There are several theories about the background of Francis West: (1) that he came from Salisbury in England; (2) that he was the son of Francis, Governor of Virginia and brother of Thomas, Lord de la Warr; (3) that he was not a West but a Weston. In turn each of these proposals will be examined. It may be well, for the sake of clarity, to state in the beginning that no proof from any primary source has been found to support any of them.
That Francis came from Salisbury has been quite generally accepted because it is based on the statement of Judge Zebulon West, a great-grandson of Francis (CW 1). While he might have been living there at the time of emigration, no record of his birth has been found there. Margaret Adelia Ells, preparing West Lines, arranged a search of Salisbury parish records, where no Francis was found. Possibly Salisbury was confused with Soulsbury, where there were Wests. However, according to records published in REG, there was no Francis among them. There is also no evidence for the statement of Zebulon West that Francis was "invited to emigrate by a Mr. Thomas of Marshfield. He may have confused Francis with Twyford West, who was indentured to Edward Winslow of Marshfield.
The supposition that
Francis was the son of Francis of Virginia and the nephew of Lord de la Warr seems to rest on the following considerations. Banks wrote, in his History of Martha's Vineyard that such a tradition was believed by Wests on the island. Thomas2 West named a son Sackfield, suggestive of the Sackvilles, who were associated with the Virginia Wests. The gravestone of Samuel West at Acushnet, Mass. shows a line of descent from Francis of Virginia, but, curiously enough, does not name Francis of Duxbury, blanking his generation. This genealogical inscription reflects the Vineyard tradition. Francis of Virginia did have some first-hand knowledge of Plymouth, since he made a visit in June 1623 to investigate disputes over fisheries. A chart of the West family in the Virginia Historical Society at Richmond shows the marriage of Francis and Margery Reeves. Finally. it has been considered suggestive that little is known about Francis of Virginia and that a Francis of approximately the same age should appear in the Plymouth Colony.
No proof from any primary source has been found to establish a connection between the two men. However, it would seem that Banks went too far in writing that there was absolutely no connection; there is also no proof that a connection is impossible.
The Vineyard tradition, by itself, may be dismissed simply as a tradition without supporting evidence. The use of the name Sackfield is no more than suggestive, since nothing has been uncovered which otherwise relates to it. The gravestone at Acushnet presents the ideas of Samuel or his relatives about a line of descent, but of course includes no proof. There is also no evidence that the visit of Francis1 of Virginia to New England in 1623 led to any other association. The chart in the Virginia Historical Society, which gives no specific references, represents only the belief of the compiler. It is possible, although not certain, that the two Francises may have been of approximately the same age. No birth record for either has been found. As noted above, Francis of Duxbury was probably born in 1605 or 1606. Since Francis2 of Virginia was called a minor in his father's will of 1629, he could not have been born before ca. 1608. Furthermore, Francis senior requested in the will that his surviving third wife Jane take care of the son Francis. The general tone of this request suggests that Francis was either a young boy or in some way physically or mentally defective. It is unlikely that a healthy male in his late teens would have been in need of any special care. He might therefore have been born several years after 1608.
There are at least two considerations which argue against the identification of the supposed two men as the same. The first is that it seems somewhat unreasonable that Francis junior of Virginia should have learned the trade of a carpenter, growing up, as he must have, in a prominent family in a landed society. It would rather be expected that he would have learned no trade at all. The second involves the question of what he received, or should have received, as inheritance from his father's estate. There are few suggestions that Francis Of Duxbury was affluent. His land holdings seem to have been modest, and the size of his estate at the time of his death was notably small.
There have been other attempts to show that the two Francises were the same, but they will be dismissed with little attention because they are almost purely conjectural. One suggests that Francis of Virginia brought his young son with him when he came to Plymouth in 1623, at which time the son found the colony attractive, and, in maturity, decided to return. Another proposal is that the father bought property in the colony and that the son, having been in England, came to Duxbury to oversee and manage this property.
The contention that Francis of Duxbury was actually a Weston who changed his name first appeared in print in Dorothy Wentworth's Settlement and Growth of Duxbury (p.96). Through the author the point was traced to a manuscript genealogy in the public library at Duxbury, with the title "The Weston Families of Duxbury", by Samuel K. Weston. In this work the compiler stated that Francis Weston changed his name after the court sentence of 1640, perhaps from shame and wishing to disassociate himself from the Westons, This genealogy also suggested that Francis might have been a brother of Edmund Weston.
