Dames, Names & Documents

The Many Forms of Identity

Sep 20, 2024

Publication Date: September 6, 2024

Lineage on Display

Mary Martha’s 1907 marriage to Archibald had finally allowed her to live the life she’d been born and raised to live, and which she likely believed she deserved. Archibald’s personal charisma, professional reputation and impressive family lineage insulated her from any gossip or speculation that might come her way, and their combined wealth meant nothing money could buy was beyond their grasp.

Within weeks of returning from their honeymoon, the newly minted Mr. and Mrs. Taylor had been welcomed into Baltimore high society with open arms. Parties had been thrown in their honor, and Mary Martha had been invited to join the wives of Archibald’s influential friends at charitable events, lectures and committee meetings.

One of the organizations which took up a lot of Mary Martha’s time was the Maryland Society of the Colonial Dames of America. Founded on December 29, 1891, the Society was part of the larger National Society of the Colonial Dames of America, and membership was contingent on the ability to prove that a direct ancestor had been a Provincial Officer or held office in Assemblies, Conventions and Committees, in the Judiciary, or the Military or Navy of Maryland Colony.

Mary Martha’s membership was granted by right of descent from Thomas Purnell II, a member of the General Assembly of Maryland for Somerset County from 1712-1714. ¹

Thomas was Mary Martha’s 3x great grandfather through her mother’s side, and through him, Mary Martha could claim 18 additional colonial founders of Maryland. Not as many as Sophia Fuller Sweet, who counted a whopping 44 colonial ancestors from Maryland, but still a lot, especially considering Mary Martha’s grandmother, Mary Martha Purnell Thorndike, was the only Marylander in the expansive Parker family tree.

As a member of the “Dames” as the group was called, Mary Martha likely found a sisterhood of women who were as obsessed with their illustrious lineages as she was, but also whose social status and access to generational wealth allowed them to enjoy at least the visage of Old-World refinement and American aristocracy.

An event that highlighted this unique combination of social snobbery and economic elitism was the Maryland Society of Colonial Dames of America’s art show, held at Baltimore’s Colonial Hall January 18-26, 1911.

Promoted by the Baltimore Sun as, “an opportunity for the inspection of rare works of art and historic heirlooms that is seldom offered,” and a “mine of old treasures”, the show featured the personal collections of members, including, of course, Mary Martha. ²

By all accounts, exhibits filled every corner of Colonial Hall, and featured an astonishing variety of artwork from intricately hand-painted miniatures and fans to cutout silhouettes and wax figures, jewels, medallions and bronze medals.

Many of these treasures had colonial connections – a watch given by Thomas Jefferson to his favorite granddaughter, Ellen Randolph, and a piece of yellow flowered brocade from one of Martha Washington’s dresses, for example. ³

Others had a direct connection to the Maryland Colony, including miniatures of General John Gassaway of Annapolis, and Lieutenant Emory Pryor of Queen Anne’s County, both then in the possession of proud descendants. ⁴

The pieces Mary Martha chose to exhibit, however, had no such sentimental connections.

Mrs. Archibald Taylor has a most notable collection of fans. Among her most beautiful things are a metal fan painted in the reign of Louis XV by Jean-Antoine Watteau, one of his favorite sylvan scenes; a gold crown of Mademoiselle Rachel, the great actress; also a coral brush and comb of the same; a fan painted by François Boucher is wonderfully beautiful. A small miniature by Watteau is also in this collection, and a brass bell representing Queen Elizabeth in her royal robes, dated 1588. ⁵

It could be that in her choices Mary Martha was sending a subtle message of cultural superiority, economic power, and social distinction, thus aligning herself with a broader and arguably more prestigious heritage than that which could be claimed through American colonial lineage alone.

Or it could be she simply didn’t have any sentimental items with connections to the Maryland Colony and her Purnell ancestors. After all, Mary Martha Purnell Thorndike Bourne — Mary Martha’s grandmother — had severed all ties with three of her four daughters, including Mary Martha’s mother, when they’d criticized her marriage to Ezra Bourne as a 36-year-old widow in 1841.

Any Purnell family or colonial relics that might have existed had been bequeathed to Allen Thorndike Rice, whose mother, Elizabeth, had supported her own mother’s decision to remarry.

And when Allen passed away unexpectedly in 1889, those Purnell keepsakes may have been sold to the highest bidder during an 1891 auction of Allen’s personal effects and curios held in New York, leaving Mary Martha bereft of the family heirlooms — and connections — in which her fellow Dames took such pride. ⁶

What’s in a Name

Like a lot of blueblood families, naming conventions within Thomas Purnell’s family and his descendants were carried out with an eye toward tradition, heritage and social status.

Giving Mary Martha the names of her Purnell matriarchs – her mother, Martha Sylvester Thorndike Parker; her grandmother, Mary Martha Purnell Thorndike; her great-grandmother, Martha Sylvester Purnell; and a host of aunts, grand aunts and great aunts as well as countless cousins of varying degrees – drew an incontrovertible line between these women and marked them as part of the same family and shared legacy.

That generational connection was something Mary Martha was intimately aware of, and a huge part of both her identity and sense of belonging.

