Jean MKee wrote: > For whatever it is worth, in the D.A.R "New Ancestors" of > the Jan/Feb 2006 issue is BROOK:BROOKES, Joseph: b. 7-20- > 1750 MA d 12--1816 NH m (1) Abigail X Sol NH > > Not sure whether to put this on the NE-Brooks as not our > spelling, but did not find him in the list of Brooks on > tributaries.us New Ancestors? Does that mean that a new member has joined on the basis of this guy's Revolutionary service? If so, and he served in a Massachusetts unit, he ought to be in Mass. Soldiers and Sailors of the Revolution, which is the 24-volume bible for Revolutionary participants. My copies of the Brooks pages (v. 2) are inaccessible, and I can't look for a Joseph right now. The information fits the Joseph/Abigail Brooks who were among the earliest settlers of Jaffrey, Cheshire, NH. Their three children, and four generations of descendants, are sketched out in the History of Dublin, NH. None of these are up on the web site as I can't connect them ancestrally. I have 52,000+ people in my database, including 10,629 people with the surname Brooks. Of the larger number, only a fraction, about 1,600, are online. Joseph of Jaffrey, in turn, *could be* the same man as Joseph/5a, b. 20 Jul 1750 at Acton, MA (a setoff of Concord), in the Concord line of Capt. Thomas Brooks. One discrepancy is that a Joseph is recorded at both Jaffrey and Acton in 1790, and the household compositions vary: 1-1-3 and 1-1-6. Another discrepancy is that the Acton man died there in 1824, with the correct g.s. age to establish him as the same man who was born there. The DAR member, on the other hand, reports a death in 1816, NH. "Hist. Dublin" doesn't report a death for its Joseph, but he was living there in the 1800 census. I know that today's DAR is much more exacting in the documentation it requires of new members, but how much reliance to put on this lady's identification, I don't know. Joseph's not nearly as bad as John or William in terms of frequency as a Brooks given name, but it's still pretty common, especially in this time period. I wouldn't worry about the spelling discrepancy. Thanks for forwarding this, Jean. Chris