Dear Mr. Squires: I just wanted you to know that I have been on this list for several years. I view you as one of the EXPERTS on the England Disbrows. Since I can't travel far to do my research and view the original copies of vital records in England I depend on people like you AND Carl Dunn. I am also greatly indebted to Mike Disbrow for the New England Disbrows (Hey, Mike, haven't seen you posting lately, anything of interest on our witch?) If and when you ever write a book, I will be first in line to buy it but in the meantime, please don't cut me off. If you are truly saying "ADIOS" then I volunteer to be the person to question all postings if only to say "STATE YOUR SOURCES" and "A HUNCH IS NOT FACT". Oh, and by the way, who the HECK cares how you write your e-mails, it is the CONTENT that counts!!!! Thank you for everything you have contributed so far!!!! Carol in Michigan 9th gr-granddaughter of Thomas & Mercy

Thank you Brian, for your intelligent and pertinent observations. You raise valid points. In a message dated 10/6/02 11:38:49 PM Central Daylight Time, bdisbury@email.msn.com writes: (snip) > > 1.The burial of Mr James Disbrow in Over in 1633 indicates a "Gentleman", > but I have not yet found a will.Who went to Over first,James, Nathaniel who > married Clemens there in 1618 or Joseph,Nathaniel's brother?? Is the Mr James > the James mentioned in John Disbrow, the Elder's will(but not mentioned as > son). Was it the same James that married Elizabeth Marshall in 1605? (snip) I concur. Wills for the various James' would be helpful. The identity of the James buried in Over in 1633 also is a piece of the puzzle which would help our understanding. > 2.The Over parish records that I have record the Hatley family but no > Elizabeth and she was not recorded as marrying James in Over or Eltisley. > However, the Eltisley parish register records Elizabeth Hatley wife of James > being buried in 1628.Jacobus Jnr was buried on December 1 1634 and Jacobus( > no Snr or Jnr) on October 23 1638. I have the wills but they are difficult to > read with any certainty (snip) Is the Elizabeth buried in 1628, identified as wife of James in the parish records? And is she definitely the Elizabeth Hatley ? Brian, again, thank you for pointing out the problems in the reconstruction of the two James and Elizabeth family groups, which I put forth. In a message dated 10/6/02 11:38:49 PM Central Daylight Time, bdisbury@email.msn.com writes: > > The issue seems to me to be when did James senior of 1605 ( Elizabeth > Marshall) leave the village????? Would that not resolve the question of > Thomas' father if he left before 1625?? > > I am trying to offer suggestions not make statements as I think that the > whole concept of ancestral information is clouded in a whole lot of secrecy > due to the religious disruptions of the time. At least that is what I have > experienced in my investigations. > > I would appreciate any answers to my questions and comments. Meanwhile can > we remember that we all only trying to seek the truth. Isn't that life?????? > I agree wholeheartedly. The only thing I can add at this time, is that James (the elder)'s will, written 14 Jan 1614/15 was probated 25 Oct 1638. James is recorded as buried in Eltisley on 23 Oct 1638. If period between death and probate was a matter of days, it would seem that the James known as Elder or Senior was buried in Eltisley. Carl Dunn

Mr. Squires, No doubt your contributions and debates will be missed by many on this list. The debates alone have been great food for thought on many evenings HOWEVER I don't see the reason why the posted suggestion of one person should be cause for you to quit the list NOR to publicly chastise the poster so vehemently. Being that I have just begun wearing bi-focals myself I can state that it is much easier to read text and better comprehend it if the text is of the same size font. What useful purpose does the most educated and spirited debate serve if any small portion of the meaning is lost? Are we amateur genealogists? Yes, most certainly and there's no shame in that. If anyone on the list, including yourself, holds BCG Certification http://www.bcgcertification.org/ I would love to know. It wasn't that long ago that I was still spelling the word GENEOLOGY and this contemptible, flaw filled internet medium helped provide me with, at least, the basic training needed to accurately trace and document my family history as well as learn and observe the rules of genealogical ethics. In this regard I owe a HUGE "Thank You" to Michael S. Disbrow, the late Cassius Disbrow, and yes, even yourself. You wrote, "What is WRONG with some of you on this medium, and with internet genealogy too, that it can breed such hostile, selfish and very arrogant people who are simply out for "all they can get" from others at NO cost to themselves???" I will point out to all, and give credit, that you did use the phrase "some of you", instead of making a blanket generalized statement. My electronic signature on my e-mails makes no secret of the fact that I am The USGenWeb Census Project State Assignment Coordinator for Michigan, Ohio and Vermont and have recently added Alaska. As such I can tell you that there are people out there for whom this flawed medium is their only viable means of conducting research. I have several volunteer transcribers who are physically incapable of the traveling that the rest of us take for granted. This is an excerpt from one e-mail from a volunteer: "With my disability I could just sit in front of the tube all day. I thank God for the internet.", and later in the same e-mail, "I am so happy to do this because it makes me feel worth while...". Now, I had a choice of how to send this e-mail to you. In a previous post you had made comments about people e-mailing you off list, and in this "Adios" post you took offence to a posted suggestion/comment so I took the not very scientific approach and flipped a quarter. Despite what you may think I do hope that you will continue with your debates and adding your insights and comments. Everyone benefits from it including new researchers who can, at the very least, learn different methods of conducting research. Linda Talbott pandora@ncats.net Michigan State Coordinator Ohio State Coordinator Vermont State Coordinator The USGenWeb Census Project http://www.us-census.org/ Transcribers' Information: http://www.us-census.org/info/ Transcribers' Help: http://www.us-census.org/help/

