DITTO on all the positive feedback. Don't throw away those of us who benefit and appreciate all your work!!! Carol Vaughan

To Steve: Thanks for a great message many times. I have enjoyed your work and appreciate it. I'm sorry some have spoiled it for you. Please don't wash your hands of the rest of us loyal readers! Margaret <>< _________________________________________________________________ Tired of spam? Get advanced junk mail protection with MSN 8. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail

Steve, I don't post to the list much as I can't seem to make any connections back past 3GGP's Jacob & Jane Disbrow (possibly of Monmouth Co. NJ.) the parents of Milan Disbrow b. 7 Jan 1809, Howell Twp, MC, NJ. I can not connect to the wonderful information you have been posting, but I know that somehow it is about my distant relatives; and it helps me to understand the lives of unknown persons that were the distant forefathers and foremothers of Ethel Mae Disbrow Grey Hall. I have met (via the internet) Walt & Russ Disbrow, my two wonderfully helpful "cousins". The word cousin is in quotes because we are step-cousins. The only woman I knew as a grandmother, is my father's step-mom. I choose to try to research this line as a tribute to this wonderful woman that raised her adopted son by her first marriage, three step-children, a couple of foster kids, and two of her own children from her second marriage. Your posts and arguments on the pros & cons as to the validity of research material have helped me to learn to be careful as to what is fact or fiction. I have learn much from your posts and hope you will continue to put up with us on the list in the future. Bertha Hall Plainfield, CT

Even though sometimes discussion gets a little wordy, I still appreciate all the research that Stephen Squires, Mike Disbrow, etc. have done. I would like to do more, but finances do not allow it. Unfortunately our ancestors did not have the advantage of better record keeping instruments, had poor spelling and writing knowledge and did not have much imagination when it came to naming all their children. There is such a thing as naming one's offspring after other family members and carrying it on too much. Fortunately, my own immediate has not stuck to this so fervantly; we have more or less only carried part of a person's name forward, using it for a middle name for instance. Why our forbears had to name even their later offspring by a name that they had already used for one who died was not very helpful to us who came later. In addition using such few common names in such abundance sure has not helped us at all, has it? All of you who get the chance to dig up any information for us, I greatly appreciate. Because my maternal side seemed to die at such an early age up to my own grandparents, has not been at all helpful. Even my mother and her brother did not know their maternal grandparents, etc. My own father left my mother before I was born and I was 56 before I met him. That was not a very enlightening experience either, for he had remarried later and had six more children with whom I have not been able to have any relationship. His youngest daugher who still lived at home, along with her children, is the age of my oldest daugher. She was also disagreeable enough to tear up letters I sent to him after I finally located him. I also saw that I did not really miss anthing when I was growing up, for he was a bitter, grouchy man who did not have the values nor education with which I was surrounded as I grew up. Leonora (Lea) Roberts

Stephen Squires has been a major contributor, and thats the bottom line, as far as I'm concerned, I don't care how opinionated he is. Thanks Stephen, and please stick around. Armchair genealogists are a dime a dozen. Paul Reiser

Steve, I have wanted to write to this list for a long time to tell you how much I enjoyed the "debates" and yes, your opinions also. They gave me many different incites into this large and wonderful family that I am learning to love so much, places in my mind I would never have gone. I have not done so earlier as I am one of those that glean and read and jot down but because of circumstances, cannot follow up to the source. I will not bore you with why, but all I learn on this subject is very important to me and at times has literally kept me alive. Please continue when you can Steve, and do not let those of lesser heart and opinions touch you personally. Thank you. Carolyn 8th gen Disbrow --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? U2 on LAUNCH - Exclusive medley & videos from Greatest Hits CD

>From - Mike Disbrow, listowner Subject - How about some thanks to Steve? Fellow Disbrow List subscribers - As any of you who have followed the messages to this list over the past few months know, Stephen Squires has been by far and away the most prolific submitter of information, news and opinions we've had. And now, by the sounds of his recent postings, he's fed up with us and plans to leave the list. I don't know what has gone on "behind the scenes" between Steve and some of the subscribers to this list, and I really don't want to know the details. Steve has apparently been offended directly and also indirectly by certain people, and also by the lack of "debate" and discussion on his posted topics he so earnestly tried to draw out of us. I may be as much to blame as anyone but I honestly just have not had the time for it. When I did try to enter the discussion by posting a question, it only seemed to make matters worse, so I totally withdrew. If anyone here feels (as I do) they have benefitted from Steve's postings, or at least found them highly entertaining, I wish you would take a minute or two to post your thoughts to this list, and if we can't persuade Steve to stay with us, at least let him know he hasn't totally wasted his time with us. It seems Steve has heard all the negative comments, so it's way past time for him to hear something positive. If you agree with me, let him know by posting your thanks to him here. Mike Disbrow

Please delete the email from your inbox and then again from your trash folder so it leaves your computer...Somehow the virus got into my father's email addresses when I opened my yahoo message. I don't think it's a very serious one, but it will send the same greeting to all your outlook email addresses. Sorry I had to be in touch in such a way. Alex Desbrow

I meant to provide the following very minor list of corrections/clarifications of my final "shoe" string by last Friday (for my wrap-up postings which I actually never did complete last week, & which I meant to include 1674 CSP statements of Alderman Patience Ward abt Samuel Disbrowe's health, with also update on "Banker DESBOE" deepening with major/significant angles!). Yet, I missed that 'FINAL' posting date due to very enjoyable Halloween "lay-days" which I much prefer taking to posting to this List (who wouldn't!), & since I had said all I cared most about anyway, so have not much wanted to bother with any more for you! However, I have NOW discovered some very "NEW" & extremely important information just uncovered at the CT Historical Society yesterday (Tuesday, 11/6 from the just released two further volumes of the "Great Migration Project") which now requires my posting updates yet AGAIN to this List (will I ever be free of it??....plse recall I most certainly did NOT wish to continue here without "NEW" info to discuss first!!). I now have that very NEW information, which actually turns out to be extremely important to my own project too! This information is undoubtedly "conclusive" specifically regarding our recent debate, while also providing me with absolutely invaluable confirmation of one of my more important/cherished "relational analysis" angles: namely the now 'unquestionable' inter-relationship of the two Disbrowe clans of Samuel/Thomas Disbrowe (at Eltisley) with that of Nicholas Disbrowe (at Saffron Walden), with all its very obvious implication for the several 17th c. Connecticut/New York Disbrow clans. These various confirmations are based upon brand-new, scholarly published analysis (from the "Great Migration Project as pub. in the latest two further volumes in Feb 2001!) as taken from those very same Shire Hall "Disbrow" wills which we have been talking around while never yet having collected them. WHY has this scholar been able to get/decipher these long particular wills and before any of us!!?? I will post this very new info over the next day or two just so long as I may feel comfortable doing so, and am not too 'stressed-out' by the time it may take. So bare with it patiently, please! Some necessary CORRECTIONS to my last string on Halloween: 1. My posting two index listings of Disbrow wills were typed EXACTLY as printed in published index books, copied for Disbrow entries, & my post include no typo errors I'm aware of. These long published "index" books (many decades in print!) are at the Shire Hall in Cambridge, & at other appropriate research sites too (perhaps even at gen libraries in USA??).... So, question must be asked just WHY these many pertinent Disbrow wills have been, for so very long a time now, completely over-looked by various dedicated Disbrow researchers--- while, nevertheless, scholars with "the Great Migration Project" have so readily managed to secure/decipher/interpret these for publication Feb 2001 from the Shire Hall wills of our recent interest??! ....The index books do actually list the following just exactly as I did in my post last week, by leaving-off Disbrow surname from two listings only (if this happened to confuse you!), these are there listed just as I did accurately so from it: "James, Swavesey, yeo. W 1669, WR 10:106 [NOTE: this means "James Disbrow of Swavesey" village];" ...and also: "Sarah, Lt. Eversden, wid. W 1711" [this means Sarah Disbrow, widow, of Little Eversden], ...which indexing oversight is probably of virtually NO importance whatsoever for our use of these very important Disbrow wills. Further, index apprev. "Lt." (as in "Lt. Eversden") simply means "Little...." 2. From my posting re: "Two Early Disbrowe Wills," ...a comma should be where I put a period in first will abstract for "John the Elder," ...after pt # 5 "James Disbrowe" and before "Sean? in the manor of Borrough..." confusing the guy's bequest award. 3. In my recent post about 1612 Disbrowe "manor" house on Eltisley green (also called "the rectory"), next to church, I said a post-rail on a staircase has initials carved for James/Elizabeth Disbrow. The actual carving is a Latinized "ID 1612 ED" and appears on a closed-off doorway lintel, which itself is actually situated on the staircase wall of this 'ancient' house still standing. There is ALSO a very fine published photo of this same lintel carving accessible to you too, also a photo of the house itself & interior of Eltisley church from a widely distributed book available at most large libraries (NOT just university libraries): "County of Cambridge, Volume One West Cambridgeshire" by the Royal Commission On Historical Monuments, pub. 1968 (plate #37 for the lintel in question, ...interior of church & 2 very fine views of the house are on plates 12 & 77). I have long had this excellent information about Eltisley. BTW, that "rectory" house as being owned specifically by James "Elder" & Elizabeth "Marshall" is so indicated by several histories (as below noted too) as well as Mike Sawyer, Eltisley village historian, while the more detailed histories also give much evidence for Mitchells' land ownership at Eltisley and most provocatively MARSHALLS also owning much land at Eltisely (this last for me strengthens argument for that Disbrowe/Marshall partnership owning specifically the 1612 "rectory" house!). So, see these very detailed/excellently footnoted books for much/much more on these sites, w/ many diagrams/maps of the holdings described for our Disbrowes, & very detailed historical information of certainly the most reliable footnoted authority to their pub. date. I have had this information a couple years from my own UConn Libarary. 4. The "manor" house is NOT, in fact, ALSO what is also now known as the "rectory" house (above described w/ lintel). There is a separate house-site, called the "manor of Eltisely," which I have not yet visited there but intend to on my next trip & now via a rented car: ...this house is much reconstructed according to very detailed article abt Eltisley in the above noted very excellent book (this book couldn't be a more thorough guide to our Disbrow residences there with maps & detailed architectural diagrams of the houses involved, available to most of you at your major libraries, with more info also on Elsworth, Hatley (YES, there is such a place!), Harlton (a village noted by Gary Boyd Roberts' "Eng Origins of NE Fams." as yet one more nearby village with many Disbrow vital records too which I have yet to investigate myself!), Dry Drayton, Coton, Barrington (all important to my book research!), Madingley (see plate 14 esp. for a provocative photo of monument to one "Jane Cotton," wife of a "Sir John Cotton" of famous Cotton family lines, ...I have found evidence our Maj. General John Disbrowe was in DIRECT correspondence with famous New England Puritan divine: Rev. John Cotton, of MA Bay Colony for example!). Further, the excellent "Victoria History of English Counties" series on all English county history (also at most libraries) ALSO have absolutely invaluable information on our 17th c. Disbrowes, not just at Eltisley(!!), ....but especially there in VERY great detail as to how they acquired the manor in that village by 1600, etc., the land-ownership relation to Sir Francis Mannock (it appears, from all the somewhat complex land transactions indicated, that our Eltisley Disbrowes may have been particular beneficiaries of some sort of "sequestration" proceedings against the Mannocks earlier land interests at Eltisley, for example,... This is just as later Disbrowes of Interregnum period there were also involved in "sequestering" & holding royalist properties too, & just as I've discovered from Brit Library & PRO/CSP concerning Isaac/Joseph Disbrowe, ...& even "James" as a commissioner of the "Prize Office" for privateering during Civil War: all the Disbrowes being in on the "spoils" system then!...The name of "Richard Cromwell, alias Williams" also crops up in above Victoria history on Eltisley as early-on associated with Disbrowes, right in Eltisley neighborhood,... This was no doubt due, of course, to his own very famous earlier kinsman, "Thomas Cromwell," who was vital advisor to Henry VIII in dissolution of the monasteries, while delivering "spoils" to emergent new Protestant landed gentry, such as Oliver Cromwell's own family line at nearby Huntingdon, and perhaps also to Disbrowes themselves at Eltisley, as I believe no less!! These issues have immense importance for history of this area, and of my book project needless to say!). 6. There are "Rocket" surnames in 17th c. Over vital records, elsewhere also in region, as I've seen & which Chuck Rocket of this List may already know about, ....or perhaps not... 7. Other update matters/additions to record of last week far too numerous to mention, I certainly intend now to post the above noted very important "NEW" info over next couple days, & before that extended/semi-permanent "sign-off" of mine still SOOooo very necessary for my continued quiet research, & trip, etc...