I’m not sure how much knowledge Aimee had when it came to Mary Martha’s family’s naming conventions, but my guess is very little if any. There’s no indication Aimee ever met her grandfather, Richard Parker, her uncles, Charles and James Parker, or any other members of her extended family until much later. And it’s unlikely she would have had access to any documentation which would show the preponderance of Mary Martha’s in the family line.

Still, Aimee surely wondered at how she’d gotten her name. She said as much in a 1928 interview with a reporter from the Daily News:

“When [young] I lived with a family named Byers opposite the old baseball grounds in Baltimore. Who brought me there, who gave me the name of Aimee Henry and why I was given in charge of the Byers is what I should like to know.” ⁷

Intriguing questions, right, but also ones that are entirely unanswerable without a birth certificate, baptismal record or Mary Martha’s willingness to tell the truth.

No wonder Aimee was so insistent that the courts grant her those things: Her name symbolized everything she didn’t know about herself, but desperately needed to if she ever wanted to know who she was and where she belonged.

Indentification Required

Following WWI, the US State Department required anyone who wanted to travel outside the United States to have a passport. The process was pretty straight forward, and not entirely unlike the process Americans go through today to obtain a passport.

You’d go to the courthouse or passport office and fill out an application that included your physical appearance and age, as well as an oath of loyalty to the United States. Then you’d be required to present proof of citizenship in the form of a birth certificate, proof of identity in the form of a photograph, and a US citizen witness willing to swear you were who you claimed to me.

If you didn’t have a birth certificate — and many American citizens did not, birth registration wasn’t required until 1930 in the US — the process was a bit more complicated.

The State Department required that applicants from this population pool provide affidavits from people who it considered to be known witnesses to a birth (mother, doctor, midwife) or a document issued close to birth ( a baptismal certificate).
In the absence of a document issued contemporaneously to the event or the death of disappearance of the approved witnesses, the department accepted the sworn statement of a US citizen at the time of application, per its previous policy. However, instructions indicated that applicants exercising this option had to satisfy an official’s judgement that they had made a genuine attempt to locate witnesses to their birth. ⁸

When Aimee went to court to force Mary Martha to provide her with a birth certificate, one of the reasons she gave was the embarrassment and difficulty associated with travel. She was likely referring to this sort of bureaucracy, and no doubt, it was a valid reason.

But, Aimee also wanted to use her birth certificate to obtain other documents, as well. Document granting her membership in Mary Martha’s favorite lineage societies.

“[Mrs. Morecroft] further content that by reason of Mrs. Taylor’s ancestry, the latter is entitled to recognized social position, being a member the Society of Colonial Dames and of the Daughters of the American Revolution. ⁹

I’m not sure if Aimee actually had any great desire to participate in the activities of these groups, but gaining access to them would surely strip Mary Martha of the sense of belonging, status and identity she’d long denied Aimee.

Call it symbolic retribution, revenge or even pettiness, Aimee’s decision to include membership in the Dames and DAR was a deliciously ironic move to undermine the very foundation of her mother’s self-perceived superiority, ancestral privilege and smug overconfidence.

Mary Martha must have been terrified.

Chapter Endnotes

¹ “Register of the Maryland Society of the Colonial Dames of America. 1891-1915, The Maryland Society of the Colonial Dames of America, Baltimore, MD, 1915.

² “Rare Art Gems There: Miniatures and Historic Objects Shown at Colonial Dames’ Rooms, Likenesses of Marylanders: Exhibit includes Collection of Silhouettes, Wax Figures, Medallions and Bronze Medals,” The Baltimore Sun, Baltimore, MD, January 19, 1911, P.8.

³ Colonial Dame’s Exhibit: Rare Treasures on View at Maryland Society’s Rooms,” The Evening Sun, Baltimore, MD, January 19, 1911, P. 2.

⁴ “Rare Art Gems There: Miniatures and Historic Objects Shown at Colonial Dames’ Rooms, Likenesses of Marylanders: Exhibit includes Collection of Silhouettes, Wax Figures, Medallions and Bronze Medals,” The Baltimore Sun, Baltimore, MD, January 19, 1911, P.8.

⁵ A Mine of Old Treasures: Baltimore Has Curios of All Kinds Hidden Away. Some are Now Being Shown: Specimens in Colonial Dames’ Exhibit are described – Forgotten Relatives Get Together There,” The Evening Sun, Baltimore, MD, January 27, 1911, P. 7.

⁶ “A Ten Millionaires at an Auction”, The Cambridge Transcript, Cambridge, VT, February 18, 1891, P. 6.

⁷ “Woman Would Tear Birth Mystery Veil: 12-year Gap in Life of Mrs. Morecroft”, Daily News, New York, NY, September 24, 1928, P. 8.

⁸Robertson, C. (2015). Paper, Information, and Identity in 1920s America. Information & Culture, 50(3), 392–416.

⁹ “Delays action in suit for birth papers; NY judge reserves ruling in plea involving former Baltimorean; Interest claimed in two estates; Mrs. A H Morecroft says she is daughter of Mrs. AH Taylor”, Baltimore Sun, Baltimore, MD, September 19, 1928, P. 28.