Lynn Brooks sent me the following offlist, which I am forwarding with his permission for reply to the list. Chris ============================== In 1999 you wrote: > CNIDR Isearch-cgi 1.20.06 (File: 13) > Here's the third of the Massachusetts Bay Colony > founders... WILLIAM (1) BROOKS of Springfield and > Deerfield - ---------------------------------------------- > --- Born abt 1610 in England, and oft said to be the same > man who sailed to Virginia 1635, subsequently recorded > land ownership there, then disappears from VA records. > I have not seen this before and wonder what the source is, if > you remember for the statement "subsequently recorded land > ownership there"? I looked in the State Library of Virginia and > didn't find anything.Perhaps I missed something. I would > consider that quite important in answering a series of > questions like "What was his status when he came to Virginia?", > "What did he do until he showed up in Massachusetts Bay > Colony?", and perhaps, > "Why did he move from Virginia to > Massachussets Bay Colony?" I quite agree that the question of proving or disproving Virginia roots is important — inability to answer this question is one of the things that's stymied me in succeeding years. Unfortunately, when you hit a brick wall over and over again, there's a tendency at some point to "give it a rest," or "come back to it later," which has been counter-productive in getting my study of William complete enough to publish. The good news is that I'm wrapping up the William Brooks study for publication this fall. Waiting longer isn't going to produce any new evidence, alas. I believe (without looking it up) that you were the first person to send me photocopied pages from the Mrs. Beverly Brooks (nee Vurell Irma Harris — Beverly was her husband's given name) m.s. held by the Pocumtuck Library in Deerfield and NEHGS in Boston. Her m.s. was the basis for my reply as quoted above. Her typescript includes the following: "It is presumed that he got to Virginia where he remained for a while and there is an early record of one WILLIAM BROOKES living at Elizabeth Cittie, Virginia, Feb. 16, 1643, 100 acres planted—by patent granted…He did not appear in Springfield, Mass. until 1649." "Presumed" being the key word here … I've subsequently found this land record confirmed in several online databases of Virginia records. And if you Google for the phrase ("william brooks" + "Elizabeth cittie"), minus the parentheses, you'll find William Brooks in a muster roll dated 16 Feb 1623/4 at Elizabeth City. (Which creates even more research contradictions for a man allegedly born in 1610. He was eligible for military service at age 13?) Our problem is that William (along with John) is the most common given name of Brooks males in this and subsequent periods. There's no evidence that the Virginia William Brooks is the Springfield William Brooks — merely a coincidence of names. Furthermore, there's a six-year gap before a William B. appears in Springfield records. The authoress, imo, wanted so desperately to fill in the blanks on the Springfield man that she was grabbing at insupportable straws. And she seems to confirm this assessment at the end of her m.s. when she starts throwing in material on totally unrelated Brooks lines from the Hampshire Visitation (census) and other sources. (Example: See the list archive for Steve Hoffman's research into the Whitchurch, Hampshire Brooke/Brooks line, which Mrs. Beverly adduced as William's.) It's as if she said to herself, "Well, I've tried to stick to facts so far, and I've run out of them, so rather than call it a day, now I ought to be entitled to run wild with unsupported conjecture to answer the question of origins, in the absence of facts." For examples of two similar situations, and evidential refutation by the "Great Migration" team of Robert C. Anderson, George and Melinde Sanborn, see my writeup on Richard/1e Brooks at http://www.tributaries.org/secondsite/founders-p/index.htm and my writeup of Thomas/1h Brooks of Haddam at http://www.tributaries.org/secondsite/founders-p/index.htm. My own take on Lynn's question, based solely on available evidence, is that there's no reason beyond wishful thinking to suppose the Virginia and Springfield men were the same person. Virginia was Royalist, Massachusetts Bay was Puritan. (And 1643 represents the height of the English Civil War between these factions.) Virginia was founded on wholesale importation of indentured servants who were to do the actual labor of creating plantations for wealthy, titled estate owners. Massachusetts, on the other hand, openly resisted proposals to establish hereditary titles or institutionalized deference beyond the contemporary mainstream English customs of knowing one's place in the world and society, and of extending deference to those who were better-born. I could go on at length, but additional arguments re connection turn out in the negative as well … When I was new to the internet, I signed up for one of those vanity services which forwards daily mentions of "your name, Christopher!" as it appears across the net. At the time there was a hockey player with the name Christopher Brooks who was a star player on a minor league professional team in, of all places, Texas. He was black (I'm white) and 25 years younger than I am, and I can barely stand up on skates, let alone move on them. But since we shared the same name, I was bombarded with newspaper game stories until I cancelled. :-) A very good question, Lynn. Chris