I meant to provide the following very minor list of corrections/clarifications of my final "shoe" string by last Friday (for my wrap-up postings which I actually never did complete last week, & which I meant to include 1674 CSP statements of Alderman Patience Ward abt Samuel Disbrowe's health, with also update on "Banker DESBOE" deepening with major/significant angles!). Yet, I missed that 'FINAL' posting date due to very enjoyable Halloween "lay-days" which I much prefer taking to posting to this List (who wouldn't!), & since I had said all I cared most about anyway, so have not much wanted to bother with any more for you! However, I have NOW discovered some very "NEW" & extremely important information just uncovered at the CT Historical Society yesterday (Tuesday, 11/6 from the just released two further volumes of the "Great Migration Project") which now requires my posting updates yet AGAIN to this List (will I ever be free of it??....plse recall I most certainly did NOT wish to continue here without "NEW" info to discuss first!!). I now have that very NEW information, which actually turns out to be extremely important to my own project too! This information is undoubtedly "conclusive" specifically regarding our recent debate, while also providing me with absolutely invaluable confirmation of one of my more important/cherished "relational analysis" angles: namely the now 'unquestionable' inter-relationship of the two Disbrowe clans of Samuel/Thomas Disbrowe (at Eltisley) with that of Nicholas Disbrowe (at Saffron Walden), with all its very obvious implication for the several 17th c. Connecticut/New York Disbrow clans. These various confirmations are based upon brand-new, scholarly published analysis (from the "Great Migration Project as pub. in the latest two further volumes in Feb 2001!) as taken from those very same Shire Hall "Disbrow" wills which we have been talking around while never yet having collected them. WHY has this scholar been able to get/decipher these long particular wills and before any of us!!?? I will post this very new info over the next day or two just so long as I may feel comfortable doing so, and am not too 'stressed-out' by the time it may take. So bare with it patiently, please! Some necessary CORRECTIONS to my last string on Halloween: 1. My posting two index listings of Disbrow wills were typed EXACTLY as printed in published index books, copied for Disbrow entries, & my post include no typo errors I'm aware of. These long published "index" books (many decades in print!) are at the Shire Hall in Cambridge, & at other appropriate research sites too (perhaps even at gen libraries in USA??).... So, question must be asked just WHY these many pertinent Disbrow wills have been, for so very long a time now, completely over-looked by various dedicated Disbrow researchers--- while, nevertheless, scholars with "the Great Migration Project" have so readily managed to secure/decipher/interpret these for publication Feb 2001 from the Shire Hall wills of our recent interest??! ....The index books do actually list the following just exactly as I did in my post last week, by leaving-off Disbrow surname from two listings only (if this happened to confuse you!), these are there listed just as I did accurately so from it: "James, Swavesey, yeo. W 1669, WR 10:106 [NOTE: this means "James Disbrow of Swavesey" village];" ...and also: "Sarah, Lt. Eversden, wid. W 1711" [this means Sarah Disbrow, widow, of Little Eversden], ...which indexing oversight is probably of virtually NO importance whatsoever for our use of these very important Disbrow wills. Further, index apprev. "Lt." (as in "Lt. Eversden") simply means "Little...." 2. From my posting re: "Two Early Disbrowe Wills," ...a comma should be where I put a period in first will abstract for "John the Elder," ...after pt # 5 "James Disbrowe" and before "Sean? in the manor of Borrough..." confusing the guy's bequest award. 3. In my recent post about 1612 Disbrowe "manor" house on Eltisley green (also called "the rectory"), next to church, I said a post-rail on a staircase has initials carved for James/Elizabeth Disbrow. The actual carving is a Latinized "ID 1612 ED" and appears on a closed-off doorway lintel, which itself is actually situated on the staircase wall of this 'ancient' house still standing. There is ALSO a very fine published photo of this same lintel carving accessible to you too, also a photo of the house itself & interior of Eltisley church from a widely distributed book available at most large libraries (NOT just university libraries): "County of Cambridge, Volume One West Cambridgeshire" by the Royal Commission On Historical Monuments, pub. 1968 (plate #37 for the lintel in question, ...interior of church & 2 very fine views of the house are on plates 12 & 77). I have long had this excellent information about Eltisley. BTW, that "rectory" house as being owned specifically by James "Elder" & Elizabeth "Marshall" is so indicated by several histories (as below noted too) as well as Mike Sawyer, Eltisley village historian, while the more detailed histories also give much evidence for Mitchells' land ownership at Eltisley and most provocatively MARSHALLS also owning much land at Eltisely (this last for me strengthens argument for that Disbrowe/Marshall partnership owning specifically the 1612 "rectory" house!). So, see these very detailed/excellently footnoted books for much/much more on these sites, w/ many diagrams/maps of the holdings described for our Disbrowes, & very detailed historical information of certainly the most reliable footnoted authority to their pub. date. I have had this information a couple years from my own UConn Libarary. 4. The "manor" house is NOT, in fact, ALSO what is also now known as the "rectory" house (above described w/ lintel). There is a separate house-site, called the "manor of Eltisely," which I have not yet visited there but intend to on my next trip & now via a rented car: ...this house is much reconstructed according to very detailed article abt Eltisley in the above noted very excellent book (this book couldn't be a more thorough guide to our Disbrow residences there with maps & detailed architectural diagrams of the houses involved, available to most of you at your major libraries, with more info also on Elsworth, Hatley (YES, there is such a place!), Harlton (a village noted by Gary Boyd Roberts' "Eng Origins of NE Fams." as yet one more nearby village with many Disbrow vital records too which I have yet to investigate myself!), Dry Drayton, Coton, Barrington (all important to my book research!), Madingley (see plate 14 esp. for a provocative photo of monument to one "Jane Cotton," wife of a "Sir John Cotton" of famous Cotton family lines, ...I have found evidence our Maj. General John Disbrowe was in DIRECT correspondence with famous New England Puritan divine: Rev. John Cotton, of MA Bay Colony for example!). Further, the excellent "Victoria History of English Counties" series on all English county history (also at most libraries) ALSO have absolutely invaluable information on our 17th c. Disbrowes, not just at Eltisley(!!), ....but especially there in VERY great detail as to how they acquired the manor in that village by 1600, etc., the land-ownership relation to Sir Francis Mannock (it appears, from all the somewhat complex land transactions indicated, that our Eltisley Disbrowes may have been particular beneficiaries of some sort of "sequestration" proceedings against the Mannocks earlier land interests at Eltisley, for example,... This is just as later Disbrowes of Interregnum period there were also involved in "sequestering" & holding royalist properties too, & just as I've discovered from Brit Library & PRO/CSP concerning Isaac/Joseph Disbrowe, ...& even "James" as a commissioner of the "Prize Office" for privateering during Civil War: all the Disbrowes being in on the "spoils" system then!...The name of "Richard Cromwell, alias Williams" also crops up in above Victoria history on Eltisley as early-on associated with Disbrowes, right in Eltisley neighborhood,... This was no doubt due, of course, to his own very famous earlier kinsman, "Thomas Cromwell," who was vital advisor to Henry VIII in dissolution of the monasteries, while delivering "spoils" to emergent new Protestant landed gentry, such as Oliver Cromwell's own family line at nearby Huntingdon, and perhaps also to Disbrowes themselves at Eltisley, as I believe no less!! These issues have immense importance for history of this area, and of my book project needless to say!). 6. There are "Rocket" surnames in 17th c. Over vital records, elsewhere also in region, as I've seen & which Chuck Rocket of this List may already know about, ....or perhaps not... 7. Other update matters/additions to record of last week far too numerous to mention, I certainly intend now to post the above noted very important "NEW" info over next couple days, & before that extended/semi-permanent "sign-off" of mine still SOOooo very necessary for my continued quiet research, & trip, etc...

