John, I've become adept at confusing you I think. ;-) I am not certain what the confusion is on the part of the Historical Society members. My brother set up a meeting with them for September. He indicated that we needed to show clearly that "our" Benjamin from Andover was not in truth descended from John's Benjamin. I am clueless about John's Benjamin I only know about mine from Andover which leaves me at a disadvantage in providing them any clarity. Thus my plea to the list for information about John's Benjamin. Pat Curry said regarding the latter, "Some Corresp. Have proposed that the father of the Richard who went to Canterbury was Benjamin [1665- ], son of John, of Dunstable, & known to be alive as late as a 1699 Dunstable tax. But neither this Benjamin nor a desc. Has been recognized in the many deeds by the heirs of John of Dunstable." That was the long answer, the short one is yes I believe that is the point, to prove that any given reference to a Benjamin documented from the 1740's on in Dunstable is not in fact a descendant of Benjamin son of John. Clearer?, Sherry ---------- From: John F. Chandler[SMTP:JCHBN@CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU] Sent: Tuesday, August 25, 1998 7:40 PM To: Sherry Gould Subject: Re: Richard Blanchard, NH 1732 Sherry, > The second part of the project is in regard to sorting out our Benjamin, s > Jonathan from Benjamin s of John as they were both in Dunstable. I'm confused. Benjamin[4] son of Jonathan was born in 1693 and removed to Dunstable, NH about 1743, while Benjamin[3] son of Deacon John was born in 1665 and was apparently last mentioned on paper in 1693 in Deacon John's will (when Dunstable was still all in Massachusetts). Surely, it can't be difficult to keep those two separate! Is the point of the project to determine whether any of the references to Benjamin in Dunstable, NH actually refer to a hitherto-unknown son of Benjamin[3]? John