I have watched ( with interest and some amusement} the exchange of information regarding the Eltisley Disbrowes and make my comments for those not familiar with "the English scene", although I hope that Stephen and Carl will be able to shed some light on my questions. I am English and my father was born in Cambridge - my family goes back 6 generations in Cambridge. I have been researching the family in Cambridge, revisiting villages from my youthful past,over the last 4 years.I must qualify myself as an " Internet Genealogist" as I am an amateur using English qualified genealogists. We are all human beings and as such are susceptible to misinformation( unintentionally) from qualified records and people.. >From my own experience I have found mistakes in recorded information and many of the church records have gaps that are not covered in the BTs.I have researched many of the parish records in Cambridgeshire and Huntingdonshire( even my home county of Bedfordshire), Wills,Land Records et al.and I have finished up more confused than when I started. People are mentioned in wills who have not been recorded as born,Couples have children but there is no record of their marriages and there are families where deaths are not recorded so they obviously moved from their local villages and died somewhere else. I have searched the villages and have found but a few matches.. I have the microfiche of most of the parishes prepared by the Cambridgeshire Family History Society in conjunction with the Cambridge Records Office and I have more questions that answers on Eltisley and Over. 1.The burial of Mr James Disbrow in Over in 1633 indicates a "Gentleman", but I have not yet found a will.Who went to Over first,James, Nathaniel who married Clemens there in 1618 or Joseph,Nathaniel's brother?? Is the Mr James the James mentioned in John Disbrow, the Elder's will(but not mentioned as son). Was it the same James that married Elizabeth Marshall in 1605? 2.The Over parish records that I have record the Hatley family but no Elizabeth and she was not recorded as marrying James in Over or Eltisley. However, the Eltisley parish register records Elizabeth Hatley wife of James being buried in 1628.Jacobus Jnr was buried on December 1 1634 and Jacobus( no Snr or Jnr) on October 23 1638. I have the wills but they are difficult to read with any certainty 3. There are unfortunately several marriages of James( or Jacobus) to Elizabeths. -1805 James Disbrow (the Elder) to Elizabeth Marshall. -1626 Jacobus Disbrow to Elizabeth Barron.............who is this ? -1630 James Disbrow Jnr to Anna Probey ( assumed to be Major General John's brother ) -1639 Jacobus Disbrow to Anne Waple. ( again not identified but could have followed Anna Probey except that another researcher of the clan stated that Maudlin Marburie was the second wife) 4. I do not have any record of the deaths of the above wives.......The Elizabeth who died in 1608 I have assumed to be the daughter of James Jnr and Elizabeth born the same year. If I am wrong and it was Marshal then we have another question.. 5. My recollection of the use of Senior and Junior in England referred to the eldest person in the village of that name and not necessarily father/son.If James senior died or moved out of the village James junior became senior. In which case, if the James(Jacobus) Senior of 1605 (Elizabeth Marshall ) left the village before 1622,then James junior( Elizabeth Hatley) would become James Senior. James ,brother of Major General John , was recorded as being baptized in 1606 to James Junior and Elizabeth ( Hatley?). The issue seems to me to be when did James senior of 1605 ( Elizabeth Marshall) leave the village????? Would that not resolve the question of Thomas' father if he left before 1625?? I am trying to offer suggestions not make statements as I think that the whole concept of ancestral information is clouded in a whole lot of secrecy due to the religious disruptions of the time. At least that is what I have experienced in my investigations. I would appreciate any answers to my questions and comments. Meanwhile can we remember that we all only trying to seek the truth. Isn't that life?????? Brian Disbury. Tucson.

I am enjoying the "debate" between Stephen & Carl too. I do not have access to the information they have and appreciate all that they bring to light and since no genealogist should ever except one source as truth I think they are doing all the Disbrow descendants a favor by hashing over all the various sources, theories and speculations. Keep up all the great research guys!!!!

It is too bad that this debate cannot be conducted on a somewhat more important and significant basis than to simply criticize my personal style habits, now as to whether or not I CAPITALIZE too often. COME ON (is this one so hard to "2nd guess"??!)... People's habits are often very different and, quite frankly, it is an OFFENSE to publicly concern yourself with such (didn't anybody teach you people manners, besides "netiquette," or how to get along with DIFFERENCES? Try to be tolerant of others or you will deservedly LOSE their help). I have been appalled and overwhelmed by the incredibly low-level of gen. accuracy and understanding displayed by far too many amateur genealogists on the web. I have learned that I simply do NOT much like such genealogists, quite frankly, as people who have seemed to me to be both far too greedy and far too knowing (when they simply are NOT "knowing" at all in the end, my emphasis understood yet?). Sorry, but I too share an increasing lack of respect, along w/ all those professional historians, for internet genealogists who have simply learned a lot of truly very offensive & discourteous stratagems just to elicit information, together with so-called "nettiquette" only designed to "deliver the goods" as soon as possible (without the least courtesy or respect to the deliverer). All this to be done at the least possible COST to themselves (usually, as herein, at virtually NO cost!). Some of you out there are simply GREEDY people who do not want to get off your "sofas" to work for yourselves for very important information which is CERTAINLY out there with just a little effort & expense! It is THIS then what the internet has been breeding amongst us? On the internet, I have been ripped-off MANY times with promises of significant information instantly abandoned AFTER I have given-up my very best for such people. What is WRONG with some of you on this medium, and with internet genealogy too, that it can breed such hostile, selfish and very arrogant people who are simply out for "all they can get" from others at NO cost to themselves??? As to my personal style : I have been constantly amazed, frankly, at some of the "factual" silliness passed in this medium, silliness too often accepted as obvious "fact," when anything else may be the case. We have seen an instance of this problem (whether it is pure "silliness" I have been trying very mightily to be generous concerning) in the posting of two family lists by Carl Dunn, re: his HUNCH about the TWO "James at Eltisley." This "hunch" may well turn out to be TRUE (as I think is VERY POSSIBLE, even probable---get it yet?), but so far it has been barely more than a "hunch" and worth VERY LITTLE more from what he has been able (or willing) to so grudgingly contribute to this debate without further insult or arrogance. No matter how helpful, accurate or important whatever else we may find out about this question may prove out to be...it helps virtually NO ONE (emphasis understood??) to post such "hunches" as though they are already PROVEN & obvious "fact" (as has been done several times now ), and without my "debater's" own willingness to better understand its very MANY factual equivocations. Carl Dunn wrote: "While I find it fruitless to discuss the matter of whether Thomas Disbrow was brother to Major General John, with Squires, I am impelled to challange him on his above statement concerning the baptism of Dina Disbrow." [snip] This sort of childishness is NOT helpful in this or any debate, and therefore I too will NOT address myself further to this List member in future. Should he have something NEW to contribute, of course, I will be delighted about it and would certainly much welcome it. Such a statement of his about "fruitless," in the light of ALL that has transpired on my part in this debate, is obviously inaccurate. I personally cannot further tolerate that attitude from any intelligent debater who should be willing to conduct himself with far more maturity. It has NOT been my place to simply endorse his side in this "debate" simply because he insists, with increasing stridency, that he ALONE is correct! It has been incredibly frustrating to me, under such circumstances, to be FORCED to take a side, whatsoever, in this matter. HENCE(emphasis added!), my own personal habits of "emphasis" so that some of you, anyway, may NOT mistake exactly where I am "coming from." Obviously, it's been "fruitless." Is this truly ALL that you people are concerned with worrying about in posting to this List: arrogant insults & style criticisms (meanwhile you say you are "enjoying" the debate?)?? Well then, please ENJOY it yourselves, and thanks so much for your appreciation of my many other contributions (which I sincerely hope may have been of at least SOME interest to some of you too). Since this debate has descended into repetitious and truly fruitless "argumentation," with further name-calling (and NO apologies for past childish insults tendered by my "debater"), it is now best that I take my leave of you for the time being...Way to go Carl, we'll see if it's worth my while to return to it after England (you can always read my book for updates, any those relevant to my thesis, of course---so, some you guys might spend some money then for a change..). Good luck, SSquires [AS I do try to observe my own promises, I will post CCL Burials/Marriages/Eltisley Disbrow, ...just as I, anyway, have so promised, before temporarily bowing-out from this List for the next few months...Meanwhile, some of you try to learn some better manners than "nettiquette," what say huh?!]