I meant to provide the following very minor list of corrections/clarifications of my final "shoe" string by last Friday (for my wrap-up postings which I actually never did complete last week, & which I meant to include 1674 CSP statements of Alderman Patience Ward abt Samuel Disbrowe's health, with also update on "Banker DESBOE" deepening with major/significant angles!). Yet, I missed that 'FINAL' posting date due to very enjoyable Halloween "lay-days" which I much prefer taking to posting to this List (who wouldn't!), & since I had said all I cared most about anyway, so have not much wanted to bother with any more for you! However, I have NOW discovered some very "NEW" & extremely important information just uncovered at the CT Historical Society yesterday (Tuesday, 11/6 from the just released two further volumes of the "Great Migration Project") which now requires my posting updates yet AGAIN to this List (will I ever be free of it??....plse recall I most certainly did NOT wish to continue here without "NEW" info to discuss first!!). I now have that very NEW information, which actually turns out to be extremely important to my own project too! This information is undoubtedly "conclusive" specifically regarding our recent debate, while also providing me with absolutely invaluable confirmation of one of my more important/cherished "relational analysis" angles: namely the now 'unquestionable' inter-relationship of the two Disbrowe clans of Samuel/Thomas Disbrowe (at Eltisley) with that of Nicholas Disbrowe (at Saffron Walden), with all its very obvious implication for the several 17th c. Connecticut/New York Disbrow clans. These various confirmations are based upon brand-new, scholarly published analysis (from the "Great Migration Project as pub. in the latest two further volumes in Feb 2001!) as taken from those very same Shire Hall "Disbrow" wills which we have been talking around while never yet having collected them. WHY has this scholar been able to get/decipher these long particular wills and before any of us!!?? I will post this very new info over the next day or two just so long as I may feel comfortable doing so, and am not too 'stressed-out' by the time it may take. So bare with it patiently, please! Some necessary CORRECTIONS to my last string on Halloween: 1. My posting two index listings of Disbrow wills were typed EXACTLY as printed in published index books, copied for Disbrow entries, & my post include no typo errors I'm aware of. These long published "index" books (many decades in print!) are at the Shire Hall in Cambridge, & at other appropriate research sites too (perhaps even at gen libraries in USA??).... So, question must be asked just WHY these many pertinent Disbrow wills have been, for so very long a time now, completely over-looked by various dedicated Disbrow researchers--- while, nevertheless, scholars with "the Great Migration Project" have so readily managed to secure/decipher/interpret these for publication Feb 2001 from the Shire Hall wills of our recent interest??! ....The index books do actually list the following just exactly as I did in my post last week, by leaving-off Disbrow surname from two listings only (if this happened to confuse you!), these are there listed just as I did accurately so from it: "James, Swavesey, yeo. W 1669, WR 10:106 [NOTE: this means "James Disbrow of Swavesey" village];" ...and also: "Sarah, Lt. Eversden, wid. W 1711" [this means Sarah Disbrow, widow, of Little Eversden], ...which indexing oversight is probably of virtually NO importance whatsoever for our use of these very important Disbrow wills. Further, index apprev. "Lt." (as in "Lt. Eversden") simply means "Little...." 2. From my posting re: "Two Early Disbrowe Wills," ...a comma should be where I put a period in first will abstract for "John the Elder," ...after pt # 5 "James Disbrowe" and before "Sean? in the manor of Borrough..." confusing the guy's bequest award. 3. In my recent post about 1612 Disbrowe "manor" house on Eltisley green (also called "the rectory"), next to church, I said a post-rail on a staircase has initials carved for James/Elizabeth Disbrow. The actual carving is a Latinized "ID 1612 ED" and appears on a closed-off doorway lintel, which itself is actually situated on the staircase wall of this 'ancient' house still standing. There is ALSO a very fine published photo of this same lintel carving accessible to you too, also a photo of the house itself & interior of Eltisley church from a widely distributed book available at most large libraries (NOT just university libraries): "County of Cambridge, Volume One West Cambridgeshire" by the Royal Commission On Historical Monuments, pub. 1968 (plate #37 for the lintel in question, ...interior of church & 2 very fine views of the house are on plates 12 & 77). I have long had this excellent information about Eltisley. BTW, that "rectory" house as being owned specifically by James "Elder" & Elizabeth "Marshall" is so indicated by several histories (as below noted too) as well as Mike Sawyer, Eltisley village historian, while the more detailed histories also give much evidence for Mitchells' land ownership at Eltisley and most provocatively MARSHALLS also owning much land at Eltisely (this last for me strengthens argument for that Disbrowe/Marshall partnership owning specifically the 1612 "rectory" house!). So, see these very detailed/excellently footnoted books for much/much more on these sites, w/ many diagrams/maps of the holdings described for our Disbrowes, & very detailed historical information of certainly the most reliable footnoted authority to their pub. date. I have had this information a couple years from my own UConn Libarary. 4. The "manor" house is NOT, in fact, ALSO what is also now known as the "rectory" house (above described w/ lintel). There is a separate house-site, called the "manor of Eltisely," which I have not yet visited there but intend to on my next trip & now via a rented car: ...this house is much reconstructed according to very detailed article abt Eltisley in the above noted very excellent book (this book couldn't be a more thorough guide to our Disbrow residences there with maps & detailed architectural diagrams of the houses involved, available to most of you at your major libraries, with more info also on Elsworth, Hatley (YES, there is such a place!), Harlton (a village noted by Gary Boyd Roberts' "Eng Origins of NE Fams." as yet one more nearby village with many Disbrow vital records too which I have yet to investigate myself!), Dry Drayton, Coton, Barrington (all important to my book research!), Madingley (see plate 14 esp. for a provocative photo of monument to one "Jane Cotton," wife of a "Sir John Cotton" of famous Cotton family lines, ...I have found evidence our Maj. General John Disbrowe was in DIRECT correspondence with famous New England Puritan divine: Rev. John Cotton, of MA Bay Colony for example!). Further, renowned "Victoria History of English Counties" series on all English county history (also at most libraries) ALSO have absolutely invaluable information on our 17th c. Disbrowes, not just at Eltisley(!!), ....but especially there in VERY great detail as to how they acquired the manor in that village by 1600, etc., the land-ownership relation to Sir Francis Mannock (it appears, from all the somewhat complex land transactions indicated, that our Eltisley Disbrowes may have been particular beneficiaries of some sort of "sequestration" proceedings against the Mannocks earlier land interests at Eltisley, for example,... This is just as later Disbrowes of Interregnum period there were also involved in "sequestering" & holding royalist properties too, & just as I've discovered from Brit Library & PRO/CSP concerning Isaac/Joseph Disbrowe, ...& even "James" as a commissioner of the "Prize Office" for privateering during Civil War: all the Disbrowes being in on the "spoils" system then!...The name of "Richard Cromwell, alias Williams" also crops up in above Victoria history on Eltisley as early-on associated with Disbrowes, right in Eltisley neighborhood,... This was no doubt due, of course, to his own very famous earlier kinsman, "Thomas Cromwell," who was vital advisor to Henry VIII in dissolution of the monasteries, while delivering "spoils" to emergent new Protestant landed gentry, such as Oliver Cromwell's own family line at nearby Huntingdon, and perhaps also to Disbrowes themselves at Eltisley, as I believe no less!! These issues have immense importance for history of this area, and of my book project needless to say!). 6. There are "Rocket" surnames in 17th c. Over vital records, elsewhere also in region, as I've seen & which Chuck Rocket of this List may already know about, ....or perhaps not... 7. Other update matters/additions to record of last week far too numerous to mention, I certainly intend now to post the above noted very important "NEW" info over next couple days, & before that extended/semi-permanent "sign-off" of mine still SOOooo very necessary for my continued quiet research, & trip, etc...

I have TWO index listings for Disbrow wills, from two separate sources, as below listed. All wills are available, I believe for nominal copying costs, from the Shire Hall in Cambridge I. INDEX of Probate Records of Court of Archdiocese Ely 1513-1857, ed. Thurley: DISBOROW, John, sen., Eltisley, yeo. W 1574, WR 3:191 Disborough, Bruno, Eltisley, yeo. W 1581, WR 3:355, Desberowe, Geoffrey, Whaddon, yeo. W 1623, WR 7:317 Dysbrowe, James, sen., Eltisley, yeo. W 1638, WR 8:380 Disborough, William, Cambridge baker. W 1648, WR 9:107 Disbrow (sig. Disbrowe), William, Toft, yeo. W 1666, WR 10:64 James, Swavesey, yeo. W 1669, WR 10:106 Disbrowe, Luke, Cambridge, W 1701, WWR 11:74 Disbrow, James, Swavesey, husb./yeo. W 1704 Disbrowe, James, Eltisley, clerk. W 1704 Sarah, Lt. Eversden, wid. W 1711 Disbrow, Ann, Comb. St. Edward, wid. W 1714, WR 11:221 Disbury, William, Cambridge, Publican. W 1851, WR 22:192 II. INDEX Consistory Court of Ely Probate Records 1449-1858, Part 1: A-E., p. 330-331. [NOTE: Please note one interesting "Elizabeth Disbrow" will, below listed, of 1625 at Swaffham Bulbeck. ALSO note one "Thomas Disburhow of Duxford, & one Ann Disbrough of there too, in 1693 & 1695. This is that particular "Thomas" whom I was trying to recall as "maybe died abt 1696 or so," from my posting abt the mysterious letter writer of 1664 named Thomas Desborow, letter I copied at British Library, etc. The seacaptain Disbrow I have also since recalled as one "Captain Charles Disbrow" who died in 1723 ("of the navy"; obit. 8 Mar 1723. from "Musgraves Obituaries prior to 1800" compiled by Sir Wm Musgrave, bart.). There is also a listing I have for one "Thomas Desborow, gentleman of London," who would certainly best fit the bill for that mysterious letter writer of 1664, but must get his will abstract as dated 1687, #76 Canterbury Wills Proved Prerogative Court of Canterbury 1686-1693.] Disborow, Disbrowe, Agnes, Brinkley, sp. VC 20:240, 1594 CW Dysborowe, Alice, Horseheath, GV 18:158, 1579 als. Rolfe, Ann, Brinkley, wife of John of Cheshunt, Herts. GV 22:107, 1693 Disbrough, Ann, Duxford, wid. GV 35:218, 1695 CW In Disbro, Austin, Lt.Wilbraham, 1680 In Disborowe, Elizabeth, Swaffham Bulbeck, sp. VC 26:299, 1625 CW Disbrow, Elizabeth, Over, wid. VC 47:116, 1803 CW Desborough, Elizabeth, Wisbech St.Peter, wid. VC 59:400 l855 CW Disbrow, Isaac, Over, bricklayer VC 39:45, 1728 CW In Dysborewe, James, Burrough Green VC 20:385, 1597 CW; VC 20:385, 1617 AWR Disborowe, (i) Disbrow, James, Burrough Green, yeo., VC 31:392, 1680 CW In Disbrowe, (ns) Disbrow, James, Over, yeo. VC 35:605?, 1702 CW In Disbrow, James, Over, carpenter, VC 41:37, 1741 CW Disbrow, James, Cottenham, grocer, VC 41:248, 1748 CW Disbrow, Johanna, (i) Joan, Over, wid., VC 36:203, 1705 CW In ---John, Stetchworth, VC 8:132 1528 ---John. West Wickham VC 8:168, 1530 CW Disborowe Diabrowe, John, Burrough Green VC 21:64, 1600 Disborowe Dysbrowe, John, Eltisley, yeo. VC 23:23, 1610 Disbrow, John, Chesterton, yeo., maltster VC 36:101, 1704 CW Disbwow, Disbrowe, John, Willingham, woolcomber, 1715 CA In+ Disbrow, John, 0ver, sen., yeo. VC 39:359, 1733 CW In Disbrow, John, Linton, apothecary VC 41 200, 1747 CW Disbrow, John, Over, yeo. VAC 2:72, 1748 CA In+ Disborough, Lawrence, Burrough Green, husb. VC 15:31, 1566 PW Disboroughe, Lawrence, Burrough Green GV 22:33, 1663 Disbrowe, Nathaniel, Over, (p) yeo., 1651 CW Disbrow, Nathaniel, Over, yeo. VC 38:407, 1727 CW In Disbrough, Disbrow, Samuel, Stutney, Ely, Holy Trinity, 1755 CW/1757 CW Disbrow, (i) Disborough, Samuel, Stuntney, Ely, yeo., (i) Thorney Farm, Stutney, Ely Holy Trinity, (i) landfarmer, dairyfarmer, 1757 CA & GAP In+ Desborow, (p) Disbrow, Samuel, Thorney [sic], yeo., 1762 CW Disbrow, Sarah, Chesterton, wid., 1720 CA In+ Disburhow, Thomas, Duxford, [1693]In Disbrow, Thomas, Stuntney, Ely Holy Trinity, farmer, 1759 CW Dasborewe, William, Tydd St.Giles VC 18:60, VC 19:2, 1584 CW Disborowe, William, Swaffham Bulbeck VC 20:80, 1591 CW Disbrow, William, Lt.Eversden, husb.?, 1696 In Disbrow, William, Chesterton, malster, VAC 1:32, 1704 CA In+ Disbrow, (ns) Desbrow, William, Over, carpenter VC 46:115, 1797 CW Desbrough, William, Rampton, yeo. VC 57:406 1846 CW

