This is a Message Board Post that is gatewayed to this mailing list. Author: JosephAHittle Surnames: Classification: queries Message Board URL: http://boards.rootsweb.com/surnames.claypoole/66.2.1.2.1.1.1.1.1/mb.ashx Message Board Post: "the common belief of USA Claypoole descendants of James 'the migrant', prior to Graff's 1893 work being published; was that they were direct descendants of Oliver Cromwell. " While this may be the case in some "family legends," it's never been the case in what I've been hearing in my lifetime. If this is what Bracken is holding to, I don't see it that way and frankly, haven't seen anyone else claim it in print. That's not saying that it isn't in print, only that I've yet to find it thusly. Now I have another question: Let's say that you have my Claypoole line figured differently than what seems to be the line of progression followed by different researchers even than Bracken (much earlier than her)(ie, James I, James II, James III, Jesse, Jonathan, John, George, Birt, my mom, me). If that isn't the line, what is? I'm hardly suggesting that you cannot be correct in any of your points. We're both suggesting that we're not seeing the story the same way. I'm not even asking you to "prove" your position. Frankly, I'm not ready to counter any of your arguments, and have made that clear from my earliest posts in dealing with my Claypoole family line. So, if you're going to tell me that the story I've heard most of my life isn't a good one, tell me where it goes wrong. Don't keep bashing the people who've told it to me (which you're not doing directly, but because you have no idea how I came to "learn" what I "know," in effect that is exactly what you're doing). As for your questions about my sources, let me do some checking. Maybe I mis-read something, but I don't think so at this point. Joe Important Note: The author of this message may not be subscribed to this list. If you would like to reply to them, please click on the Message Board URL link above and respond on the board.