In a message dated 10/4/02 11:29:15 PM Central Daylight Time, jyscoach@rcn.com writes: > > There are actually at least 4 major differences between "my" CCL vital > records material and the very limited amount of VR-listed material which > Carl Dunn has repeated from Barbara Hutchings (from her late 2000 posting to > the Archives). ALL of these errors, however, are VERY major ones in the > List Archive, in my estimation, and no matter HOW these may have crept into > the Hutchings/Dunn material. AS far as I'm concerned there may be FAR more > errors involved here in the original year 2000 posting than just these Dunn > has listed from the archived Hutchings material (I have not and will NOT be > bothering to waste my further time looking for any such just in order to > prove some arcane ego points, while embarrassing anyone who worked quite so > hard as Hutchings to benefit us all once ---those of you who wish to indulge > in a cross-word puzzle of trivia concern like that than do so yourself in > our arcane Archives!). One of the above referenced errors which I certainly > have noticed from Carl's material (via Hutchings transcriptions) also > overlooked an entire baptism, this for a daughter named "Dina," if I'm not > mistaken While I find it fruitless to discuss the matter of whether Thomas Disbrow was brother to Major General John, with Squires, I am impelled to challange him on his above statement concerning the baptism of Dina Disbrow. I did not overlook this baptism, I did not mention it because it was irrrelevant. She was shown as daughter of Joseph Disbrow, not either of the James's. Carl Dunn

I am following with interest the discussions between Carl Dunn and Stephen Squires. I have nothing to add since it appears after all that the "Anne Disbrow" who married a Mount may indeed have been " Anne Deboogh," not related to the Disbrows at all (and my Mount ancestor may have been one from the previous generation, not the one Anne married at all). However, I would beg Stephen's indulgence: please avoid so many capitalized words and exclamation points. I can't second guess his motives for placing so much emphasis so often, but it just makes it more difficult to read through his lengthy but worthwhile messages. Keep up the dialogue, gentlemen. This may be as close to the truth as we ever get. Deborah

RE: Over VR on any late 16th - early 17th c. Hatley/Disbrow marriage: Since I may not get around to posting any VR analysis for the Village of Over, as I hoped to do at some point, I thought I'd report now (& since the issue is being forced) that there are NO marriages listed between any Disbrow with ANY Elizabeth Hatley, particularly from the relevant period of 1585 to 1610. Nevertheless, absence of evidence is neither "evidence of absence" (for this marriage), nor is it evidence of its having taken place under another name, or in another village (virtually ANY village!). The only thing we can conclude from this is that one more uncertainty about the TWO Elizabeths is NOT yet eliminated conclusively, namely that the TWO Elizabeths could actually be just ONE. Please recall that the only evidence we have for the existence of one Elizabeth "Hatley" (as Hatley) is the recall of Samuel Disbrowe as an old man 1684, among other such (if I'm not mistaken) non-VR type anecdotal evidence where personal preference or recall may have mixed-up an init! ial married name with a maiden name. Samuel was, BTW, severely handicapped by the time of his pedigree statement for the visitation in 1684 (& almost blind, I believe it was). This is according to a separate testament to this curious fact which I found in the Calendar of State Papers at the PRO, Kew. This 'testament' is made by his own son-in-law Lord Mayor Sir Patience Ward at about the same time (it is in my stack of CSP papers), who, perhaps rather curiously, was very aggressively protesting Samuel Disbrowe's bid to be appointed sheriff for Cambridgeshire, protesting this on the basis of Samuel's far too severe handicaps/incapacities---I planned to discuss this issue in detail much later when I could pull it all out of my stack of CSP papers, along with my rasons for "another shoe to drop". But, so be it for now... Look, we ALL would love much greater certainty about many "facts" concerning these fascinating and wonderful people entirely, but sometimes it just doesn't always happen. Though, as far as I'm concerned, there is yet very little evidence to topple, with ANY degree of certainty, at least one major presumption, as long held by MANY: namely, that Thomas was "brother" to the Major General and both were sons to one "JAMES the ELDER" (as indicated by the Eltisley VR). There seems to be MUCH still in the way of a positive "revision" to this, a revision which would require a great deal more change made to much else besides, including the universally accepted historical record about the Major General's birthday (perhaps this too IS mistaken then---& wouldn't that be exciting), to Samuel's and John's older brother (another JAMES, Jr!), etc (as see further on 1614 will below). Though I would certainly grant, as I have been trying so hard to make VERY clear, that there is LESS ! certainty (NO, sir, not far less certainty by any means!) about this than I, and past reputable researchers, may once have believed...OK?? Is that satisfying to you Mr. Carl Dunn? So saying, please understand my own equivocations: the weight of predominate evidence simply weighs STILL most in favor of the old, original interpretation of this matter (& as to the paternity of the Major General specifically, as also to Thomas). This is not simply based on the Eltisley VR material which seems only "somewhat" contradictory (far less than we might have supposed earlier in our debate), but this weight of evidence also rests upon that 1614 will of "James the Elder," will made 1614/proved 1638 (YES, this/or some "JAMES" does indeed show up, as expected, in the list of burials at Eltisley VR for 23 Oct 1638). This same will shows that EVEN yet one more son ( a "3rd son") is ALSO mentioned in this so crucial will (perhaps other wills may yet yield better info), just as we've seen from its published abstract. That THIRD son is one "WILLIAM": yes, mentioned there as "the 3rd son," just as JAmes is noted as FIRST son and John as SECOND son, all very app! ropritaely enough. This info entirely conforms exactly with ALL other information we have now available to us, both about this 3rd son William and about the two more centrally interesting brothers (one the "famous" Major General according to the VR). William also is confirmed in the Eltisley VR material (which is beginning to show far LESS contradiction altogether, won't you agree??)... Virtually all so-called "conflicted" VR material in our debate so far has now also shown, unequivocally, that not only the Major General and Thomas, but also this very same "William" (3rd son; baptized 3 Mar 1610---BEFORE the will was drafted 1614) were all born to none other than our significant "Jacobus SENIOR and Elisabeth," just as the will of 1614 demonstrates t least for William, James and John (w/ James & John noted there clearly also by 1610, as we should expect). Could Thomas, then, have ALSO been born into this very same family in 1625? I can only know now what the VR materia! l also has unequivocally stated all along, & despite all so-called "conflicted" ancillary questions (& there are some of those regarding one or two instances of other people, as I've stated), and also what the Rev. Mark Noble reported in the 18th century (who certainly was some sort of authority on these church records, despite his many other biases, etc), namely that Thomas ALSO was born and baptized into the family of Jacobus SENIOR (& one Elizabeth) 25 Oct 1625. Good lord, let's have a rest to this for the time being (in absence of anything NEW). Thanks. SSquires