Eltisley, Cambs. BAPTISMS - Disbrow family only 17 Aug 1606....Jacobus, ..........son of Jacobus jun & Elizabeth Disbrow 10 Apr 1608.....Elizabeth, .......dau. " James jun* & Elizabeth Disbrow 13 Dec 1608....John, ...............son " Jacobus sen & Elizabeth Disbrow 8 Oct 1609......John, ...............son " Jacobus jun Disbrow [no wife noted by name*] 3 Mar 1610......William, ...........son " Jacobus sen & Elisabeth Disborow 22 Jun 1611.....Joseph, ...........son " Jacobus jun & Elisabeth Disborow 13 Sep 1612.....Nathaniell,........son " Jacobus jun & Elisabeth Disbrow 18 Aug 1613.....Bruno, ............son " Jacobus sen & Elisabeth Disbrow 30 Apr 1615......Isaac, .............son " Isaac & Mary Disbrow 9 May 1615...... Rebecca, ........dau. " Jacobus jun & Elisabeth Disbrow 27 Oct 1616......Bruno, ............son " Jacobus sen & Elisabeth Disbrow 16 Feb 1616......John, ..............son " Isaac & Mary Disbrow 1 Aug 1617........Susan, ...........dau. " Jacobus sen & Elizabeth Disbrow 15 Feb 1618......Anna, ..............dau. " Jacobus sen & Elizabeth Disbrow 3 Nov 1619........Elizabeth, ........dau. " Isaac & Mary Disbrow 23 Nov 1619.......Dina, ...............dau. " Joseph Disbrow [no wife noted] 30 Nov 1619.......Samuell, ...........son " Jacobus & Elizabeth Disbrow 20 Aug 1622.......Elizabeth, ........dau. " Jacobus & Elizabeth Disbrow 23 Feb 1622.......Mathew, ..........son " Jacobus sen? & Elizabeth Disbrow 29 Jun 1624........Samuell,...........son " Isaac & Mary Disbrow 2 Mar 1624.........Isaac, ...............son " Jacobus & Elizabeth Disbrow 25 Oct 1625........Thomas, ...........son " Jacobus sen & Elizabeth Disbrow 25 Oct 1626........Hannah, ............dau " Isaac & Mary Disbrow 1 May 1627.........Sara,.................dau " Jacobus jun & Elizabeth Disbrow 26 Sep 1627........Elizabeth, ..........dau " Jacobus jun & Elizabeth Disbrow 26 Dec 1627........Annis, ...............dau " Jacobus sen & Elizabeth Disbrow 12 Dec 1628........Samuell, ...........son " Isaac & Mary Disbrow 7 Jan 1628...........Elizabeth, .........dau " Jacobus sen & Elizabeth Disbrow 9 Mar 1630...........James, ............son " Isaack & Mary Disbrow 24 Aug 1632.........Nathaniel, ........son " Isaak & Mary Disbrow 9 Apr 1635............Sarah*, .............dau " Isaack & Mary Disbrowe 15 Feb 1641..........Jacobus, ..........son " John & Ann Disbrowe 24 Dec 1646..........Isaac, ..............son (born) " Isaac jun & Elizabeth Disbrow 9 Apr 1649.............Elizabeth, ........dau " Isaac jun* & Elizabeth Disbrow >From 1653 to 1657 the dates are of births not baptisms. 10 Nov 1653...........Susanna, .........dau " Isaac Disbrow [no wife noted] 26 Feb 1654...........Isaac, ..............son " Isaac Disbrow " 5 Jul 1655...............Mary, ..............dau " Samuell Disbrow " 26 Mar 1657............Elizabeth, ........dau " John Disbrow " 30 Apr 1657.............Mary, ............. dau " Isaac Disbrow " "NO DISBROWS AFTER THIS DATE" [indicates Eltisley village historian: Mike Sawyer] NOTE: The above is based on modern microfiche lists, labelled as "Eltisley, Cambridgeshire - Bishops Transcripts," at the Cambridge Central Library (CCL) in downtown Cambridge, Cambs., England. I have indicated with a star [*] where Mike Sawyer diverges (only very slightly) from the "Bishop's Transcripts" list at CCL. You will note in the first starred item (1608) Mike Sawyer simply omits indication of either "jun" or "sen" for the father, James (which issue has been of such great interest to us recently). In 1635, he simply dropped one "a" at end of given-name for Sarah, & in 1649 he agian omitted a "jun" designation. These few indicated errors are obviously his own very minor transcription mistakes when he hand wrote out his list for me last December, 2001. His information, therefore, seems to conform quite well with the CCL material, from which he may have derived it. This means that a 'peek' at the ORIGINAL 17th c. documents is in order for me as planned for my next trip to England this fall, and it is also in order for anyone else with a "need-to-know" about this information. You will also note there is a "?" next to the "sen" designation for "23 Feb 1622, Mathew, son of Jacobus sen? & Elizabeth Disbrow." This is as it appears in the CCL material. Further all surnames are exactly as spelled in the CCL material. Surprisingly, there are only 5 divergent spellings indicated in the CCL material from that of the modern surname spelling of "Disbrow." Two early list divergent spellings of surname as "Disborow" is as indicated in the will abstract I believe we discussed recently too: for James the Elder. While all professional genealogists always caution against ever making too much of surname spellings (particularly secondary spellings usually doen phonetically), it is nevertheless "fun" to speculated on the evolution of how the name is being spelled over time. Please note that later, by 1635-41, there are two attempts indicated to spell the surname as "Disbrowe," according to the preference of the Major General and Samuel who are not known by records to have spelled it themselves in any other way. So saying, I do have yet ONE MORE copiy of the Eltisley VR material, gathered from microfiche at the CCL too. This item I do not quite know how to catagorize, since it only covers later 17th c. years (eg. beginning 1653 for baptisms) and a transcriber, "Mrs. N.K. Travers," is indicated for the year 1992. Her lists are fascinating to me for the many convergent surnames indicated here (& on the CCL material above) which are BOTH at Eltisley and in southern MNew England as well: such names just froim "Baptisms" as Bull, Mansfield (I am now Iiving in "Mansfield," CT, from very early settler of that surname of NEW HAVEN!), Chapman, Peck/e, Wells, Russell,Green/e, Mitchel/l, Peters, Taylor, Robinson, Woodward, Johnson, and several others I previously indicated on this List of undoubted significance to us and the "Disbrow Network." Meanwhile, this transcriber, Mrs. Travers, indicates yetr another sp[elling for Disbrow, as "Disbrough" on 10 Nov 1653, listing "Susanna d. Isaac born". This is her first of only the last three Disbrows noted above in my list since she begins hers much later for inexplicable reason (she spells it "Disbrow" in other two listings!). AGAIN, according to professionals surname spelling is one of the least important of "indicator" issues we should ever be concerned with (though I do think it is "fun" and always interesting!). BRIEF ANALYSIS (I could go on endlessly, OK!): Please note my above list for Eltisley Disbrow baptisms diverges VERY significantly from that which was posted during our recent debate and derived from the error-filled Disbrow-L Archive lists. I have, myself, rarely ever consulted that Archived materila for reasons already given (1. difficulty of access via List Archives w/out knowing e-mail address of presenter; 2. AND because there was some question raised when it was posted in late 2000 as to just how many different "hands" this material went through before its posting to our List--it would seem it was as many as 4 or 5 people). Significant errors are now indicated in the aerlier List for years 1618/19, 1624/25 (as I raised in debate), and with additions apparently now given to that List as well, including "Dina" for year 1619 (23 Nov, dau. Joseph/Mary). I have know idea how many other errors there may be in the Disbrow-L Archive from that material there. It is interesting also to me that while this resolves SOME of the contradictions raised in our recent debate, it by no means resolves all of them obviously, as I indicated then. For example, I also note that Rebecca is listed in my material as dau. to James "jun," which naturally contradicts all available resources I have as to her being the sister of Thomas, who is listed as son to James "sen" (eg: co-authors Eddis Johnson & H.B. Disbrowe in 1986 "English Antecedents," and author Harold B. Disbrowe in 1976 "Interim Report," etc). Rebecca is also, of course, clearly identified as the SISTER to the 'famous' Samuel Disbrowe in his 1680 will (proved 1690) while Thomas is NOT mentioned there (I have been told many reasons for this: including that a widowed sister in need of support would be recognized, while married sisters with living husbands usually were NOT so, ...just as were not 'lesser,' younger brothers who were far away & out-of-mind in America---did he also discredit Samuel's tenuous hold onto respectabiolity after the Restoration in some way too---whatever, I'm not sure I completely "buy" such arguments! But, we'll see...). Thomas in my above listings is also indicated as a "brother" to that John who is known as the "Major General," by all accepted historical dates for his own birth in 1608 (could these long-accepted dates for that famous birth simply be WRONG ---wouldn't THAT be fun for us to resolve then for history's sake!!--- And was he actually then born on 8 Oct 1609, as the other above "John"??!) I will be closely examining all such possibilities on my trip to England late fall... BTW, a "John Disbrow h. to Ann," shows up as father/mother in Eltisley VR Baptisms by 1641 (given above). These same two parent-names of "Ann & John Disbrow" ALSO show-up in the microfiche VR material I also collected at the CCL for the village of OVER (eg: w/ dau "Elizabeth"--inevitably!!-- born 10 Oct 1653, p. 37, OVER). This is where Elizabeth Hatley herself is believed to have come from and one early mysterious JAMES is burried in 1633, as also noted by Gary Boyd Roberts in his There are also many MORE "Marshall" surnames in the OVER VR material than there are "Hatleys," which surname actually numbers very few there). I will have much more on all this at a later time, esp some analysis re: OVER lists (before my up-coming trip I hope) and about those TWO Elizabeths: Hatley/Marshall, whom I mentioned I hoped to study in earnest just before our recent debate on List (BTW, did you know that some scholarly withcraft researchers have noted that "ELIZABETH" is an unusually well represented given-name among suspected "witches?" See Murray's "Witchcraft Cult in Western Europe" for lists at end of her book, etc!). I may have to delay further report on much of this until AFTER my up-coming trip to England, & in order to check into some sketchy/provocative information which I received last trip too! Regarding these provocative angles: I will have another "shoe to drop" myself (derived from my last trip/requiring confirmation!), this one much more favorable to my recent debater's point-of-view (re. the TWO "James Disbrows"--jun & sen-- of early Eltisley)! Make no mistake about it, I am VERY sympathetic to that point-of-view myself, and planned to approach this p[roblem from the standpoint of the TWO Elizabeths: Hatley & Marshall, which may yet be a a far more fruitful means of approach now (together with the wills at Cambs. Shire Hall). So, there is much more "fun" ahead yet!

