From - Mike Disbrow, listowner In response to the following message from C. A. Fredericks - ----- Original Message ----- From: "c-a-fredericks" <c-a-fredericks@Comcast.net> To: <DISBROW-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Sunday, September 22, 2002 6:40 PM Subject: [DISBROW] Getting started > Greetings all, > > I'm just getting started on my family history and am delighted to have access to this site! > > My maiden name was Disborough. My father was Edwin, his brothers George and Norbert Vincent...his mother was Marie (Swift) and I believe his Dad's given name was "Lucky"! They all lived in Connersville, IN... > > Any connections? > > Thanks C. A. - I do have some records of your family which I'll be glad to share with you. My records go back to a John Disborough, born ca1806 in Pennsylvania, who married Mary Gibbs (b. ca1811 Ohio). John and Mary had nine children that I have the names of. They were: William G., Sarah, Nancy, John, Marindah, Lewis W., Hellen, Sharlotta and George L. This family was listed in the 1850 census of Crosby Twp., Hamilton Co., Ohio. Their son Lewis W. Disborough was a Civil War veteran, from whose papers I was able to get Mary Gibbs' maiden name. Their son George L. Disborough was born Sept. 1850, married Mary A. (maiden name unknown), and they had the following children: William, Merle N., Allen, John L. and George L. This family was listed in the 1860 census of Shawswick Twp., Lawrence Co., Indiana; 1880 Fairview Twp., Lafayette Co., Indiana; 1900 Connersville, Lafayette Co., Indiana. George L. Disborough (son of the above George L.) was born Aug. 1894, married Marie A. Swift, and the only child of theirs I have is Edwin Dewitt Disborough, born 1928, who is apparently your father. The fact that your family used the spelling "Disborough", plus the fact that John was from Pennsylvania, lead me to believe they may have been connected with some of the New Jersey families who used that spelling. Just a hunch. I'll be glad to share more details with you if you want to contact me directly. Use the address dizzy@michweb.net. Hope this "gets you started". Mike

READ "1638" and NOT "1688" as to when it was proved.! The following will abstract (which is at the center of our debate over the paternity of Thomas Disbrowe) obviously had a typo error of some significance. The date the will was proved should have been typed by me (in transcribing it for this List) as: "25 October 1638" and not as "1688"(!!). Unfortunately, this should be yet one more warning for you to get original goods and not rely on second-hand info (I was copying this from a re-copy of another better copy --whew!-- which I certainly ALSO do have!). My re-copy is smudgy with ink and the 1638 is now identical to "1688" (which date is utter nonsense!) in that particular one used just the other day for transcribing (perversely, I certainly knew this date was 1638 and had marked it out mentally for avoiding any mistake in typing it!! Oh well, trust NOTHING by way of second-hand info!!). You should therefore GO BACK to the original book source this was taken from for "the real goods" (at least as he "printed" them at sec! ond-hand, or whatever it was!!): Gary Boyd Roberts, vol.3 "English Origins of New England Families"--NEHGR excerpts , 1st series, 1984) The spelling of Eltisley is also now shown originally as in his abstract, as "Eltesely" now and not corrected to modern usage which I also unthinkingly did: 2. James Disbrowe of Eltesley the elder. Will 14 January, 1614/5; proved 25 October, 1638. To be buried in Eltesley churchyard. To wife Elizabeth tenements in Eltesley bought of Jeffrey Disbrowe with copy land, also copy lands in Great Gransden, co. Huntington, till my now eldest son James Disbrowe is 21; remainder to 2d son John Disbrowe, and 3d son William D. To eldest son James at 21 5 shillings and 50 pnds each to John and William, etc etc. Residue to wife Elizabeth, executrix. Witnesses: Jeffrey Disbrowe, Phillip Marshall, William Woodward. Archdeaconry of Ely, Liber 8 (1623 - 1639), folio 380.

To Linda T and Michael, Thanks for help with places to look for information and reminding others that some of us need more recent information about our family. My knowledge about my Disbrow relatives stops with my grandfather. I will post a request again soon with names of my recent ancestors hoping someone can help me with that. I'm excited to find this link to my mother's past and hope to find information for her before she passes without ever knowing much about her current family.