Carl Dunn wrote: "A comparison shows 3 differences: 2 of them are baptisms where the year is different, OS vs. NS - Anna 1618/19, and Isaac 1624/25 The only one showing difference in parents was Elizabeth 1622, where my abstract shows James Jr and Mr. Squires does not show Sr. or Jr. " [snip] Please don't throw up obfuscating issues and a blizzard of repeated argumentation now, Carl, either MINE or yours.... There are actually at least 4 major differences between "my" CCL vital records material and the very limited amount of VR-listed material which Carl Dunn has repeated from Barbara Hutchings (from her late 2000 posting to the Archives). ALL of these errors, however, are VERY major ones in the List Archive, in my estimation, and no matter HOW these may have crept into the Hutchings/Dunn material. AS far as I'm concerned there may be FAR more errors involved here in the original year 2000 posting than just these Dunn has listed from the archived Hutchings material (I have not and will NOT be bothering to waste my further time looking for any such just in order to prove some arcane ego points, while embarrassing anyone who worked quite so hard as Hutchings to benefit us all once ---those of you who wish to indulge in a cross-word puzzle of trivia concern like that than do so yourself in our arcane Archives!). One of the above referenced errors which I certainly have noticed from Carl's material (via Hutchings transcriptions) also overlooked an entire baptism, this for a daughter named "Dina," if I'm not mistaken, while another garbled spelling of the name "Sarah" (such that I had virtually no idea who it was). Are these mistakes in the original Hutchings posting from 2000? I have NO idea now, nor do I want to know frankly and I do not care to embarrass her to find out by wasting further time in trying to consult these difficult to access Archives (whew!). So then, the "new" VR material I have posted is accurate to the level of any normal human attempt to make such, certainly for this or any similar forum. My goodness Carl, please do try to understand that this is NOT, I repeat,... NOT ...some sort of ego contest between just us!! Of course, as everyone else perhaps seems to understand (I do hope!), I have been and am still trying to be exactly FAIR to ALL the so-called "facts" here. Note once again please:: ALL "facts" are subject to questions/various interpretations, even including these of your discovery & very honest concern, just as with so many other VR "facts." And yes, I have run into an identical situation with multiple "John Squire" names in the late 17th c. East Hampton VR, among other such VR "facts" elsewhere, just as I've been at some great pains here to point out to this forum. OFTEN, there are other "facts" which can come to the "rescue" by shedding some light, but NOT always when considering ALL variables too. Such questions are exactly as any historian (& not a few "professional" genealogists) seem to accept, while ALWAYS necessarily pointing out. Unfortunately, however, this is certainly NOT the understanding of far too many amateur genealogists, themselves who always seem to harbor a very naive conviction that there is that mythical "forlorn hope" out there, that so-called irrefutable document somewhere (well SOMETIMES there may just be, but don't always count on this & from almost 400 years out into the distant past!). Carl, thank you for making sure all of us on this List did NOT get away without examining your concerns in this forum. But it really is time to move on now perhaps, don't you agree. We have done all we can with this for the time being. It is certainly TRUE you have something here, as you have about exhausted all there may be to say about your concerns. BUT, perhaps too there is still FAR les than you are also now still FAR too anxious to still argue for....There is simply NO need to repeat either yourself or now me. My statements you have now repeated were, perhaps, a far too courteous attempt to find some common ground with you. Well, COMMON GROUND THERE MAY YET PROVE TO BE, I simply am NOT prepared to say yet. but be assured that I anyway, certainly do have a concern for whatever the truth of this matter may be and will be seeking out further angles/solutions as aggressively and objectively as possible. But that must wait until my tip to England. Be assured that I certainly do not have any concern at this point simply to prove MY point at any cost, or to disprove yours. Really now, my own patience with this repetitious argumentation is limited. Please demonstrate greater factual/analytical originality so as not to waste my time or others,...otherwise I may have to shut off MY OWN participation in this forum, perhaps even after my up-coming trip to England. Who needs it... It just may NOT be worth bothering with much further! It is up to you Carl, sad as that may be.... SSquires

Carl Dunn wrote: "A comparison shows 3 differences: 2 of them are baptisms where the year is different, OS vs. NS - Anna 1618/19, and Isaac 1624/25 The only one showing difference in parents was Elizabeth 1622, where my abstract shows James Jr and Mr. Squires does not show Sr. or Jr. " [snip] Please don't throw up obfuscating issues and a blizzard of repeated argumentation now, Carl, either MINE or yours.... There are actually at least 4 major differences between "my" CCL vital records material and the very limited amount of VR-listed material which Carl Dunn has repeated from Barbara Hutchings (from her late 2000 posting to the Archives). ALL of these errors, however, are VERY major ones in the List Archive, in my estimation, and no matter HOW these may have crept into the Hutchings/Dunn material. AS far as I'm concerned there may be FAR more errors involved here in the original year 2000 posting than just these Dunn has listed from the archived Hutchings material (I have not and will NOT be bothering to waste my further time looking for any such just in order to prove some arcane ego points, while embarrassing anyone who worked quite so hard as Hutchings to benefit us all once ---those of you who wish to indulge in a cross-word puzzle of trivia concern like that than do so yourself in our arcane Archives!). One of the above referenced errors which I certainly have noticed ! from Carl's material (via Hutchings transcriptions) also overlooked an entire baptism, this for a daughter named "Dina," if I'm not mistaken, while another garbled spelling of the name "Sarah" (such that I had virtually no idea who it was). Are these mistakes in the original Hutchings posting from 2000? I have NO idea now, nor do I want to know frankly and I do not care to embarrass her to find out by wasting further time in trying to consult these difficult to access Archives (whew!). So then, the "new" VR material I have posted is accurate to the level of any normal human attempt to make such, certainly for this or any similar forum. My goodness Carl, please do try to understand that this is NOT, I repeat,... NOT ...some sort of ego contest between just us!! Of course, as everyone else perhaps seems to understand (I do hope!), I have been and am still trying to be exactly FAIR to ALL the so-called "facts" here. Note once again please:: ALL "facts" are subject to questions/various interpretations, even including these of your discovery & very honest concern, just as with so many other VR "facts." And yes, I have run into an identical situation with multiple "John Squire" names in the late 17th c. East Hampton VR, among other such VR "facts" elsewhere, just as I've been at some great pains here to point out to this forum. OFTEN, there are other "facts" which can come to the "rescue" by shedding some light, but NOT always when considering ALL variables too. Such questions are exactly as any historian (& not a few "professional" genealogists) seem to accept, while ALWAYS necessarily pointing out. Unf! ortunately, however, this is certainly NOT the understanding of far too many amateur genealogists, themselves who always seem to harbor a very naive conviction that there is that mythical "forlorn hope" out there, that so-called irrefutable document somewhere (well SOMETIMES there may just be, but don't always count on this & from almost 400 years out into the distant past!). Carl, thank you for making sure all of us on this List did NOT get away without examining your concerns in this forum. But it really is time to move on now perhaps, don't you agree. We have done all we can with this for the time being. It is certainly TRUE you have something here, as you have about exhausted all there may be to say about your concerns. BUT, perhaps too there is still FAR les than you are also now still FAR too anxious to still argue for....There is simply NO need to repeat either yourself or now me. My statements you have now repeated were, perhaps, a far too courteous attempt to find some common ground with you. Well, COMMON GROUND THERE MAY YET PROVE TO BE, I simply am NOT prepared to say yet. but be assured that I anyway, certainly do have a concern for whatever the truth of this matter may be and will be seeking out further angles/solutions as aggressively and objectively as possible. But that must wait until my tip to England. Be assured t! hat I certainly do not have any concern at this point simply to prove MY point at any cost, or to disprove yours. Really now, my own patience with this repetitious argumentation is limited. Please demonstrate greater factual/analytical originality so as not to waste my time or others,...otherwise I may have to shut off MY OWN participation in this forum, perhaps even after my up-coming trip to England. Who needs it... It just may NOT be worth bothering with much further! It is up to you Carl, sad as that may be.... SSquires

