Hi, Message text written by INTERNET:[email protected] >It was not until fairly recently that Thomas was identified as the fau., certainly of Roger and David, probably of Thomas, and possibly John.< The cite for this is NEHGR Vol. 36, October 1982, in which Thomas was proven to be the correct ancestor of our Bruces, not the earlier mentioned "John Bruce". Credit for this proof belongs to the authors, Winifred Fahey Pelley, Lindsley Reese Bailey, Winsor Bruce, Laura Lindquist Fahey,, Miriam Fahey Rudd, and Catherine Rose Fahey. I was in touch with Winnie Pelley for many years before she unfortunately passed away, and I am still in touch with Kay Fahey, her sister. By the way, the identification of Elizabeth Forbush as the wife of Roger/2 also belongs to Kay Faheyand her sisters, Winifred Fahey Pelley, and Miriam Fahey Rudd. This discovery is listed in Sanborn's supplement to Torrey, although it refers to the published Thomas Bruce article. I am privileged to be in possession of a copy of the Fahey-Pelley-Rudd manuscript regarding Elizabeth Forbush, "...Wife of Roger/2 Bruce of Marlborough and Southborough, Massachusetts". For those not familiar with NEHGR, it is the New England Historic and Genealogical Register, published by the New England Historic Genealogical Society, Boston, Massachusetts. You can visit their site at http://www.NewEnglandAncestors.org Claudia E. Skerry Cridland Member, NEHGS, MSMD