Greetings all, I'm just getting started on my family history and am delighted to have access to this site! My maiden name was Disborough. My father was Edwin, his brothers George and Norbert Vincent...his mother was Marie (Swift) and I believe his Dad's given name was "Lucky"! They all lived in Connersville, IN... Any connections? Thanks

{[Pressed the "button" before re-formatting again!! Do you find these machines as much of a pain as I do???]} [I again FAILED to re-format this item for "plain-text" posting to this List, as it is VERY important for me to be "clear" it is here done so together w/ minor "typos" corrected for further clarity, thanks for your patience...] In several follow-up postings, I will be correcting what I KNOW to be errors in the Disbrow-L Archives concerning 17thc. vital records of the Eltisley Disbrows. But first please "suffer through" the following commentary about what has just happened to uncover these very significant errors! Now that the dust has settled, one thing is clear from the recent "unsettling" debate: THE PAST DISBROW-L ARCHIVES ARE FACTUALLY WRONG AS TO SOME ESSENTIALS OF THE 17TH c. ELTISLEY DISBROW "VITAL RECORDS!" Carl Dunn's very admirable attempt at re-interpretation from them should NOT be held against him by anyone (in fact, he is the only one who has made a truly very noble effort to keep-up with me)! He cannot be blamed for poor reference material in the archives, nor can I be. But then WHY do I seem now to be the only member of this List who knows exactly that there are flaws in that VR reference material from the archives (& when I have barely consulted them, no less?)? BECAUSE I have, in fact, been doing my "homework" back in the "home-land" (England). Unfortunately too, this is also just as any of you individually must do, instead of now relying on me, or this "List," for virtually ANY matter of particular VITAL concern to your own family lines. Further: I have been extremely generous to this "List," whereas it has not always been so with me. I have recently been publicly insulted here and privately so last year, off-List...with, I'm sure, still much dissatisfaction among some small minority of you as to my own personal "style." That style, purposely & calculatedly, attempts to put a human face on my experience with this "anonymous" medium of the internet, while it is also very directly opposed to some commonplace "genny-web" communicating conventions. Those conventions, I believe, are actually quite harmful and can lead to the endless perpetuation of mistakes in the "black-hole" of the anonymous internet (esp. when "debate" is purposely avoided by the routine use of such conventions). Obviously, all of us must treat EVERYTHING we receive via this Disbrow forum in exactly the same way as we do whatever is received via the LDS "IGI"...(ie: as deeply suspect & requiring confirmation!). So, what are those insistent/persistent genny "conventions" which have lead to past insult of my style (& undoubted frustration for some of you with that style)? Simply that of insistently providing only "sound-bites" of factoid information, most often while carefully avoiding virtually ANY longer contextual interpretation of it whatsoever. That is not, in my estimation, helpful to what I am attempting to do by using general narrative HISTORY itself as, in fact, another very useful, and in this instance, DIRECT sort of "proof" as to the identity of my otherwise very mysterious CT ancestor: Thomas Disbrow (progenitor of my American line). I also believe that only just posting "genny" conventional "factoids" are not what this more intimate gathering of Disbrow researchers should only ever be about (though perhaps I'm wrong about that one!). One year ago, I wrote here that I was "confused" by one person's "genny-bite" pairing-up of two separate Eltisley Disbrow lines, meanwhile another long-experienced researcher privately commented to me that these were inaccurate (obviously based on her reading of the authors of the 1976 and 1986 studies of the English antecedents, copies of which she much later very willingly shared with me, at her own great expense). That far too brief "paired" listing (for me) did NOT help me without contextual explanation, and yet my stating my "confusion" alone also did NOT then lead to what we now see was a very necessary debate, a debate which has now revealed appaling flaws in the DISBROW-L Archived "VR" material (which material is especially difficult to access via this archive without first recalling an e-mail address of the presenter, & since it was posted in 5 very lengthy installments at great effort on her part).... I realize most good people simply do NOT wish to "stick their necks out" (esp. NOW, unfortunately, after this most recent debate inevitably!), only to have it "chopped off" by some debate whatsoever, ...Unfortunately, that is the very necessary risk we all must take as we