This is a Message Board Post that is gatewayed to this mailing list. Classification: Query Message Board URL: http://boards.ancestry.com/mbexec/msg/an/iUI.2ACIB/693.734.1033.2.1.1.3.2.1.1.1.1.1.1 Message Board Post: Dear Barbara, Actually, you did get information you did not already have - information that some of the things you have copied are either wrong or have been replaced by later information - such as the "birth date" of 1610 immigrant John Chandler. A lot of what you wrote really doesn't need a reply. I think some of it is that you just want to argue. But, here are a few things. And, it is also common pratice to overlook misspellings of words that are easily understood while using the Internet - people are often in a hurry, especially in non-business matters. AFTER ALL, you asked me for help and I was replying. All that anyone has for Immigrant John is his christening date, September 7, 1600 - if he is the one at St. Margaret's. No one knows his birth date, but people are often not precise about such things and they will often interchange "birth" and "christening." It was custom to baptize or or about the 8th day after birth according to experts on the subject in printed sources and a personal inquiry at St. Margaret's by one of my cousins. In the past my colleagues and I had a hunch as to how the 1599 date originated, but it has been so long ago I forget what it is; anyway, it's irrelevant. Given the custom of the time, it is reasonable assume a 1600 birth date, not 1599 - not that it matters. There is one 1599 John Chandler whose birth date has worried some. I checked the published church register at the Library of Congress and sure enough it said 1599. But, I ordered a copy of the ORIGINAL record from England and it was 1598/9 - and also learned he died the next year. Because someone wrote 1599 - without citing proof - doesn't require a rebuttal - 1599 requires proof. You seem to treat all sources equally. In fact, many of the items you cite also cite each other. The trick is to get to the oldest, original or most nearly original source so that one's arguments are linear, not circular. That is what we at CFA do. Hotten, for instance, quoted from the Muster. So, if I use the Muster (which CFA and I did), we don't need to use Hotten although we certainly know his book. Hotten is a "secondary source" - the Muster (published in numerous places, including "Adventurers of Purse and Person," all 3 editions) is the "primary source." (Actually, the printed Muster is also a "secondary source," the original Muster being the true original.) "Grandather" = "grandfather." DUH! You picked on that misspelling instead of addressing the issue - listing the birth of Immigrant John's father as being in 1547 without stating a source? Of course, he COULD have been Immigrant John's father, but most people don't father children at 52 - especially in a time when the average life expectancy of a male born in England was 38! A bit of general history of the times also helps place things in context and create probabilities in the absence of hard evidence. Who made the claim and what was his/her source? It's his/her responsibility (and yours, if you are going to repreat it) to state the proof for their case, not mine to disprove it until they have offered EVIDENCE. There is nothing about John that is not represented in my article and/or the CFA "Newsletter" (unless you have a NEW ORIGINAL ITEM) - except a couple of things I have since discovered, but have not yet published. I cited the ORIGINAL document upon which the Harleian publication you mentioned was based. Harleian is yet another "secondary" or "tertiary" source. Again, CFA researchers and I went to the "best evidence" source, which was the diary kept by one of the passengers. Of course, all other evidence except CFA and TVF has not been destroyed; you have listed some of them. But, what you have listed are duplicative, "secondary" or "tiertiary" sources. But, no NEW ORIGINAL evidence has ever been reported by anyone in any publication that still survives that we have not seen in more than a decade of looking by a team that constantly checks each other. BUT, WE WILL BE DELIGHTED, ECSTATIC IF YOU FIND OTHERS! YOU WILL BECOME A LEGEND IN YOUR OWN TIME. I don't know where you got the 200 tons from - again you didn't provide the source. But the "Hercules of Rye" on which Immigrant John traveled in 1609-10 was ca. 30 tons. More than one ship has been named "Hercules," even in colonial times. I'm pretty sure I said Jim Reeves' documents were mostly not verified; I know I didn't cite it for anything other than a guide - I know it too well. All th stuff we know of about the Lupos is in my article or CFA "Newsletters" and in the sources referenced there, including two excellent studies of the Lupo family going back to before they joined the court of Henry VIII ca. 1540. If you mean that marriage licenses were not entered in dual cross entried, that's correct. But, many, many have been abstracted by the Harleian Society and the IGI with cross-indexes to female names provided. The Lupos authors and I knew that and we checked. Besides, the chance that Albiano and Elizabeth returned to England to be married are slim and none. Rarely, a well-to-do man (especially one who alread had a sweetheart or couldn't find someone of his social standing in Virginia) returned to England to be married (e.g., Adam Thorowgood), but I know of no surviving record of a single man and a single woman who both returned to England to be married in the VACO years. We just don't have any clues to try to identify her. I commend you for searching "off the record." But, you were questioning me about what was on the record. You have not cited anything about immigrant John that has not been known to CFA researchers for over a decade. AGAIN, WE WILL BE FIRST IN LINE TO CHEER YOU IF YOU DO FIND SOMETHING. MAYBE YOU WILL EVEN FIND JOHN IN ENGLAND BEFORE WE DO. It'll save us a lot of work. Having established Immigrant John's connection to sone Roberts and John II and the third generation an beyond after others had tried to do so without success for at least 80 years, we could do with some rest. Again, good hunting! JC