I just posted a "redux" emphatically stating I have NO intention of posting any detailed OVER "VR" listings, which material I also collected at Cambridge, Eng. This is not strictly true. I do indeed intend to post a very short analysis of some of this VERY extensive material as I may have the time to do so (this extensive material amounts to almost 100 pages of xerox copies I made at CCL last December). Obviously, I cannot and certainly will NOT be posting all that information, or even any broken-out list for the Disbrows alone at this time (I do have a "life" ya know, such as it is....). Thanks so much for your understanding... SSquires

In a message dated 10/4/02 4:28:28 PM Central Daylight Time, jyscoach@rcn.com writes: (snip) > As to what you argue once again: You are repeating your original argument, > which unfortunately adds nothing new to the debate so far. (snip) OK. Here are some more snippets of information. In a message dated 10/2/02 3:34:52 PM Central Daylight Time, jyscoach@rcn.com writes: > 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 (snip) In a message dated 10/2/02 3:34:52 PM Central Daylight Time, jyscoach@rcn.com writes: > It is interesting also to me that while my above Disbrow Baptism > listing 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 above 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" above > (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 own 1680 will (probated 1691) (snip) --------end of quotes ---------- Rebecca , dau. of James JR Rebecca, sister of Samuel Samuel, brother of Maj. Gen. John Thomas, son of James SR Seems plain enough. Carl Dunn

Carl Dunn wrote: "The VR, Marriage records, (which Mr. Squires has yet to post), give a marriage of James Disbrowe SENIOR to Elizabeth Marshall." [snip] COME on Carl, there is no "conspiracy" on my part in my not yet having posted the Disbrow Marriage VR material (which I also just emphatically promised to do prior to your own posting now). If I had recognized ANY glaring contradictions in the above stated facts you again mention (given my "homework in the homeland") as to the two Elizabeth's with obviously different original surnames (are they maiden names??) and needful of my immediate posting, then you ALL obviously would have heard from me about it before now! Please do NOT impugn my already stated intentions, which include the rather tiresome task of having promised to post ALL of the VR material I have collected in Cambridge for the Eltisley Disbrows (CCL of Cambridge, England). BTW, what makes you so certain that these two surnames of Marshall & Hatley are even both "maiden" names, and for TWO different individuals?? Do we know this (though it's a possibility I too think is the most likely)? As I said once before, they BOTH could be for the same person (considering all the possibilities), with one of these names perhaps being a previously married surname so often confusingly & commonly referred to back then (& perhaps now too). We simply do not know, now do we, ....or do you then for some reason?? Have you thought of ALL the possibilities here then, Carl? I too happen to believe that we are dealing with two different/individual women, but feel compelled to also point out from my separately collected Over VR material (again from CCL---& which I have NO intention of posting here, given its very extensive multi-family nature!!) that there are in the nearby village of OVER a very great many "Marshalls" indicated, as well as only just a v! ery few "Hatleys" there, which also may suggest that only one Elizabeth is carrying BOTH Hatley and Marshall by maiden name and first marriage name, to our subsequent confusion (Over is, by all indications, just where Elizabeth Hatley is supposed to have originated too). Make no mistake about it, I'm NOT sure I "buy" this possibility, but it must enter into our debate fairly so. As to what you argue once again: You are repeating your original argument, which unfortunately adds nothing new to the debate so far. I will, therefore, also then repeat what I have said: namely that ALL the "conflicted" VR material collected so far unequivocally, at least, identifies "Thomas" as son to James the Elder, just as it ALSO identifies the Major General as his son ALSO, and by the universally recognized birthdate for the Major General of 1608 (with this very SAME paternity given for James "the Elder"). Then, of course, we also have the 1638 will of James "the Elder" (which I have posted in abstract, & is readily available in Robert's publication cited), confirming the universally recognized pattern of a "James as first son" and then also a "John as second son" to this particular "James the Elder," which also conforms exactly to the 1684 Pedigree of both Samuel Disbrowe (as published by Henry Waters) and to all other available "bio" information (includi! ng your highly regarded "Dictionary of National Biography") as regards the famous TWO "brothers:" Samuel Disbrowe and Major General John Disbrowe, at least. The 1638 "James the Elder" will was written too early (by 1614) to include many more offspring as we know he had after that date (from Eltisley VR material). This is clearly because it was never revised since 1614 apparently (as would certainly NOT be too uncommon under primogeniture law), & as is obvious withal, therefore to also then include the several subsequently identifiable children (from the VR) of this very same JAMES, the ELDER. This is as has been also indicated & speculated upon by the 1976/1986 researchers Harold B. Disbrowe & Eddis Johnson, who have concluded exactly as I have from this far more accurate VR material I collected than was posted in 2000 by Barbara Hutchings on the Disbrow-L). Unfortunately, it is now incumbent upon you to add something new to this debate by advancing our factual knowl! edge or with further analytical insights about these issues. I have promised to look into these matters on my up-coming trip to England, where certain "glaring contradictions" in the perhaps somewhat more "official" VR record from Cambridge may still indicate the need (as I also have already stated). Please notify us as soon as you can whenever you too may come up with some new angles for us to think about. Thanks so much. Meanwhile, I certainly have every intention of completing the Disbrow VR record posting as I already promised to this forum, & just as soon as I get moved to do so "this week" (as I believe I said). This is just as I already promised, but unfortunately, unlike too many on the web who are truly "addicted" to these machines, I must pace myself with these sometimes frustrating machines or simply go "crazy"! So Enjoy... Stephen T. Squires

I will ALSO be posting the Marriages/Burials "VR" material for Eltisley Disbrows, 17th c., just as soon as possible over the next week. Further, I meant to note for your attention that another "contradiction" from our recent debate has just bit the dust too. This concerns why there should have been TWO children listed close in time to one another for the very same parents (come on now, you guys please point this stuff out too, isn't fair to just keep mum, enter the "debates"!). Of course, the reason for this can be readily seen as being due to these particular VR lists being just for BAPTISMS and not for BIRTHS, thus allowing for any variance in time as to when children of the same parent could be listed close to one another. You will please note that this is exactly the case from my own lists, in just one parental instance, at least, for the year 1627: see "James JUNIOR" with TWO listed daughters then baptized within 5 months of one another (May & Sept.). Obviously, such is NOT an impossibility when dealing w/ baptisms only, versus BIRTH lists. Also, this "baptism" issue itself raises interesting points re: the ever growing debate over child baptism as a ritual church practice, versus the discovered "re-birth" of those adults born again into a "covenant" with Christ, such as of the Anabaptist practices, a debate now indicated as going on right here in little old 17th c. Eltisley! This issue eventually became a very BIG debate, over time, exactly during the later era of the Puritan Revolution in England: 1640's-60!! We even may be seeing just a small glimpse of this growing debate then in the following statement recorded in CCL Eltisley "VR" material (as noted in my previous posting) : "From 1653 to 1657 the dates are of births not baptisms" (p. 8, CCL "Eltisley Bishop's Transcripts"). THIS issue also recalls one "Rev. Henry Denne," who was a BAPTIST preacher and who was also pastor at Eltisley in the later Interregnum period in the village (as I noted recently). He is truly a VERY interesting fellow, about which I plan much more to say in my book. SSquires