try so tirelessly to get at the root TRUTH of our various questions (& it can be taken far more safely so in posting here, in this far more intimate forum wihtin the larger "black hole" of the net)! The "root truth," at the moment, seems to be that basic Disbrow "VR" information in the archives has been deeply flawed, apparently all along (though who knows when & how since it was presented here not at "second-hand" but rather at 4th or even 5th hand, apparently)! In my own estimation then, those genny-web"conventions" (about which I have been harshly, if rarely off-List, criticized for violating) has, in several instances such as one year ago, now lead to a lot of wasted time while risking endless perpetuation of gross errors in the internet "echo-chamber" concerning mistaken presumptions. It is emphatically NOT my own responsibility to correct the mistaken "homework" of others as posted here (even WHEN I can ever discover that such "homework" may be mistaken). It is also emphatically NOT my responsibility to post virtually a thing to this List at all, of course (and whatever I may be able to contribute to our Disbrow "history" can certainly be read too after my book project is completed and published, as I certainly expect it to be eventually!). Those of you who are irritated by my style, can and should use your "delete button" whenever encountering my name on your computers for this List (just as I do the majority of time for items I'm not interested in, since I am certainly NOT the repository for all things DISBROW and my specific areas of interest are very limited and ever increasingly focused).... Further, my recent debater initiated our debate by first publicly requesting whether I had any intention of "publishing" my findings of Disbrow wills, or will-abstracts, on this List. I responded by saying I will post an index of Disbrow wills from the Consistory of Ely Probate Records, which I still intend to do. But quite such a "public" request to a normally generous person as I think I am (...but also a very busy one!), when perhaps it could have been more discreetly tendered off-List in private (since we had just completed an innocuous, very brief private correspondence), can only put me into an embarrassing public position and one probably designed expressly to elicit that information by so. I repeat, it is necessary for all of you not to rely on "second-hand information or transcripts, but to do the necessary individual "homework" in the home-land as may be necessary for you (concerning which there are certainly various convenient ways of doing that "homework" without ever going to England, I have posted at least one CAmbridge address for wills already). This request on-List has been unfair to me! My position (&, yes, to some extent I have asked for it!) has now become a truly embarrassing one which the following e-mail, just received off-List, certainly does underscore (I received others just like it before our debate, & not simply due to my debater's enforced public request of me!). The following innocent sender shall remain anonymous on-LIST (publicly): "Hi! It's ...., I was wondering if you can make copies of what you have and send it to me. All the information that you have would be very helpful for my aunt and I since we have started looking into the Disbrow family ancestors. Alot of the info that I have been reading that you posted is about my family members as well. Please email me at .... Thank you so much." Personally, I think the above is actually rather moving and "sweet," ...while also quite SAD for being obviously impossible for me to fulfill (unfortunately, there can be NO substitute for, or short-cut in, doing your own homework). So saying all the foregoing, I now intend over the next few days to "publish" here as much of the 17th century Eltisley Disbrow vital records I have (& which have been of direct concern to me & my book-project), just as I collected these from two sources in England: 1. The "Cambridge Central Library" (its official name in downtown Cambridge, England), AND, #2. from Mike Sawyer, Eltisley village historian in December 2001. They are most interestingly entitled on the Library micro-films as: "Official Bishop's Transcripts." They conform in accuracy to the separately collected hand-printed VR material from the Eltisley village historian: Mike Sawyer. I have NOT yet seen the original 17th century documents from which these two "transcriptions" are themselves derived, but I hope to do so on my follow-up trip to England this fall. Thank you for your indulgence of all above matters. STSquires