The problem of WEST?Weston is first encountered in connection with the tax list of 25 Mar. 1633 (PCR-CO 1:8), on which a name appears to be Francis Weston. Justin Winsor, in examining the Duxbury records while preparing his History of…Duxbury, also transcribed the name as Weston but with misgivings, so he printed it as "Weston (West?)''. He evidently later decided that references to Francis Weston meant Francis West, because, in his treatment of the Weston family (pp. 334-336) he made no reference to any Francis Weston of the period, even in his note of unidentified Westons. The confusion seems to have arisen with a difficulty in interpreting the records. The name was sometimes written with a slight twist of the pen after the "t" which may have been only a casual stroke or flourish or a sign for the suffix "on", Nathaniel Shurtleff, in editing the Colony records read the name as Weston in the tax list of 1633, in the list of freemen of the same year (although the name was later canceled), and in the record of the marriage to Margery Reeves. The Francis on the list of freemen must actually have been that of a Weston because Francis West was not made a freeman until 1655. Elsewhere in the printed records the name appears as West.
There are few references in either the Colony or the Duxbury records to any Francis Weston. In fact, aside from the references mentioned above, there is only one other, the mention of a Francis who in 1679 was described as deceased (PCR-CO 6:22). Whoever he was, he could not have been Francis West, who died in 1692.
In general, it has been accepted that Francis was West and not a Weston. Neither Judge Zebulon West nor Samuel West, both of whom were great-grandsons of Francis, made any mention of the Weston name. Furthermore, it is evident that on occasion the two names were simply confused. A clear case of such a situation may be found in connection with the settlement of the estate of Thomas Howell. Letters of administration were granted to Edmund Weston 7 June 1648 (PCR-CO 2:127), but it was later recorded that a claim against the estate was paid by Edmund West (PCR-CO 2:141). No other reference to any Edmund West has been found. No direct evidence has been uncovered to support the claim that Francis changed his name. Such a claim seems to have been based principally on the fact that Nathaniel Shurtleff, as he edited the Colony records, read the name as Weston in entries before 1640 and as West thereafter. The implied decision of Justin Winsor has been discussed above.
Children, probably born at Duxbury. No record of births has been found. The only child of whom there is any primary record is Peter, mentioned in the settlement of his father's estate, Judge Zebulon West stated that there were five: Samuel, Thomas, Peter, Mary, and Ruth (CW 3). There is a note in CW 3 that two others, Richard and Peletiah, have been ascribed to Francis "although it would seem without good reason". In the case of Peletiah, Cornwall was probably right; the Pelatiah at Duxbury was a grandson of Francis (DVR 187). In the case of Richard the situation is somewhat different. He was married to Mary Samson 26 Oct. 1693 (DVR 327) and so might have been born during Margery's child-bearing years. Much depends, of course, on Richard's age at the time of his marriage. That he was called "Waste" is probably of no significance. At times a question has been raised about whether Francis had a son Francis who married Susanna Soule, the dau. of George Soule.
Recent and more exhaustive research, which was undertaken during the preparation of Volume 3 of Mayflower Families failed to establish the identity of Susanna's husband. It was concluded that his name was probably something other than West, although the volume assigns the name West to all of his descendants.
Marriages of four of the five children mentioned by Judge Zebulon West have been found, although nothing is known of Mary. These four, at least, must have been children of Francis. Except for Twyford West, there was no other Wests in the colony who could have been their parents. The following information about Twyford was found in Mary Lovering Holman's Ancestry of Charles Stinson Pillsbury... (p. 847). Late in 1650 Twyford moved to Rowley, Mass. and later to Ipswich. He married and had at least five children, some at Rowley and some at Ipswich. He made his will 5 Dec. 1683, and it was probated 1 Jan. 1683 [i.e. 1684?]. He mentioned four children and it should be noted that none of them bore the names of any of those ascribed to Francis West.
A Survey of the Descendants of Francis West of Duxbury by Carlton Prince West
Abt 1606 - 1692 (~ 86 years)
[2] 