RE: TWO Early Eltisley Will Abstracts. The following are two will abstracts from the 1986 Antecedents publication. These demonstrate that how you can go wrong when presuming too much from just ONE source of information only. During our debate I made it clear that we do NOT know exactly when Major General John Disbrowe may have taken over the lands at Eltisley under primogeniture. Was it before his marriage to Jane Cromwell in 1636? I would say that it was. This is because I now know that the James "junior" who is buried at Eltisley churchyard in 1634 and who would have been in line for this land-ownership under primogeniture is not, in fact, that OTHER James "junior" who was his father and also contemporary to James the "Elder." This James of the 1634 grave is likely to have been that James who was brother to the Major General (he could NOT have been that other "James" who was also a son of James the Elder, and older brother to "our" Thomas Disbrowe of 1625 Eltisley bp). So, what's the big deal? Many sources indicate that the Eltisley lands were owned by the Disbrowes long PRIOR to what we also see often on the record as the lease to Isaak Disbrowe from 1650 to 1653 of "Eltisley Manor" (the rectory or manor house which stands near the church is also known to have been built, it is believed from various village "records" including Sawyer's "olde notes," by James the "Elder" for his wife Elizabeth Marshall in 1612). While the famous general is also known to have bought this "manor" from Sir Francis Mannock in 1657, and the general then "devised it to his eldest surviving son, Valentine," who held the manor in 1706 but had been succeeded by a John Disbrowe by 1710. According to the Sawyer "olde notes" again only referred to for my convenience sake (also see Henry Waters, etc): "The manor is said to have been devised by John Disbrowe, by will dated 1741, to the two sons of his nephew, William Walford of Bocking, Essex" (curiously, BOCKING is exactly where Samuel Disbrow's own brother-in-law back in Connecticut, who is another of my own ancestors: Rev. James Fitch, came from back in olde as well: with both Fitch & Disbrowe marrying Whitfield daus. at the old stone house in Guilford, CT two years apart in 1640's!). Here is what we have in the very early will abstracts for the progenitor Disbrow gens (taken from Johnson/Disbrowe's 1986 "The Disbrowes of Canada & Their English Antecedents"): John Disborowe the Elder of Eltisley , Yoeman (1526?-1574) Will dated 14 September 1574, probated 24 September 1574, bequeathed (1) to son John Disbrow, the freehold lands at Eltisley, but if he dies before his heirs are twenty-one years old [note: isn't it interesting how these old traditions still bear-up with respect to 21 yrs as a designation even today!]., then other son Brunow Disborow is to be trustee of the land; John is to pay annually 40 shillings to John's mother Alice Disborow; (2) to son Bruno, the copyhold land in the manor of Eltisley and to pay a like sum to his mother; (3) to wife Alice, household goods in the manor house of Eltisley [note: "manor house"!], cattle, sheep, pigs, poultry, and grain; (4) to daughter Johane, 40pds; (5) to James Disbrowe (relationship not given [NOTE: this fact is very unfortunate now for us 'moderns' in splitting up the families as we now have, since this demonstrates we cannot be sure of any absolutely obvious blood relation between the two divided-up families later listed under both James jun & sen!]). Sean? in the manor of Burrough [is this related to village of Burrough Green and the Burrowes families at Over also?] on payment of 20pds; (6) to son Bruno, Sean? of parsonage of Eltisley [NOTE: this demonstrates "advowson" also perhaps invvolved here above??]; (7) to every grandchild, 40 shillings; (8) son John, Sean of manor of Eltisley; (9) to sons John and Bruno, the residual; and (10) executors to be John and Bruno. IMPORTANT NOTE ON ABOVE WILL: I have a hand-written footnote at bottom of my abstract copy of above, & as written by a long respected/hard working Disbrow researcher who has indicated she believes that the James noted above so mysteriously also had a SON also named "James," bp c 1580, who had married our "Elizabeth Marshall". Please also note there is yet one more James who is son also to another JOHN, called "younger" in will abstract below! John Disborowe the Younger of Eltisley, Yoeman (c. 1550-1610) Will dated 27 August 1608, and probated on 23 June 1610 [NOTE: he shows up buried 24 May 1610 at Eltis.]; bequeathed (1) Manor of City Camps otherwise Shudy Camps (in Shudy Camps, Horseheath, and Bartlow) to wife Joan until second son Joseph Disbrow reaches 21 years or if he dies to third son Izhak Disborowe at 21 years or if he dies to fourth son Nathaniel Disborowe at 21 years [note: there is a "Joseph Disbrowe" I have from the Calendar of State Papers-Domestic , p. 586 for Comm For Advance of Money on 18 Aug 1645, who holds the Bull tavern owned by a Royalist soldier named Col Ed. Searle---I think this is the SAME "Joseph Disbrowe" since other Eltisley Disbrowes were also holding and "sequestering" the spoils of civil war, including both Isaac and James Disbrowe too!! NOTE #2: could Nath'l, above mentioned in will, also be that Nath'l noted at Over VR, who is clearly having babies well before the Nath'l of Eltisley, who is brother to famous Major General, could possibly have been of age??]; (2) lands in county of Hertford to wife and to son Nathaniel at 21 years; (3) cash legacies to Izhak and Nathaniel and to daughter Sara Disbrowe at marriage or 21 years; (4) cash legacies to children of Alice Pomfrett "my daughter" at 21 years [NOTE: most interestingly, there is this very same "Pomfret" surname among Saffron Walden clan of Hartford's Nicholas Disbrowe too, and also as mentioned in Rose Hobson Disbrowe's will of 1698, widow to Samuel Disbrowe]; to children of Francis Waspe my daughter" at 21 years; to children of eldest son James Disborowe at 21 years; and (5) executrix & residuary legates, wife Joan. Administration granted to wife Joan 2 June 1610.