[I again FAILED to re-format this item for "plain-text" posting to this List, as it is VERY important for me to be "clear" it is here done so together w/ minor "typos" corrected for further clarity, thanks for your patience...] In several follow-up postings, I will be correcting what I KNOW to be errors in the Disbrow-L Archives concerning 17thc. vital records of the Eltisley Disbrows. But first please "suffer through" the following commentary about what has just happened to uncover these very significant errors! Now that the dust has settled, one thing is clear from the recent "unsettling" debate: THE PAST DISBROW-L ARCHIVES ARE FACTUALLY WRONG AS TO SOME ESSENTIALS OF THE 17TH c. ELTISLEY DISBROW "VITAL RECORDS!" Carl Dunn's very admirable attempt at re-interpretation from them should NOT be held against him by anyone (in fact, he is the only one who has made a truly very noble effort to keep-up with me)! He cannot be blamed for poor reference material in the archives, nor can I be. But then WHY do I seem now to be the only member of this List who knows exactly that there are flaws in that VR reference material from the archives (& when I have barely consulted them, no less?)? BECAUSE I have, in fact, been doing my "homework" back in the "home-land" (England). Unfortunately too, this is also just as any of you individually must do, instead of now relying on me, or this "List," for virtually ANY matter of particular VITAL concern to your own family lines. Further: I have been extremely generous to this "List," whereas it has not always been so with me. I have recently been publicly insulted here and privately so last year, off-List...with, I'm sure, still much dissatisfaction among some small minority of you as to my own personal "style." That style, purposely & calculatedly, attempts to put a human face on my experience with this "anonymous" medium of the internet, while it is also very directly opposed to some commonplace "genny-web" communicating conventions. Those conventions, I believe, are actually quite harmful and can lead to the endless perpetuation of mistakes in the "black-hole" of the anonymous internet (esp. when "debate" is purposely avoided by the routine use of such conventions). Obviously, all of us must treat EVERYTHING we receive via this Disbrow forum in exactly the same way as we do whatever is received via the LDS "IGI"...(ie: as deeply suspect & requiring confirmation!). So, what are those insistent/persistent genny "conventions" which have lead to past insult of my style (& undoubted frustration for some of you with that style)? Simply that of insistently providing only "sound-bites" of factoid information, most often while carefully avoiding virtually ANY longer contextual interpretation of it whatsoever. That is not, in my estimation, helpful to what I am attempting to do by using general narrative HISTORY itself as, in fact, another very useful, and in this instance, DIRECT sort of "proof" as to the identity of my otherwise very mysterious CT ancestor: Thomas Disbrow (progenitor of my American line). I also believe that only just posting "genny" conventional "factoids" are not what this more intimate gathering of Disbrow researchers should only ever be about (though perhaps I'm wrong about that one!). One year ago, I wrote here that I was "confused" by one person's "genny-bite" pairing-up of two separate Eltisley Disbrow lines, meanwhile another long-experienced researcher privately commented to me that these were inaccurate (obviously based on her reading of the authors of the 1976 and 1986 studies of the English antecedents, copies of which she much later very willingly shared with me, at her own great expense). That far too brief "paired" listing (for me) did NOT help me without contextual explanation, and yet my stating my "confusion" alone also did NOT then lead to what we now see was a very necessary debate, a debate which has now revealed appaling flaws in the DISBROW-L Archived "VR" material (which material is especially difficult to access via this arch! ive without first recalling an e-mail address of the presenter, & since it was posted in 5 very lengthy installments at great effort on her part).... I realize most good people simply do NOT wish to "stick their necks out" (esp. NOW, unfortunately, after this most recent debate inevitably!), only to have it "chopped off" by some debate whatsoever, ...Unfortunately, that is the very necessary risk we all must take as we try so tirelessly to get at the root TRUTH of our various questions (& it can be taken far more safely so in posting here, in this far more intimate forum wihtin the larger "black hole" of the net)! The "root truth," at the moment, seems to be that basic Disbrow "VR" information in the archives has been deeply flawed, apparently all along (though who knows when & how since it was presented here not at "second-hand" but rather at 4th or even 5th hand, apparently)! In my own estimation then, those genny-web"conventions" (about which I have been harshly, if rarely off-List, criticized for violating) has, in several instances such as one year ago, now lead to a lot of wasted time while risking endless perpetuation of gross errors in the internet "echo-chamber" concerning