Thanks Steve Squires for posting the VR of Eltisley. References The VR of Eltisley posted by Barbara Hutchings in Sep 2000. The abstract which I posted using the above as source on Sep 17, 2002, titled "Parentage of Thomas Disbrow, 1625" The VR posted by Stephen Squires, Oct 2, 2002, titled "Eltisley Vital Records - Disbrow baptisms"/ A comparison shows 3 differences: 2 of them are baptisms where the year is different, OS vs. NS - Anna 1618/19, and Isaac 1624/25 The only one showing difference in parents was Elizabeth 1622, where my abstract shows James Jr and Mr. Squires does not show Sr. or Jr. The point at issue is whether Thomas, baptized 1625, was brother of Major General John. Approaching this from a different angle: 1. The Dictionary of National Biography shows the parents of Major General John (and Samuel) to be James Disbrowe and Elizabeth Hatley. 2. The VR, Marriage records, (which Mr. Squires has yet to post), give a marriage of James Disbrowe SENIOR to Elizabeth Marshall. 3. The VR's give the parents of Thomas, baptized as James Disbrowe SENIOR. Unless 1 (or all 3 ) of the above items are in error, one must conclude that the aforesaid Thomas is not a brother to the Major General John or Samuel.

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, labeled: "Eltisley, Cambridgeshire - Bishops Transcripts" from the Cambridge Central Library (CCL), downtown Cambridge, Cambs., England. I have indicated with a star [*] where Mike Sawyer, Eltisley village historian, diverges (only very slightly) from "Bishop's Transcripts" list at CCL. You will note in the first starred item (1608) that Mike Sawyer simply omits an indication of either "jun" or "sen" for the father "James" (which question of designation has been of such great interest to us recently, & at the heart of our interesting debate). For the 1635 item, Sawyer has simply dropped one "a" at end of given-name for "Sarah,." In 1649, his last divergence from CCL list, he again omitted a "jun" designation. These few 'errors' of his are obviously due to 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, and serves as a good back-up for it (though he perhaps just derived his own from the CCL). This means that a 'peek' at the ORIGINAL 17th c. documents is in order for me, as I planned for my next trip to England this fall (just as 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 just as it appears in the CCL material. Further, all above 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 divergent spellings above show surname as "Disborow," which is as also indicated in the will abstract, I believe, which we discussed recently too: for James the Elder. While all professional genealogists always caution against ever making too much of surname spellings or mis-spellings (particularly secondary spellings usually done phonetically), it is nevertheless "fun" to speculate on the evolution of these over time. Please note that later, by 1635-41, there are 2 attempts indicated to spell the surname as "Disbrowe," which was always the known preference of the Major General & Samuel, who are not known by records to have spelled it themselves in any other way. So saying, I do have still ANOTHER copy of the Eltisley VR material, gathered from microfiche at the CCL also. This item I do not quite know how to categorize, since it only covers the later 17th c. years (eg. beginning 1653 for baptisms); and a transcriber, "Mrs. N.K. Travers," is named in 1992. Her lists are fascinating to me for the many convergent surnames indicated there (& on the CCL material above) which appear BOTH at Eltisley and in southern New England; such names as just from these "Baptism" lists as: Bull, Mansfield (I am now Iiving in "Mansfield," CT, derived from early settler of that surname at NEW HAVEN!), Chapman, Peck/e, Wells, Russell,Green/e, Mitchel/l, Peters, Taylor, Robinson, Woodward, Johnson, and several others I previously indicated in this forum of absolutely undoubted significance to us and the "Disbrow Network." Meanwhile, this transcriber, Mrs. Travers, indicates yet another spelling for Disbrow, as "Disbrough" on 10 Nov 1653, listing "Susanna d. Isaac born" not noted in the above two other VR lists of mine. This is her first of only three Disbrows she notes since she begins her list much later, for inexplicable reason (she spells it "Disbrow" in her other 2 listings!). AGAIN, according to professionals surname spelling is one of the LEAST important of "indicator" issues we should be concerned with (though I do think it is great "fun" and always interesting!). MY BRIEF ANALYSIS (yes, I could go on endlessly!): Please note my above list for Eltisley Disbrow baptisms diverges VERY significantly from that which was posted during our recent debate, and there derived from the error-filled Disbrow-L Archive lists. I have, myself, rarely ever consulted that Archived material for reasons already given (#1. My difficulty accessing List Archives VR material w/out knowing e-mail address of the presenter; #2. AND because there was some question raised when 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 earlier Archive-L baptism list for the years 1618/19, 1624/25 (as I raised in debate), and with additional names/clarifications now given as necessary for that List as well: including "Dina" for year 1619 (23 Nov, dau. Joseph/Mary). I have NO idea how many other errors there may be in the Disbrow-L Archive from late 2000 posting. I, nevertheless, very much appreciate ANYONE who attempts to post to this forum with quite so complicated & detailed a listing. The presenter then should be much praised for a very difficult job on behalf of us all, where errors could have crept in virtually ANYWHERE along the line! It is interesting also to me that while my above Disbrow Baptism listing 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 above 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" above (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 own 1680 will (probated 1691), while Thomas is NOT mentioned there at all (I have been told many reasons for this: including that a widowed sister in need of support would indeed be recognized, while married sisters with living husbands usually were NOT so, ...just as were not recognized 'lesser,' younger brothers who may have been very far away, of unknown vital status, & out-of-mind in America---did Thomas perhaps ALSO somehow discredit Samuel's somewhat tenuous hold onto respectability after the Restoration in some way---WHATEVER, I'm not sure I completely "buy" any such arguments! But hopefully, 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 John's own birth in 1608 (could these long-accepted dates for that very famous birth simply be WRONG ---wouldn't THAT be fun for us to help resolve then for history's sake!!--- And was he actually then born on the alternative 8 Oct 1609, as the other above "John"??!). I will be closely examining ALL such possibilities on my trip to England in late fall... Most interestingly too, yet another "John Disbrow" (as husband to one "Ann") shows up as father/mother in Eltisley VR Baptisms by 1641 (shown above). These same two parent-names of "Ann/John Disbrow" ALSO show-up later on in 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). RECALL too that I'm looking for that not so mysterious "goldsmith" of Cambridge, also "John Disbrow," who may be that very same "Desboe" of the now very famous "first banknote" as displayed at the Bank of England Museum in London I mentioned recently & will be photographing (as possible w/out flash) on my return trip---I now have much MORE on this very provocative issue; inclding that the "Disbrow" surname was also being spelled at OVER as "Desbrow" by 1685, very significantly enough re: DESBOE!! OVER is where Elizabeth Hatley herself (mother of the "famous John & Samuel of Eltisley) is believed to have come from. Further, one early, "mysterious" JAMES is buried at OVER on 20 Jan 1633 (this is the reason was I was so insistent that the James Jr. who is in that "1634 Eltisley grave" may actually be the later James Jr. who is son of James, & probable brother of both Thomas & John, the Maj Gen.,.... PERHAPS (just as the authors Johnson/Disbrowe have speculated about this same 1634 burial too, in theirs of 1976/1986). This 1633 James Disbrow burial at OVER is also provocatively noted by Gary Boyd Roberts in his "English Origins of New England Families," which book source I noted in our recent debate. There are also far MORE "Marshall" surnames in the OVER 'VR' material than there are "Hatleys" (which latter surname actually numbers very few there). I will have much more on all this at a later time, esp some analysis re: OVER 'VR' lists perhaps before my up-coming trip, we'll see;...plus ALSO abt those TWO Elizabeths: both "Hatley" & "Marshall" (whom I have noted I'd already begun to study just before our recent debate on List). BTW, did you know that some 'scholarly' witchcraft researchers have noted that "ELIZABETH" is an unusually WELL represented given-name among suspected "witches" of 17th c. England? See esp. Murray's "Witch Cult in Western Europe" for name lists at end of her book, etc... I may have to delay further reporting on much of this stuff until AFTER my up-coming trip to England (tho I still plan to post the Shire Hall Disbrow wills index as promised), & in order to check into some still too sketchy, but VERY provocative information which I received on my last trip regarding ALL these very provocative/fascinating angles: I will have another "shoe to drop" myself (derived from my last trip/now requiring confirmation & re. "James, jun" at OVER 1633 burial, as above noted!). THIS "shoe" is much more favorable to my recent debater's own point-of-view (re. the TWO "James Disbrows, jun & sen"-- at very early Eltisley, who's-who/what's-what, & with Thomas too)! Make NO mistake about this: I am VERY sympathetic to Carl Dun's own point-of-view despite our rigorous & very necessary debate. I had planned to approach this very same problem from my own standpoint of the TWO Elizabeths: Hatley & Marshall, which may yet be a very fruitful means of approach now (together with those wills, perhaps, at Cambs. Shire Hall). So, ....much more "fun" yet ahead! SSquires PS---Sorry for my delay in sending the above promised material,...I hoped to use a new "scanner" have been struggling to properly connect-up to my computer, & just in order to reduce any "transfer" errors for my own material above, ...BUT the "OCR" function (Optical Character Recognition) on mine, and on most EVERY other 'scanner' (as I'm told by a local "techie") really just stands for "OFTEN CANNOT RECOGNIZE!" So much for yet another magical computer myth! Wonderful, huh!!