RE: My "other shoe" now drops...partly! TENTATIVELY (absent further info from my 2nd trip to England), I substantially agree with the two "James Disbrowes theory"' of the division of the early 17th c. Eltisley Disbrow children, including that Thomas (bp 1625) is son to James "the Elder" just as stated in the Eltisley Bishop's Transcripts I have, while the famous Major General is the son of the "Elder's" contemporary: that mysterious James "junior" (yet, with obviously important questions/"equivocations" still unresolved). This requires that we consider the long established historical birth-date of the famous Major General John Disbrowe to be entirely mistaken (as a"historian," such is naturally difficult for me to go along with casually & without knowing better ALL the historical sources for that date----has it been only just Rev. Mark Noble in 18th c.?). Therefore, the Major General had to have been alternatively baptised on 8 Oct 1609 as that "other" mysterious John (to father James "junior") and NOT on the baptismal date of 13 Dec 1608 so long believed by the DNB and other sources. While there were yet OTHER "John Disbrows" of his generation, or just after, floating around in the area (as you will see below), I believe we can "tentatively" account for the TWO of these that we have seen in the Eltisley record recently argued over. Furthermore, I have in fact "sympathized" with the above position from the very beginning of our debate, just as indicated by several of my postings during it (see esp. "Hang In There, Carl", etc, where I reference this fact & another "shoe to drop"!). IT was always NECESSARY to test this "hunch"/hypothesis as rigorously as possible, given all that was at stake (& I do NOT mean for my book-project alone, which in many ways can argue either side easily, while actually finding the above "hypothesis" far more easy to swallow as "plausible" for MANY important reasons). The reason for my own long-standing "sympathy" above will now become obvious below, via that other "shoe" previously noted during the debate, and which very provocative "new fact" I have had in my possession since my first trip to England last December (but which still needs confirmation/resolution during my 2nd planned trip, due to serious unresolved questions about it!). Before our debate, I was in the midst of reviewing the maiden-name issue related to this "fact" (namely the Elizabeth Hatley/Marshall conundrum) and was generally unprepared to conclude anything about this matter until after my up-coming trip to England! This maiden-name issue is the obverse of the two James theory/"hunch." I did NOT always understand or recognize the significance of the "fact" ("shoe") in my possession despite it being a part of my "bible" of closely consulted documents on the Eltisley Disbrowes. I have had many questions about it. Therefore, I'd have much preferred that our "debate" occur AFTER my up-coming 2nd trip to England, planned in part because of my many questions about this issue, questions I already had at the ready during our debate as you've seen since I had been asking them of myself. I had NOT yet resolved some of these by then. I still have not for many others as raised in our debate, etc... Meanwhile, this particular "shoe" flatly contradicts one particularly cherished "proven fact" advanced as obvious by my opposite in our recent debate. Namely, the issue of just WHO may be buried in that 1634 Eltisley grave...THIS is not as obvious as he presumed just from his one source of the Bishop's Transcripts for Eltisley alone, re: the two James "JUNIORS" we know about from that source in early Eltisley. This question is necessarily/inextricably bound-up with the far MORE important question of just WHEN the Major General succeeded to proprietorship of the lands at Eltisley manor under primogeniture, ...not to mention his own more accurate birthdate, despite established "history" now in need of revision. All of which interrelated issues raise vitally important new "history" concerning the Major General's extremely "famous" career, as so long recounted in history books... So bear with me, if you don't mind! WHY then has this issue of the two-family division above been so difficult for some "old Disbrowe hands" to accept (including the 1986 authors Johnson & Disbrowe??), esp. after some of us have consulted more than just the Eltisley VR records alone? Partly because in order to accept this new line-up ("hunch") of the two contemporary James Disbrow families from that one VR source at very early 17th c. Eltisley, we must also accept a very odd fact (now all too un-"equivocal"), one which is expressly 'counter-intuitive.' Namely: that there existed, side-by-side, two James Disbrow families at tiny Eltisley village (obviously related by blood, but now even THAT can a bit less certain) who also each had IDENTICALLY named first & second sons: both w/ given-names of "James" & "John," while ADDITIONALLY having identically named wives too: "Elizabeth!" This is carrying "witchy" coincidence to the level of the absurd, of course... But such is the case, unless I'm somehow now mistaken about this odd complex of facts (which I cannot seem to get past by way of explanation other than as fascinating "COINCIDENCE," which even to me seems a bit unusual). This is now "proven" by that 1614 will of James Disbrow the Elder I keep mentioning.... And isn't HE still the guy who fathered "Thomas" according to all Eltisley VR material yet available (....obviously, all usual "good sense" about such VR records says we cannot reassign Thomas simply due to some "equivocations" from these limited VR records only)? All of which (above) I have been at great, & increasingly distressing, pains to point out during our debate. Here's how curious it can get: the 1614 "will" of the Elder James only further deepens this mystery when it refers to "my NOW eldest son James"(---my upper-case emphasis is added!). So then, what son could have come before that "NOW" eldest son James, ...especially recalling that this father, the "Elder," supposedly had married one "Elizabeth Marshall" only by 1 August 1605 (according to the limited Eltisley VR material alone; ... & was it even a "first" marriage?), and that same VR material only records just ONE "James son" anywhere to any Disbrow line then, that one as baptized only one year later (&, bafflingly, this son can "only" be the son to that OTHER contemporary of the Elder James: that so mysterious "James junior")! Where do we fit in TWO sons for James the ELDER within just a year after his marriage to Eliz. Marshall then??! MY POINT IS THIS: where is that OTHER "James" offspring of James the ELDER to be found on any record (anywhere??), and if, in fact, the Elder was ALSO just married barely one year before the first known Eltisley bp record of 17 Aug 1606, recording one "James as son of James JUNIOR" (when these VR begin altogether)....Such are obviously important questions, never posed just to be confusing (if my opposite once may have suspected )! I have found nothing else on this problem in the Over vital records I have, or from my own far more limited Burrough Green, Elsworth, Haddenham, etc, VR material so far....PLEASE RECALL THAT THIS DEBATE CAME JUST AT A TIME WHEN I WAS REVIEWING ALL THIS MATERIAL INCLUSIVELY, AND HAD ALREADY DECIDED TO GO TO ENGLAND AGAIN TO AUTHENTICATE SEVERAL RECORDS. WELL, so now perhaps you see my dillemma.... Further, my review over the past week (after our debate) of ALL my own available evidence has been helpful in demonstrating that no "William" (from James Elder's 1614 will naming him "3rd son"), as I once thought I'd seen however, was ever born ELSEWHERE "additionally" for our witchy pairings. Nor did he ever die early enough to subsequently be entirely ignored by the other source materials I have for Samuel Disbrowe, for example, which mentions no "William" in his pedigree or will as thereby possibly being his "brother" too. See Samuel's 1680 will & 1684 pedigree, which latter item is actually very surprisingly inadequate, in several respects...such as failing to note also his own sister Rebecca Green!! I have already, in our debate, indicated one possible reason for this pedigree's inadequacy, via the separately indicated feeble health of Samuel by then. His incapacities were already being spoken about by his own brother-in-law, London Lord Mayor Sir Patience Ward, on the record from a decade earlier (when Ward was Alderman) concerning Samuels attempt to be named CAmbridgeshire Sheriff then & oppositon by Ward due to Samuel's health issues by 1674, including deafness & being "moped"or listless, 10 years before his 1684 pedigree was taken in a "visitation"---se my following post on this matter specifically). The same as above for William, in my subsequent research the past week after debate, is also true for "Nathaniel," who is himself acutally listed by the 1684 pedigree (though NOT by Samuel's 1680 will significantly!), thereby being identified as a "brother" unlike the William above (while a "Nathaniel" is also noted as "brother" in the 1654 Wm. Leete letter, printed by Henry Waters in his Gen Gleanings, THIS Nathaniel is confusingly only one Nath'l WHITFIELD, and not a Disbrowe by blood---see Waters footnotes on this also!). Concerning which given-name of "Nathaniel," there are still MANY confusions/questions from the early 17th c. OVER vital records with respect to various Nath'l DISBROWS indicated there and even preceding the Eltisley bp one from 13 Sept 1612, however. I particularly wanted to note William Disbrowe above expressly because he demonstrates that the three known brothers as fathered by the Elder James (by 1614 will) were EACH born long prior to two BRUNO Disbrow Eltisley baptisms (followed soon after by "their" obvious burial listings) from that very same Elder's line (by the VR record alone). Therefore, it is not INEVITABLY obvious that this line is simply naming these later "Bruno" sons for a mysterious progenitor of this line who is also named "Bruno," & thereby in order to inevitably tie this line expressly to that still mysterious, earlier generation which did include a "Bruno." I do not say ALL this just in order to be confusing, OK!? Further, there are several other confusing William Disbrowe references on the record elsewhere, including via Gary Boyd Roberts will abstract for a Cambridge baker who died 1648. Without giving too much away, I will say that THIS William is especially interesting to me since, while Robert's will abstract mentions NO familiar surnames relating to the Eltisley Disbrowes, it does mention one surname at least which is somewhat provocative of my major thesis about Thomas of Fairfield, CT: ....namely, the surname "Bassett." While I originally intended to post some OVER VR analysis to this List I now NO longer intend doing so since all this "mess" has tended to be "over-reacted" to while simply raising endless rounds of further time-consuming explanation. However, I will say this much about the OVER VR here: There are a great MANY "provocative" surname convergences in that material: "name magic" (among other provocative connecting links), far too many for "coincidence" alone in my estimation. Such links as between the many Disbrows there & familiar surnames also closely associating with our Disbrows at early southern New England, and also at Eltisley more naturally! These surnames include GREENE, Webb, Jackson, HATLEY (there are TWO Hatley's on record at very early southern New England, inclding on ship HOPEWELL I believe it was and certainly at Milford, CT one "Philip," who returned to England 1649, within a year of Samuel Disrowe's return too), BULL (this at Hartford with Nicholas Disbrowe, etc), CROUTCH (a "Crowtch" spelling appears early 17th c. Eltisley VR too, this surname is similarly spelled as "Crouch" by Schenk in her "History of Fairfield," but usually appears as "Couch" at Fairfield, CT, Compo>> they are next-door neighbors to my own Thomas Disbrow there & figure prominently into my book-project; "Cooch" is also a variant spelling which apears in 18th c. Eltisley VR!!), Palmer, Mills (see Rose Hobson Disbrow's will & Samuel's too), HOBSON, Bond, Barnes, Peck/Pecke (one "Paul Peck of Ell-tisley" is listed as ship paasenger by one of Banks books, probably the guy at Htfd!), Coopar/COOPER, Gunton, Burrowes (this one is very provocative in many ways), Harvie, Frost, Finch, FARRINGTON (very many here, & shows up w/ Isaac Disbrow's ship passenge to NE, fascinating to my thesis!), Ward, Hull (another very early CT surname of my own ancestry who marreid a later Disbrow of mine), Willigo (from will abstract we tried deciphering recently), Woodward, Hawkins, Kirbye, Ellis, Clarke, GRAY, MARSHALL, Spenser, many MANSFIELD references (surname at New Haven & the current name of my own hometown in CT!), BENTON, STOCKER, COE, Bodger, Jones, Holland, Gates, Burton, RICHARDSON (at NE & maiden name of wife to goldsmith John Disbrow; recall "banker DESBOE" which I discoverd at Bank England Museum >>there are several surnames of "DESBROW" on Over records too), Barons, Smith (ha, ha), Fransum (in a barely deciphered Disbrow will I have), Hall, Thompson, etc.... Finally, there is my own "SQUIRE" surname which shows up several times at Over and at Eltisley VR BOTH. While more commonplace than Disbrow, this surname is not only connected to my own Mercy Disbrow's witch trial in 1692 in several ways, it is also associated closely with her own stepfather: the Rev. John Jones of early Fairfield, CT. Rev. Jones was "ordained deacon" at Peterborough in 1613 (per F.C. Hart, TAG, 1996) after which time he certainly associated there with his close family friend, Sgt George Squire of that same place in England, who accompanied him to Fairfield by 1644. I note with interest from my Cambridge University ALumni CD (which unaccountably includes more Essex/Cambridgeshire 17th c. DISBROWs as alumni than has so far been posted to the D-List recently, or which may appear in Alumni Cantabrigensis book reference alone too!): one BRUNO DISBOROUGH also was "ordained deacon"and "priest" at this very same Peterborough, Eng. in 1630, & at a time when our Rev. John Jones was "probably rector" at Abbot's Ripton, HUNTS... So then, it is NOT particularly in my interest to neglect any possible association of any Bruno Disborowe of Eltisley as a possible progenitor for Thomas Disbrow's Eltisley line of James the ELDER, of course! This "Squire" surname also appears as a fellow passenger with one Thomas Desbororw on the ship CROWN MALLIGOE in 1677 as one "Elizabeth Squire," among other obvious Fairfield, CT surnames aboard with him then. Why have respected past Disbrow researchers never caught on to the TWO James Disbrows at early Eltisley?? In preparation for my last trip Dec. 2001, I was sent much important reference material, including material I noted several times in our debate, by Harold B. Disbrow & Eddis Johnson. These two collaborated on a 1986, 60-page "English Antecedents & Their Kinsfolk" publication which flatly ignored (entirely!) the existence of the now so famous "other" James Disbrow (called "junior" at Eltisley VR), as did Johnson in his earlier/identical report called: "Disbrow Families of England" from 1976. Meanwhile, these authors (absurdly to me now!) lumped all the children, some 15 or so, of the two James Disbrows into that one family of James "Elder/senior" (called "the Elder" by them); and which issue would not have seemed too unusual since large families were expected/required then. Oddly enough, these authors also cited the very same Bernice Disbrow vital records material (collected from one Margaret Bone of England in 1975) which was also the basis for the flawed Hutchings posting to our own Disbrow Archive in 2000, and as used by my opposite in our debate far more successfully than the above authors apparently. Why did these past authors do this? I can only come up with one suggestion, after looking at all the sources I have now and before I "peek" at any original 17th c. records on my trip (which was planned, in fact, well before this debate in order to resolve some of these very same "confusions," recall that I began my examination of the Hatley/Marshall conundrum just before this debate, and was in the midst of this review expressly for my trip, when the "hostile" debate ensued!). I can only now speculate these authors entirely overlooked that other James Disbrow (called "junior" and who is certrainly all too obviously in those vital records as contemporary to the ELder) perhaps because the lines of the TWO James seem so identicall in such curiously "witchy" fashion as I outlined in part ONE. I am also sad to report that I believe from my index of Disbrow wills at the Shire Hall (to follow) that there is now NO available will for the contemporary James "junior" in question here. Sorry gang! These authors based each chapter of their reports on the will abstracts for each significant generational progenitor (I therefore have early Disbrow will abstracts for the following from this material: John Disborowe/Elder, John Disborowe Younger, James Disbrowe/Elder, Isaac Disbrowe/Senior, Major Gen. John, Samuel Disbrowe, etc.). The absence of the James "junior" will seems to have been their fatal flaw perhaps. So, what is my so-called "Other Shoe to drop?" I was verbally given information in England which states unequivocally that the James who is buried at Over, dated 20 Jan 1633, is the actual father of Major General John, brother to Samuel Disbrowe (he is also very curiously buried just days before one "Robert Hatley" there too). Though it was not then excluded that Thomas also could have been their brother. While this verbal information must be closely checked against available actual documents I know about which exist in duplicate from the 17th c., I was not able to see the pertinent item listing on my last trip. While these documents themselves clearly also have multiple "equivocations" about them, it is NOT possible for Thomas to have been listed as he is in the Eltisley Disbrow VR under James "the Elder" and still be the son of this other James who is clearly buried at OVER in 1633! James "the Elder" is clearly only that James who is buried at Eltisley on 23 Oct 1638. Although his "Elder" status is not indicated in the Eltisley Bishop's Transcripts, we do have his 1614 will as proved also at that very same time of 1638. So, failing an arbitrary re-assignment of the VR listing for Thomas as being fathered by a "junior" instead of the "senior" (recall that even the Village historian Mike Sawyer mistakenly left out a couple of such designations in his copy for me of this VR, obviously also derived from the Cambridge Central Library material I also collected!), then I must conclude that Thomas is NOT the son of the same father as the famous two Disbrowe brothers of early 17th c. Eltisley. Get it?? I do NOT intend to reveal to you just what this VERBAL information is at this time, how I came by it or how I intend to verify it on my up-coming trip to England. I had once every intention of doing so, but given the ugly tenor of our debate, the ungrateful attitude of many of you, my concerns over some of your own over-reliance on this sometimes too lazy medium...I intend that you should do your own homework now and figure it out for yourselves. Call it your "class assignemnt.". OR, you may simply buy my book when it comes out, as it most CERTAINLY will, for all the many fine new angles I have uncovered, one tenth of which have been shared with this sometimes oddly discourteous List (is it the anonymity of us all that makes us so bold to treat one another so, or are we all just descendants of a "witch"???). Enjoy the hunt.... (Happy Halloween!) SSquires