mistaken presumptions. It is emphatically NOT my own responsibility to correct the mistaken "homework" of others as posted here (even WHEN I can ever discover that such "homework" may be mistaken). It is also emphatically NOT my responsibility to post virtually a thing to this List at all, of course (and whatever I may be able to contribute to our Disbrow "history" can certainly be read too after my book project is completed and published, as I certainly expect it to be eventually!). Those of you who are irritated by my style, can and should use your "delete button" whenever encountering my name on your computers for this List (just as I do the majority of time for items I'm not interested in, since I am certainly NOT the repository for all things DISBROW and my specific areas of interest are very limited and ever increasingly focused).... Further, my recent debater initiated our debate by first publicly requesting whether I had any intention of "publishing" my findings of Disbrow wills, or will-abstracts, on this List. I responded by saying I will post an index of Disbrow wills from the Consistory of Ely Probate Records, which I still intend to do. But quite such a "public" request to a normally generous person as I think I am (...but also a very busy one!), when perhaps it could have been more discreetly tendered off-List in private (since we had just completed an innocuous, very brief private correspondence), can only put me into an embarrassing public position and one probably designed expressly to elicit that information by so. I repeat, it is necessary for all of you not to rely on "second-hand information or transcripts, but to do the necessary individual "homework" in the home-land as may be necessary for you (concerning which there are certainly various convenient ways of doing that "homework! " without ever going to England, I have posted at least one CAmbridge address for wills already). This request on-List has been unfair to me! My position (&, yes, to some extent I have asked for it!) has now become a truly embarrassing one which the following e-mail, just received off-List, certainly does underscore (I received others just like it before our debate, & not simply due to my debater's enforced public request of me!). The following innocent sender shall remain anonymous on-LIST (publicly): "Hi! It's ...., I was wondering if you can make copies of what you have and send it to me. All the information that you have would be very helpful for my aunt and I since we have started looking into the Disbrow family ancestors. Alot of the info that I have been reading that you posted is about my family members as well. Please email me at .... Thank you so much." Personally, I think the above is actually rather moving and "sweet," ...while also quite SAD for being obviously impossible for me to fulfill (unfortunately, there can be NO substitute for, or short-cut in, doing your own homework). So saying all the foregoing, I now intend over the next few days to "publish" here as much of the 17th century Eltisley Disbrow vital records I have (& which have been of direct concern to me & my book-project), just as I collected these from two sources in England: 1. The "Cambridge Central Library" (its official name in downtown Cambridge, England), AND, #2. from Mike Sawyer, Eltisley village historian in December 2001. They are most interestingly entitled on the Library micro-films as: "Official Bishop's Transcripts." They conform in accuracy to the separately collected hand-printed VR material from the Eltisley village historian: Mike Sawyer. I have NOT yet seen the original 17th century documents from which these two "transcrip! tions" are themselves derived, but I hope to do so on my follow-up trip to England this fall. Thank you for your indulgence of all above matters. STSquires

In several follow-up postings, I will be correcting what I KNOW to be errors in the Disbrow-L Archives concerning 17thc. vital records of the Eltisley Disbrows. But first please "suffer through" the following commentary about what has just happened to uncover these very significant errors! Now that the dust has settled, one thing is clear from the recent "unsettling" debate: THE PAST DISBROW-L ARCHIVES ARE FACTUALLY WRONG AS TO SOME ESSENTIALS OF THE 17TH c. ELTISLEY DISBROW "VITAL RECORDS!" Carl Dunn's vewry admirable attempt at re-interpretation from them should NOT be held against him by anyone (in fact, he is the only one who has made a truly very noble effort to keep-up with me)! He cannot be blamed for poor reference material in the archives, nor can I be. But then WHY do I seem now to be the only member of this List who knows exactly that there are flaws in that VR reference material from the archives (& when I have barely consulted them no less?)