>From - Mike Disbrow, listowner Subject - Disbrow cemetery in Mamaroneck, NY I recently received the following email from Paul A. Ryan, former Town Supervisor of Mamaroneck, New York, who wanted to correct the location of the Disbrow cemetery, which I had as being in New Rochelle: >Mike - >I checked your website while doing my own genealogy research. I'm not related to Disbrows however, I wanted to make a correction to some info. There is a Disbrow cemetery in NY. However, it is in Mamaroneck - not New Rochelle. Right next door to each other. Under NYS Town Law, Towns are responsible for the upkeep of "abandoned" or otherwise inactive cemeteries. Therefore , the Town of Mamaroneck mows the grass and our local historical society was instrumental in erecting the sign showed in the photograph on your web page. >If you want more info, I will notify the President of the Historical Society and ask him to contact you. >I can tell you that the cemetery needs work, stones are down, many illegible, etc. >Best regards, >Paul A. Ryan former Town Supervisor Mamaroneck, NY< PaulR10383@aol.com

Guy - Thanks a lot for sharing this interesting story with us. I have no idea who this "Captain Disbrowe" of the King's body-guard may have been, or if he was even real, but the story - even if it's fictional - was entertaining. Mike ----- Original Message ----- From: "Guy Disbrowe" <mrdiz_to@yahoo.com> To: <DISBROW-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Friday, September 27, 2002 9:14 PM Subject: [DISBROW] An interesting story > To All Interested; > This will be a long E-mail, but I know of no other > way to share this. > Unfortunately, there is probably no way to verify > this story. However I hope you find it interesting. > > This was found on the Web at > http://metalab.unc.edu/pub/docs/books/gutenberg/etext96/tgamt10.txt <rest of message deleted to save space - msd>