NOTE: there is NO Hatley listed as Disbrow a wife here, or anywhere else in the inclusive Eltisely VR I have which includes all surnames from the Cambridge Central Library. The contested burial for "Elizabeth Disbrowe" is also obviously only for an infant dau to James "sen," she bp just two days before her burial in the same month, as so indicated below and in my previous posting.. I. MARRIAGES AT ELTISLEY, CAMBS [NOTE: begins 1599 from Cambridge Central Library microfiche]: 5 Aug 1605 DISBROW, James the elder & Elizabeth MARSHALL 6 Dec 1610 HEARNE, Francis & Sara DISBROW 30 Nov 1626 DISBROW, Jacobus & Elizabeth BARRON 13 Jul 1630 DISBROW James & Anna PROBEY 15 Nov 1631 GREENE, George & Rebeckah DISBROW 23 June 1636 DISBROWE, John & Jane CRUMEWELL 2 Aug 1636 COVELL, William & Susanna DISBROWE 1 Nov 1636 DISBROWE, John & Anne STAPLOOE [NOTE: these two names also show up in OVER vital Records as parents there by I believe this is either that John born 1609 to James called "junior," under the new interpretation, OR the John born 1608 and listed as son to James Senior which is the generally accepted past date by historiography for the Major General's birth....Is THIS John ALSO that Cambridge "goldsmith" whom I also call "the Banker Desboe" of the "first bank-note" now on display at Bank of England Museum??) 23 Jan 1639 DISBROVE, Jacobus & Elizabeth WAPLE (spelled "Naple" in Mike Sawyer's Eltisley "olde notes" he gave to me, due to smudged "W" in microfiche copy) FROM LATER HALF OF 17th C. AS TRANSCRIBED BY MRS. N.K. TRAVERS [NOTE: years available are 1654-56, 1663-68, 1678-1900 for marriages; I have through 1759]: 15 Oct 1702 DISBROWE, Elizabeth to Robert Shipsea II. BURIALS AT ELTISLEY, CAMBS [NOTE: begins 1599]: 13 July 1602 DISBROW, John 2 Oct 1608 DISBROW, Elizabeth [NOTE: this is likley that infant dau. of James "Junior" who was bp. 10 April 1608 and not his wife "Elizabeth" since the two James contemporaries keep having children with wives both also named "Elizabeth" afterward] 11 June 1611 DISBOROW, Joseph 27 Aug 1613 DISBROW, Bruno [NOTE also here for my intrerest value immediately below the above entry for Bruno Disbrow: 20 Jan 1613 SQUIRE, John 5 Nov 1615 SQUIRE, Annis appears lower down on page.....recall that one Elizabeth SQUIRE was also on passenger list for ship famous to us: "Crown Malligoe," with one "Thomas Desborow" in 1677 to Maryland; there were then also many "Squire" at Fairfield, CT from family of Sgt. George Squire who was originally from Peterborough, Eng.,...and one "Bruno Disbrough" is listed as Cambridge Alumnus who was ordained pastor at Peterborough by 1630!!] 17 July 1618 DISBROW, Bruno [NOTE: the two listed "Bruno" burials are both probably infants from family of James called "Senior" under baptisms] 1 March 1623 DISBROW, Mathew 29 Dec 1627 DISBROW, Annis 20 Oct 1628 DISBROW, Samuell 9 Jan 1628 DISBROW, Elizabeth [NOTE: this person is emphatically NOT listed with any maiden-name of "Hatley" in my material, and she is probably the infant daughter of James called "Senior" baptised just two days before on 7 Jan 1628] 15 March 1630 DISBROW, James son of Isaack 1 Dec 1634 DISBROWE, Jacobus jun [NOTE: for various reasons to become clear in a subsequent posting immediately following, I believe this person is James called "junior" son to James also called "junior" in these records who is actually buried at OVER in 1633] 23 Oct 1638 DISBROWE, Jacobus [NOTE: this is likely that James called "Elder" in the 1614 will which was proved also in 1638] 11 June 1639 DISBROWE, Sarah 17 Oct 1647 DISBROW, Jacobus son of Isaac jun [NOTE: burial of one "Thomas GRAY" is listed for 3 May 1654, this is the only Gray on record here; recall "Gray" was surname neighboring my Thomas Disbrow at Compo, Fairfield, CT; also note one "Paul Pecke" buried at Eltisley in 1658; a PAul Peck of ELL-tisley took ship for New England according to a book entry from Banks I have, a "Paul Peck" was neighbor to Nicholas Disbrowe at Hartford from an early date too... 30 Jan 1656 MARSHALL, John son of Phillip: a "Phillip Marshall" is listed as witness in the 1614 will of James the "Elder"] 1658 DISBROW, Mary wife of Isaac the elder 1658 DISROW, Isaac junior THE FOLLOWING IS FROM THE N.K.TRAVERS TRANSCRIPTION MICFROFICHE AT CCL [covering years only for 1653-57, 1665-1670, 1679-1723, 1737-1900]: [14 May 1654 PECK, Paul s. Paul 26 Aug 1654 PECK, Frances d. John 30 Jan 1656 MARSHALL, John s. of Phillip] 26 March 1657 DISBROW, Elizabeth d. John [NOTE: this is yet one more "Elizabeth Disbrow," dau. apparently of either John of two we know of prob. born either 1608 or 1609!! She was left OFF the Mike Sawyer VR list which I also have for burials...] 17 Sept 1680 Disbrowe, John [NOTE: this is the famous Major General] 11 June 1681 DISBROW, Lydia 6 Aug 1686 DISBROWE, Lydiah 19 Oct 1701 DISBROWE, Nathaniel 25 Dec 1703 DISBROWE, James clerk "NO DISBROW BURIALS AFTER THIS DATE" [oer my records and statement of Mike Sawyer, Eltisley village historian]

