Daniel's purported daughter Ruth is an undocumented insertion by secondary authors and cannot be the woman who married Henry Francisco. First, unlike Paige's ancestor, "this Ruth" has no primary record in New York to prove she existed. Even the hearsay accounts of her are limited. 

If "Ruth Fuller" had a son Solomon Francisco with Henry Francisco in October, 1768, and was living in Washington County, New York, and if this "Ruth Fuller Francisco" was still living in Washington County, New York in 1790 and in 1820 - How exactly could she "Ruth Fuller" have married Job Gould in Connecticut in the false leap year of 1767 or 1773 in Connecticut? Further, how could any "Ruth Fuller" who married "Henry Francisco of Washington County, New York," have lived in Pittstown in the 1770s when they (Henry) is shown to have lived in Washington County on Skene's tenants list?

They are conflated or different Ruths and or misappropriated Henrys.

Finally, Daniel’s family resided in the Beekman Patent (Dutchess County), a location and migration path entirely separate from the Whitehall (Washington County) cluster where Henry Francisco actually lived. Because Francisco is documented residing directly alongside Aaron Fuller’s sons (Ephraim and Aaron Jr.) in every census from 1790 to 1820 (and before) it is geographically and genealogically impossible for his wife to be a daughter of the distant Daniel branch. She must be the Ruth Fuller (b. 1747) documented as the sister of the Whitehall Fullers.

III.

Yes, I now it's time for me to close this out. 

I still need to revise the pedigree from Ruth Fuller Francisco to Paige, but that can wait for another day. I still need the Mexican-American Pension file on Clark Cisco, and I still need to grow more patient in waiting for it. In the meantime, I think I have successfully gone back and re-examined the sources, that is taken another look at Skenesborough aka Whitehall, and how it was that Old Henry and the Fullers came to be there in the first place.

And I have taken another look at the three Ruths:

Ruth Fuller, born Nov 15, 1747, daughter of Aaron

Ruth Fuller, born ca. 1733, who married Job Gould, Jr., daughter of Joseph

Ruth Fuller, born "1746," and with an attributed date of May 17, 1746, daughter of Daniel — A secondary-source calculation with no primary record.

In doing so, and in following the other records (DAR records, Bible records, letter of 1886 by Dr. Elon Francisco) that surround what original records and or statements as there may be, I have exhausted all resources available to me.

Still...

  

Above: Note the comment by a "Mr. Fuller" on the death of Henry Francisco in the above newspaper artcile.

In late 1819, the legendary age of Henry Francisco attracted the attention of Professor Benjamin Silliman of Yale College, one of the most distinguished scientists of the early Republic. While traveling through the Hudson and Champlain valleys, Silliman sought out the Francisco homestead near Whitehall to document what was then considered a medical marvel: a man claiming to be 134 years old. Silliman’s subsequent report, published in 1820 and widely syndicated in newspapers like the Long-Island Star, remains the most significant contemporary account of the family. Critically, Silliman did not rely solely on Henry’s own memory; he sought verification from the community’s elders.

Among these witnesses was a "Mr. Fuller," whom Silliman noted had recently died in Whitehall between the ages of 80 and 90. The identity of this "Mr. Fuller" is revealed through a process of chronological and geographic elimination within the federal census records. By filtering the 1790, 1800, and 1810 Whitehall censuses for a male whose age consistently aligns with a birth year between 1730 and 1740, Aaron Fuller, Jr. (1738–1820) emerges as the only viable candidate. While his younger brothers Ephraim and Judah appear in the same Whitehall kinship cluster, their later birth dates (1744 and 1741, respectively) make them too young to satisfy the "between 80 and 90" age bracket reported at the time of the 1820 interview.

Furthermore, the 1785 Forfeiture Records identify him as "Aaron Fuller, Esq.," a title of magistracy that explains why Silliman—a visiting scholar—would have sought him out as the primary credible witness to verify Henry Francisco’s age. This census-backed identification is the final blow to the "Pittstown Myth": it elucidates that the man who provided the foundational testimony for Henry’s life was not a distant contact from the south, but Ruth (Fuller) Francisco's own elder brother, who had lived as Henry’s immediate neighbor on the Skenesborough Creek lots for over half a century.

Above: Ward J. Roylance, Remingtons of Utah (1960), pp. 77, 109, 238.

So they actually did interview Aaron Fuller, Jr about Henry Francisco - his more than likely brother-in-law.

And...

Now I wasn't going to include this last piece (below) but it is so very telling. One of Aaron Fuller, Sr's well documented sons was Ephraim, who would have been an additional brother of Ruth Fuller Francisco. I know that it doesn't seem like Ephraim's part of the story is very relevant - but check out his children's names, especially those of Ruth, and Freelove.

Ephraim has named his daughters after his sisters. This demonstrates 'his' next geneartion of Fullers back to Aaron, Ruth Fuller Francisco, and the Mayflower Fullers. It helps cements the Fuller family of Whitehall as one and the same with that of Colchester, CT.

Above: Boston Evening Transcipt, October 1926

I can safely conclude that Ruth Fuller, likely of Whitehall, and likely the daughter of Aaron Fuller, Esq., was indeed the actual wife of Old Henry Francisco - and one of the real housewives wives of Whitehall.

END