To All Interested; This will be a long E-mail, but I know of no other way to share this. Unfortunately, there is probably no way to verify this story. However I hope you find it interesting. This was found on the Web at http://metalab.unc.edu/pub/docs/books/gutenberg/etext96/tgamt10.txt This is the address of The Project Gutenberg Etext of Andrew Steinmetz. The Book is: The Gaming Table: Its Votaries and Victims. This story is found starting on page 24. It reads as follows. It is about offering a wife as a gambling stake. A Captain Disbrowe of the King's body-guard lost a large sum of money to a notorious debauchee, a gambler and bully, named Sir Paul Parravicin. The latter had made an offensive allusion to the wife of Captain Disbrowe, after winning his money; and then picking up the dice-box, and spreading a large heap of gold on the table, he said to the officer who anxiously watched his movements:--`I mentioned your wife, Captain Disbrowe,not with any intention of giving you offense, but to show you that, although you have lost your money, you have still a valuable stake left.' `I do not understand you, Sir Paul,' returned Disbrowe, with a look of indignant surprise. `To be plain, then,' replied Parravicin. `I have won from you two hundred pounds--all you possess. You are a ruined man, and as such, will run any hazard to retrieve your losses. I give you a last chance. I will stake all my winnings--nay, double the amount--against your wife. You have a key of the house you inhabit, by which you admit yourself at all hours; so at least i am informed. If I win, that key shall be mine. I will take my chance of the rest. Do you understand me now?' `I do,' replied the young man, with concentrated fury. `I understand that you are a villain. You have robbed me of my money, and would rob me of my honour.' `These are harsh words, sir,' replied the knight calmly; `but let them pass. We will play first, and fight afterwards. But you refuse my challenge?' `It is false!' replied Disbrowe, fiercely, `I accept it.' And producing a key, he threw it on the table. `My life is, in truth, set on the die,' he added, with a desperate look; `for if I lose, I will not survive my shame.' `You will not forget our terms,' observed Parravicin. `I am to be your representative to-night. You can return home to-morrow.' `Throw,sir--throw,' cried the young man, fiercely. `Pardon me,' replied the knight; `the first cast is with you. A single main decides it.' `Be it so,' returned Disbrowe, seizing the box. And as he shook the dice with a frenzied air, bystanders drew near the table to watch the result. `Twelve!' cried Disbrowe, as he removed the box. `My honour is saved! My fortune retrieved--Huzza!' `Not so fast,' returned Parravicin, shaking the box in his turn. `You were were a little hasty,' he added, uncovering the dice. `I am twelve too. We must throw again.' `This is to decide,' cried the young officer, rattling the dice,--`Six!' Parravicin smile, took the box, and threw _TEN_. `Perdition!' ejaculated Disbrowe, striking his brow with his clenched hand. `What devil tempted me to my undoing?... My wife trusted to this profligate! ... Horror! It must not be!' `It is too late to retract,' replied Parravicin, taking up the key, and turning with a triumphant look to his friends. Disbrowe noticed the smile, and stung beyond endurance, drew his sword, and called to the knight to defend himself. In an instant passes were exchanged. But the conflict was brief. Fortune, as before declared herself in favour of Parravicin. He disarmed his assailant, who rushed out of the room, uttering the wildest ejaculations of rage and despair. * * * * * * * * * * * The winner of the key proceeded at once to use. He gained admittance to the captain's house, and found his way to the chamber of his wife, who was then in bed. At first mistaken for her husband Parravicin heard words of tender reproach for his lateness; and then, declaring himself, he belied her husband, stating that he was false to her, and had surrendered her to him. At this announcement Mrs. Disbrowe uttered a loud scream, and fell back in the bed. Parravicin waited for a moment, but not hearing her move, brought the lamp to see what was the matter. She had fainted, and was lying across the pillow, with her night-dress partly open, so as to expose her neck and shoulders. The knight was at first ravished with her beauty; but his countenance suddenly fell, and an expression of horror and alarm took possession of it. He appeared rooted to the spot, and instead of attempting to render her any assistance, remained with his gaze fixed upon her neck. Rousing himself at length, he rushed out of the room, hurried down-stairs, and without pausing for a moment, threw open the street door. As he issued from it his throat was forcibly griped, and the point of a sword was placed at his breast. It was the desperate husband, who was waiting to avenge his wife's honour. `You are in my power, villain,' cried Disbrowe, `and shall not escape my vengeance.' `You are already avenged,' replied Parravicin, shaking off his assailant--`_YOUR WIFE HAS THE PLAGUE_.' The profligate had been scared away by the sight of the `plague spot' on the neck of the unfortunate lady. The husband entered and found his way to his wife's chamber. Instantaneous explanations ensued. `He told me you are false--that you loved another-- and had abandoned me,' Exclaimed the frantic wife. `He lied!' shouted Disbrowe, in a voice of uncontrolled fury. `It is true that, in a moment of frenzy, I was tempted to set you--yes, _YOU_,' Margaret--against all I had lost at play, and was compelled to yield up the key of my house to the winner. But I have never been faithless to you--never.' `Faithless or not,' replied his wife bitterly, `it is plain you value me less than play, or you would not have acted thus.' `Reproach me not, Margaret,' replied Disbrowe. `I would give worlds to undo what I have done.' `Who shall guard me against the recurrence of such conduct?' said Mrs. Disbrowe, coldly. `But you have not yet informed me how I was saved!' Disbrowe averted his head. `What mean you?' she cried, seizing his arm. `What happened? Do not keep me in suspense? Were you my preserver?' `Your preserver was the plague.' rejoined Disbrowe, mournfully. The unfortunate lady then, for the first time, perceived that she was attacked by the pestilence, and a long and dreadful pause ensued, broken only by exclamations of anguish from both. `Disbrowe!' cried Margaret at length, raising herself in bed, `you have deeply, irrecoverably injured me. But promise me one thing.' `I swear to do whatever you may desire,' he replied. `I know not, after what I have heard, whether you have courage for the deed,' she continued. `But I would have you kill this man.' `I will do it,' replied Disbrowe. `Nothing but his blood can wipe out the wrong he has done me,' she rejoined. `Challenge him to a duel--a mortal duel. If he survives, by my soul, I will give myself to him.' `Margaret!' exclaimed Disbrowe. `I swear it,' she rejoined, `and you know my passionate nature too well to doubt I will keep my word.' `But you have the plague!' `What does that matter? I may recover.' `Not so,' muttered Disbrowe. `If I fall, I will take care you do not recover. . . . I will fight him to-morrow,' he added aloud. About noon on the following day Disbrowe proceeded to the Smyrna Coffee-house, where, as he expected, he found Parravicin and his companions. The knight instantly advanced towards him, and laying aside for the moment his reckless air, inquired, with a look of commiseration, after his wife. `She is better,' replied Disbrowe, fiercely. `I am come to settle accounts with you.' `I thought they were settled long ago,' returned Parravicin, instantly resuming his wonted manner. `But I am glad to find you consider the debt unpaid.' Disbrowe lifted the cane he held in his hand, and struck the knight with it forcibly on the shoulder. `Be that my answer,' he said. `I will have your life first, and your wife afterwards,' replied Parravicin fiercely. `You shall have her if you slay me, but not otherwise,' retorted Disbrowe. `It must be a mortal duel.' `It must,' replied Parravicin. `I will not spare you this time. I shall instantly proceed to the west side of Hyde Park, beneath the trees. I shall expect you there. On my return I shall call on your wife.' `I pray you do so, sir,' replied Disbrowe, disdainfully. Both then quitted the Coffee-house, Parravicin attended by his companions, and Disbrowe accompanied by a military fried, whom he accidentally encountered. Each party taking a coach, they soon reached the ground, a retired spot completely screened from observation by trees. The preliminaries were soon arranged, for neither would admit of delay. The conflict then commenced with great fury on both sides; but Parravicin, in spite of his passion, observed far more caution than his antagonist; and taking advantage of an unguarded movement, occasioned by the other's impetuosity, passed his sword through his body. Disbrowe fell. `You are again successful,' he groaned, `but save my wife--save her!' `What mean you?' cried Parravicin, leaning over him, as he wiped his sword. But Disbrowe could make no answer. His utterance was choked by a sudden effusion of blood on the lungs, and he instantly expired. Leaving the body in care of the second, Parravicin and his friends returned to the coach, his friends congratulating him on the issue of the conflict; but the knight looked grave, and pondered upon the words of the dying man. After a time, however, he recovered his spirits, and dined with his friends at the Smyrna; but they observed that he drank more deeply than usual. His excesses did not, however, prevent him from playing with his usual skill, and he won a large sum from one of his companions at Hazard. Flushed with success, and heated with wine, he walked up to Disbrowe's residence about an hour after midnight. As he approached the house, he observed a strangely-shaped cart at the door, and, halting for a moment, saw a body, wrapped in a shroud, brought out. Could it be Mrs Disbrowe? Rushing forward to one of the assistants in black cloaks, he asked whom he was about to inter. `It is a Mrs Disbrowe,' replied the coffin-maker. `She died of grief, because her husband was killed this morning in a duel; but as she had the plague, it must be put down to that. We are not particular in such matters, and shall bury her and her husband together; and as there is no money left to pay for coffins, they must go to the grave without them.' And as the body of his victim also was brought forth, Parravicin fell against the wall in a state of stupefaction. At this moment, Solomon eagle, the weird plague-prophet, with his burning brazier on his head, suddenly turned the corner of the street, and, stationing himself before the dead-cart, cried in a voice of thunder--`Woe to the libertine! Woe to the homicide! for he shall perish in everlasting fire! Woe! woe!' Such is this English legend, as related by Ainsworth, but which I have condensed into its main elements. I think it bids fair to equal in interest that of the Hindoo epic; and if it be not true in every particular, so much the better for the sake of human nature. ******************************************************* I hope you find this story interesting and perhaps amusing. Guy Disbrowe mrdiz_to@yahoo.com __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? New DSL Internet Access from SBC & Yahoo! http://sbc.yahoo.com