RE: Happy HALLOWEEEEEN....Mercy Disbrow was convicted of witchcraft, 28 Oct 1692. Anyone who hates my "style," etc., should plse skip this bit....So what does "September 11" have to do with it!? I guess this List would be a pretty "dead" place, Halloween or not, without me around to liven it up!! It's been a real joy past couple weeks to turn on my computer and NOT see any Disbrow-L hostilities, or other nonsense, forcing yet another round of ugly response re: "factual equivocations," etc... Unfortunately, it seems there's NO end to it with this particular "hobbyists" forum I do fear. While it may have been an enjoyable "debate" for some "lurkers," it became otherwise for its 2 principal participants. Since I live at a university community where "vigorous" (read rigorous!) debate is very normal and expected, I cannot appreciate the unaccountable hostility I encountered debating extremely important issues here. As promised some while ago (before my lovely, now extended "Columbus Day vacation" from this List), I will be posting, immediately following, the final two legs of the Eltisely vital records (marriages/burials), neither of which has EVER been my obligation to provide to you, of course. I expect this somewhat onerous effort will be properly appreciated by the great majority of you, with or without further personal concerns over my otherwise "odd" habits (which, unfortunately for some, even trifocals could not help them to appreciate/ignore). These "new" items are posted separately here for better archiving, along with minor "clean-up" information I once intended for your pertinent benefit (I will not be posting after this Friday). I also once intended more for you, but with these few items I take semi-permenant leave of this List (not to return unless posting to the ARCHIVES, which is unlikely since I am content to let my book-project be my future archive). I simply do NOT have time to waste any longer on this List, dealing with sometimes hostile demands upon it, together with truly ingrate discourtesies/strategems from some few minority among you (I have, for example, been personally slandered as being somehow in need of "professional help," by a member OFF-List recently, among other discourtesies while similarly enduring irrelevant hostile "stylistic" comments also over one year ago OFF-List! So, what is up with some few of you characters then (rhetorical Q. only!)?? ...The message I guess: Do NOT mess with some elderly hobbyists and their particular brand of fun! So, "grow-up" already....And yes, I too have my own occasional "senior moments"!). This List also holds few further "charms" considering that also debated "gen" convention of a far too careless, non-contextual posting "style" by some of the more vocal among you "internet jockies" (who actually bother to post), & who can appear to presume far too much from too little (all without any required/expected explanation). As I have also said: some of you seem to rely far too exclusively upon this flawed medium for collecting/trafficking in gen information (apparently as your SOLE source, amazingly enuf?). Therefore, I request that you NOT force me to "unsubscribe" via further entangling vicious debate or ingrate discourtesies regarding this or any other issue following. In fact, I don't wish to carry on further debate via this forum, period... My thanks to Brian Disbury, a friend of Carl Dunn, for correcting a rather significant recent error of his own, concerning the so-called Elizabeth "HATLEY" reference which he claimed to have seen directly from the Bishop's transcripts of Eltisley VR as a recent collector of this information in Cambridgeshire no less. This particular incorrect reference was never in the Eltisely VR I also collected at Cambridge, though I cannot account for any "professional" reference he may have mixed-up from his own notes about this which he has now corrected. I do suspect he may have picked up this mistakne info indirectly from the LDS internet "echo-chamber," where he has told me off-List this info is also posted under a mistaken "1605/1607" listing for the marriage of the Elder James Disbrow(?), rather than a marriage for the more probable/mysterious James "junior" (also of Eltisley and the "Elder's" contemporary). Such a "mix-up" of errors certainly "echos" what I warned about during our debate, both with respect to this medium/internet "echo chambers," as well as w/ respect to far too brief, non-contextual posting of so-called self-evident "lists." Such respectable past Disbrowe researchers as Eddis Johnson & Harold B. Disbrowe also listed this particular, VERY SAME curious error in collaborating on a "published" work way back in 1986 (which I have), where this echoed error may have likely originated (perhaps)... I will deal with other serious errors in the collaboration of these two authors in my once-promised (during the "debate") but never delivered surprising "follow-up" which I labelled then: "The Other Shoe." Ironically too, the two flawed authors based much of their somewhat mistaken research on the very same Bernice Disbrow VR material (based on Bishop's Transcripts) which was also, I believe, basis of Barbara Hutchins sometimes mistaken posting to the Archive in 2000 (so just HOW could the earlier 1986 authors have gotten so much more wrong from that, ....check out my surprisng follow-up post: "The Other Shoe Drops," which post was also promised all-along during our debate!). WE also know that these same 17th c. Bishops Transcripts themselves are just an "office copy" of original Eltisley PARISH records which apparently no longer exist (as recently pointed out by Brian Disbury too). Disbury's correction of his mistaken "Hatley" reference was ALL the more important to me since I had flatly claimed during our debate that NO such "Hatley" surname appears anywhere in the Eltisley vital records I collected (and there are very few such references even in the far more extensive OVER records). This remains the case for my material from the Cambridge Central Library, as you may readily now see from my previously "promised" postings, immediately to follow (I, therefore, am concealing NOTHING!). It was also insinuated by someone else (forcing my I remark about this during debate) that I had sinister reasons for avoiding the promised posting-up of this final leg of the Eltisley VR (burials/marriages). This is info I had innocently enough already promised to post at some point for you (I am NOW doing so,...lucky you!). Any "internet jockey" who mistrusts anyone else's motives to such an extent then simply has some obligation to secure such information independently for him/herself, instead of just riding the backs of those so apparently mistrusted at second-hand. This is exactly what I did with respect to the "flawed" Eltisley VR material in the Archives posted in 2000 (after some minor questions arose then over who originally collected this material). I do wish to avoid further rancor/unaccountable hostility which I all-too-unavoidably encountered in our far too bi-polar debate! Regarding that "bi-polarity:" just where were the REST of you "lurkers" during it? Even without resource materials to draw upon (which some of you certainly do have very extensively), you've certainly had brains enough for assessing/debating & commenting insightfully, at least... Such multi-faceted participation might have avoided "polarized" rancor... The question remains also: WHY am I about the only one now with "vital" & very "new" resource information, readily collected in England, as so-called "expert" for some. So, how come none of the rest of you surfers knew of the Shire Hall "treasure house" of Disbrow wills (my promised index of which to be posted immediately following, just as I also had promised!)?? This readily available resource is obviously pertinent to essential questions about our own Connecticut Disbrows, ...and concerning which there are still very many outstanding questions, some readily resolvable, no doubt. I certainly do NOT subscribe to the notion that all our English antecedents are simply a mess of mass "confusion," though they can certainly be "amusingly" so as witch's gold, here today/gone tomorrow... Perhaps it's because I have seen quite so much detail from other sources beyond this medium, including history books, while building an absolutely unavoidable mountain of obvious evidence from my little "mole hills" (and have ALSO used "new," highly respectable methods now embraced by academics,... even if these are still alien to some of you "older" internet gens; see below), such that I am all that much more AMAZED how some of the very obvious has never before been picked-up by past Disbrow researchers (including relational interactions among own CT Disbrow clans)! Are so many of you, then, perhaps quite so dependent upon (addicted to?) this rather "lazy" medium now of the internet, & as a SOLE resource as some have indicated....& isn't that a bit risky, even pathetic? Sorry to spoil your fun, and YES there is obviously much of great value on the internet, especially on official gen-web sites where I too have found invaluable information often, ....but let's get real now, eh! This medium can never be tha ALL & everything in research, though it holds a great "potential" still for providing essetntial & convenient cross-oceanic links for detailed gen information which has too long been absent in New England genealogy, much to the disaster of that "hoary" genealogy & history in my estimation!... Why haven't any of you more aggressively pursued further identifying information about our "Arthur Holbridge," either among the London St. Stephen's/Coleman Street crowd (the richer members of whom not only founded New Haven but ALSO helped fund Mass Bay Colony, which is exacly where Holbridge shows up in Shurtleff earlier in 1630's)?? Why never research intriguing angles, for example, about Arthur's wife "Susanna" (a "Holsworth" perhaps, or is this just Wintrhop's confusion over "Holbridge"---while so curiously identical to later Eltisley Disbrowe in-laws of Holworthy---I DON"T BELIEVE IN COINCIDENCES THAT EASILY!! Do you??). SHE may hold a provocative clue or 2 about their identity, & close relation to the Rev. Jones (also at St. Stephen's Coleman Street once, didn't you know!). And how about that still somewhat mysterious Rev. John Jones himself, who knew so many extremely prominent "divines," ...and who even Gov. John Winthrop, Jr. once invited to be his own pastor at New London (---plus also see the fine work of Frederick C. Hart of Guilford, CT from the Jan 1996 TAG for other pick-up clues!!)? While I will most certainly never again encourage debate in this forum, that debate never, in my estimation, should have been allowed to became a spectator's sport of "battle" between just two people only, ...to be "enjoyed" like some TV football game by the rest of you "lurkers." This too goes to the heart of my problem, not just with "unprofessional" debate conduct, but with this entire lazy medium itself. Further, I can only believe the lack of appreciation for my "style" has been due to something more than whether I happen to over-use upper-case in my posts (have you seen how many college kids think it's cool to string words together without any caps in e-mails at all, & barely any punctuation---are they just lazy or concealing their language ignorance---"Miss Manners" just came out with a book criticising the internet for corrupting good manners while it encourages a lack of normal interpersonal respectful forms of address;...other media commentators indicate internet e-mails even encourage a far too-ready hostility in their far too easy/quick responses...). I suspect "hostility" to my style though has much more to do with my "new" methods & means of approach to some very old gen problems. Let me make clear here that my methods are NOT about mystical "coincidences," as some of you far less circumspect types might think from my very "fun" & delightful little booklet called "ARE THERE WITCHES?" (long posted on Mike Disbrow's web site, and which certainly does deal with that aspect of fun gen research too). My methods include very clear, obviously factual approaches which are even now being used/taught by academicians at our state universities (I now live, grew-up, at the University of Connecticut, though am NOT employed by it: I have a BA in history from Williams College and have been a very successful, highly respected government analyst at state/municipal level, am now free-lance writer/research consultant). This method includes what I have called "relational analysis" which takes a much broader approach to genealogy than simply tracing back through one family line in linear fashion over time. MY dimension of "attack" for certain intractable "gen" & historical problems is NOT just linear back thorugh time, but attempts to take a "snap-shot" of a certain time and then spreads out genealogy/history research, especially via the often ignored female marriage inter-relationships, via circumstantial issues of history/location to discover various PATTERNS of association for any one person or family during that particular time-frame "snapshot" (YES, "circumstantial" evidence alone usually does win court cases). This method will certainly NOT be unfamiliar to many of you. Though, I realize that this approach ( which I have sometimes mis-leadingly labelled "name magic") is not only very new to some of you, but is probably even entirely alien and offensive to more than the compulsive "list collectors" among you. Unfortunately, my approach to genealogy is NOT as a kid at Halloween trying to shove as many ancestors as possible into the basket (I could care less about fifth cousins or meaningless lists, and we are not "GOD" to so arrogantly play dice with our ancestor's familiy relations---Believe me at Halloween: they won't like us much for that sort of careless disrespect). AS I have said before, I could NOT concieve of doing what so many of you people can do so well, and so often have superbly published, namely of playing out the cross-word puzzle of your own particular spreading family lines of gen connection, over time, & to the endless fifth cousin no less, even while sometimes refusing to put flesh back on their old bones by looking at a history book or two. Perhaps because I have seen a particularly unique Connecticut connection of my own surname, "Squires" (more commonplace surname than Disbrow!), with that of my own Disbrow ancestors, & not just during Mercy Disbrow's 1692 witch trial, but even going back over the past 400 years with odd/unexpected interweavings that still baffle me, compelling me ever deeper into this (a too common problem among the genealogists' addiction!), ...well, I have very necessarily then taken the approach that I long have. This approach, you must admit, has sometimes yielded "startling," FACTUALLY proven, past results which I have reported here & which I have every reason to believe have deserved your far greater appreciation of my methods. It is true that I also have some real concern for the behavioral direction & overuse of this medium of the internet. I will not constantly re-iterate those here, further raising hobbyist "hackles" in defense of a too compulsively "cherished" new toy. Nevertheless, I do want to tell you a story of my short four day trip to Cambridge last December which probably WON'T be in my book. Speaking of "September 11,".... when I was in Cambridge I took a fascinating tour with a reverend pastor named "McCauley" who was operating out of the ancient Templar round church there, a major tourist attraction. This gentleman looked just like he stepped off one of those portraits, chiseled-features & all, hanging in the ancient halls of his own beloved university (he's an alum!). At the end of our tour, taken mostly by American college students, he stopped in front of a life-size statue of a seated Francis Bacon (the father of modern scientific method) and announced that not only was Bacon mistaken in creating the "non-spiritual monster of dissociative scientific thinking today" (which has, nevertheless I might add, given us the very magical & marvelous, but also flawed, tool of the internet via its own early trafficking in just scientific "lists" of statistical information), ....but so too was America itself now very mistaken, he said, in spreading a world-wide form of incipient "techno fascism" (his words!!). Was he just an anti-techno "Luddite" then?? Whatever he may have meant, I was appalled by his blunt comment and stepped in (very unnecessarily I'm sure!) to calm any presumed insult taken by my young fellow American tourists by noting how I tended to agree with this blunt statement. While the good "Vicar" McCauley did not say it: I also knew that Europe had, long before the US, publicly reported all about the insidious "Project Echelon" internet spying system of our own government intelligence services (services which nevertheless could not forestall September 11...), this system is built into "our" internet by keying onto e-mailed "key words," at least according to NSA whistle-blowers reporting it not so long ago for "60 Minutes". Many Europeans have long believed this system has been far less about our own national security and much more about corporate business espionage there, to their own deep concern. In responding favorably to Vicar McCauley, I also knew that even my brand-new HP "Pavilion" computer, bought just last fall---& giving me many disruptive freeze-ups since (have you seen those interesting Apple ads?), including forcing my re-installation recovery of all programs (esp. Outlook Express!) right in midst of recent debate!---well, my computer came out of the box over-stocked with ways & means to acccess the internet while shoving pop-up advertising into my face, all installed permenantly courtesy of both HP (to push their website & products) and Bill Gates Micro-soft (for their own so-called "up-dates" & computer tie-in greed), all to pop-up at obnoxious moments,...forever. "Our" computers simply do NOT belong to us, now do they?? They seem to be, just as Vicar McCauley indicated without saying so, an extension of the great "black hole" of those others out there in internet land who now seem to want us all on their string as these particular "internet jockies" ride headlong into our living rooms, much more so at their own whim than at ours (while ravaging our privacy in the process)! Last year, even Bill Gates announced that his system is far too complex (overstuffed with angles/hidden capacities which most of us never need/want, all appropriated/stolen/bought-off from true pioneering spirits by his Micro-soft corporation...). OK, this is about the internet and certainly NOT about September 11,...OK!? So let's keep that horrible event out of this, or any further D-List debate! (FYI: that event was inexplicable murder, about which I have written often in our local media in unequivocal condemnation. I am certainly NOT a self-righteous type common at our universities now who wish only to blame America FIRST & only (...for me, the truth is that we simply do NOT "control the world," as too many of those fools far too contrarily imply! And, NO, it certainly is not "more about us than it is about them," to turn a recent poster I saw yesterday on campus onto its very stupid, self-righteous head! THAT sort of talk is deeply offensive to me just as is invoking September 11 in any of our debates herein!). I am sure it would be to Vicar McCauley too, so I suspect & certainly hope. So then, just what otherwise are we "messing around with here" in these revolutionary new technologies, with their techno-impact in creating a "24-7" work-place, inevitably/unavoidably, with an also inevitably freedom-loving "internet" of unlimited junk-"spam" to waste our days,...not to mention shock-value violence/pornography (just to sell things, like our TVs?) & which reach into every mud-hut around the world with a laptop?? So, what's going on here outside of some simple hobbyist "gen" fun with our "beloved" medium. These too are very necessary questions some of you need to ask yourselves when getting off your sofas to do some "real" research once in a while. Thanks for listening. See my string of posts immediately following (to be concluded on Friday): my promises kept! SSquires

Does anyone out there know about a Disbrow family starting around early 1800s in Lynn, Massachusetts? My fathers name was Wilbur C. Disbrow and was born April 1, 1897. His father's name was Robert and I never met him and my father was guilty of not telling us about his heritage.My father's oldest brother was also named Robert. If anyone knows anything about this line please pass along any info to res0awzs@verizon.net. Thanks, Ron Disbrow in New Port Richey, Florida.

I guess that I am supposed to learn something from this exercise. I mentioned that Elizabeth died in 1828----it is obviously 1628. SORRY. Brian.

It would seem that my Email of October 6 has offended some people and that was not my intent. I thought that my comments, "that I was only offering suggestions and not making statements", covered what I was trying to say, but that was obviously not enough. The particular offence seems to be my comment in Para 2 where I said that "That the Eltisley parish register records Elizabeth Hatley,wife of James being buried in 1828". That is NOT ( Necessily) TRUE, when I checked the microfiche that I have of the Bishop's Transcripts (There were no parish records for that period) it showed that on January 9 1628 (Which I would interpret as 1629 as it comes after December 1628, under the heading of 1628) it shows just the name, Elizabeth.. I made the mistake of Commenting on my notes, which referred to a "Disbrowe Pedigree Chart" that I had received from a Professional Genealogist while I was doing research in England in 1999. The chart showed that James' wife had died in Eltisley in 1828 and I correctly or incorrectly assumed that to be fact .It was my first experience of receiving professional advice, so who was I to question the assumption of a professional genealogist. I had assumed that as James the Elder Yeoman's will, apparentl! y states that Elizabeth is his sole executor that it was known by the Genealogist making the statement, that she had died before the probate of the will on October 25 1638. The truth is simply answered by the question,"Was Elizabeth,the sole Executor of James' will of 1614/15 still alive in 1638 or did she die in 1628?. I don't think that anyone, to my knowledge, has answered that question. I will not accept the negative approach that we must distrust all information from anyone until we have proved it for ourselves. Yes, we should be cautious, but I would like to remain naive ( inspite of my elderly mind) and believe that we are all here to help each other.Otherwise those souls who gave their lives on 9/11 did so in vain. I have received a lot of help from Genealogists all over the world, for which I am extremely grateful. They have been very helpful, considerate and patient to those who are not as knowledgeable as themselves. We have had a lot of fun in assisting each other in our research and so it should be. I am very lucky to be involved with the Arizona State Genealogical society( and many Family History Societies in England) and they are wonderful,intelligent and responsive people . We have a lot of fun. I owe you an apology Michael, as I did not answer your very courteous and gracious response to my posting of October 6,( Misinformed as it may have been) ,unfortunately I got the dreaded virus from the UK and in my panic I lost my email records. I found your response on Rootsweb when I was surfing but I have been unable to find the website again. If you need an answer to something (I seem to remember that you asked a question) please let me know and I will respond. I would like to thank Carl for the information that he gave me when I started and to those who sent encouraging words to my email of October 6. What you have done Michael, has been a great help to all of those of us who are grasping at straws to connect with their heritage, I thank you and hope that you will continue in spite of any hiccups that occur and that other members who use the site will respond accordingly. Please continue the good work we all need to be networking, time is running out.. Good Hunting, Brian Disbury.