On 10 September 2004, Bruce wrote: Just finished a two week driving tour of England and managed a trip to Shalbourne, a thoroughly charming place. Made the discovery that William of Rehoboth was a "churchwarden" of the parish. Bruce Carpenter Clinton, WA On 16 September 2004, he contributed the following: Wiltshire Glebe Terriers 1588-1827 Steven Hobbs ed. Wiltshire Record Society vol. 56 Trowbridge, 2003 p. 367 "SHALBOURNE vicarage 655 6 Jun 1628 (D5/102/8) 3 ½ a. in the E. end field upon Cutton Hill. 2a. in the field E. End Townsend. 4a. 1yd. In Shalbourne N. field. 1a. upon the barrows in E, field. ½ a. at the vicarage gate. Vicars croft by Newtown common, 6a. Church lands: 2 a. of arable lying in Rowlands within the gate, the hedge on the one side and Edward Ranger's land on the other. Parsonage land: 1a. of arable in the E. end field at Townsend. 1a. of arable in the W. field at W. end. Roland Hyll, vicar, John Tallmage, (X), William Crpener1 (X), churchwardens. 1. Probably Carpenter. The marriage of a William Carpenter was recorded in the parish register in 1625. _______________________ Having reviewed the relevant pages of _Wiltshire Glebe Terriers 1588-1827_ (the quoted material is on p. 364), I think it's safe to say that churchwarden William "Crpener" certainly was not William2 Carpenter of Rehoboth (and perhaps is not a Carpenter). The volume's introduction (p. xix) states that "[s]ignatories making their marks are indicated by [X]." If the bracketed X following "William Crpener" is appropriate, it virtually assures that he was not William Carpenter of Rehoboth. That the latter man was highly literate is well known; he (b. ca. 1605) would certainly have been able to sign his name at the age of about 23. Churchwardens, moreover, were typically 25 and more years older than that. While one might wonder if "William Crpener" was William1 Carpenter, father of William of Rehoboth and about 52 in 1628, there are two reasons to doubt it: First, the same problem as above exists to a lesser degree here: while it is quite plausible that William1 was not as literate as his namesake son, it is unlikely that the father of such an educated son could not write his own name. Second, the suffix "Sr.," "the elder," or the like does not appear. This is consistent with the following: "Only the last of the six Shalbourne records [Bishop's Transcripts] naming William2, that of son Samuel's baptism [1 March 1636/7], distinguishes him as 'Junior.' From this and the absence of a Shalbourne baptismal record for William2, it is likely that William1 joined his son at Shalbourne sometime between 1634 [son Joseph bp. 6 April 1634] and 1636/7 and that neither was native to the parish" (TAG 70[1995]:194). Has anyone undertaken to obtain from the Wiltshire and Swindon Record Office, Trowbridge, a copy of the original record (D5/10/2/8)? The published version should be checked against it. Gene Z.