? BECAUSE I have, in fact, been doing my "homework" back in the "home-land" (England). Unfortunately to, this is also just as any of you individually must do, instead of now relying on me, or this "List," for virtually ANY matter of particular VITAL concern to your own family lines. Further: I have been extremely generous to this "List," whereas it has not always been so with me. I have recently been publicly insulted here and privately so last year, off-List...with, I'm sure, still much dissatisfaction among some small minority of you as to my own personal "style." That style, purposely & calculatedly, attempts to put a human face on my experience with this "anonymous" medium of the internet, while it is also very directly opposed to some commonplace "genny-web" communicating conventions. Those conventions, I believe, are actually quite harmful and can lead to the endless perpetuation of mistakes in the "black-hole" of the anonymous internet (esp. when "debate" is purposely avoided by the routine use of such conventions). Obviously, all of us must treat EVERYTHING we receive via this Disbrow forum in exactly the same way as we do whatever is received via the LDS "IGI"...(ie: as deeply suspect & requiring confirmation!). So, what are those insistent/persistent genny "conventions" which have lead to past insult of my style (& undoubted frustration for some of you with that style)? Simply that of insistently providing only "sound-bites" of factoid information, most often while carefully avoiding virtually ANY longer contextual interpretation of it whatsoever. That is not, in my estimation, helpful to what I am attempting to do by using general narrative HISTORY itself as, in fact, another very useful, and in this instance, DIRECT sort of "proof" as to the identity of my otherwise very mysterious CT ancestor: Thomas Disbrow (progenitor of my American line). I also believe that only just posting "genny" conventional "factoids" are not what this more intimate gathering of Disbrow researchers should only ever be about (though perhaps I'm wrong about that one!). One year ago, I wrote here that I was "confused" by one person's "genny-bite" pairing-up of two separate Eltisley Disbrow lines, meanwhile another long-experienced researcher privately commented to me that these were inaccurate (obviously based on her reading of the authors of the 1976 and 1986 studies of the English antecedents , copies of whihc she much later willingly shared with me at her own expense). That far too paired brief listing (for me) did NOT help me without contextual explanation, and my stating my "confusion" alone also did not then lead o what we now see was a very necessary debate, a debate which has now revealed appaling flaws in the DISBROW-L Archived "VR" material (that material is especially difficult to access via this archive without first r! ecalling e-mail address of the presenter, & since it was posted in 5 very lengthy installments at great effort on her part).... I realize most good people simply do NOT wish to "stick their necks out" (esp. NOW, unfortunately, after this most recent debate inevitably!), only to have it "chopped off" by some debate whatsoever, ...Unfortunately, that is the very necessary risk we all must take as we try so tirelessly to get at the root TRUTH of our various questions (& can be taken more safely so in posting here, in this far more intimate forum wihtin the larger "black hole" of the net)! The "root truth," at the moment, seems to be that basic Disbrow "VR" information in the archives has been deeply flawed, apparently all along (though who knows when & how since it was presented here not at "second-hand" but rather at 4th or even 5th hand, apparently)! In my own estimation then, those genny-web"conventions" (about which I have been harshly, if rarely off-List, criticized for violating) has, in several instances such as one year ago, now lead to a lot of wasted time while risking endless perpetuation of gross errors in the internet "echo-chamber" concerning mistaken presumptions. It is emphatically NOT my own responsibility to correct the mistaken "homework" of others as posted here (even WHEN I can ever discover that such "homework" may be mistaken). It is also emphatically NOT my responsibility to post virtually a thing to this List at all, of course (and whatever I may be able to contribute to our Disbrow "history" can certainly be read too after my book project is completed and published, as I certainly expect it to be eventually!). Those of you who are irritated by my style, can and should use your "delete button" whenever encountering my name on your computers for this List (just as I do the majority of time for items I'm not interested in, since I am certainly NOT the repository for all things DISBROW and my specific areas of interest are very limited and ever increasingly focused).... Further, my recent debater initiated our debate by first publicly requesting whether I had any intention of "publishing" my findings of Disbrow wills, or will-abstracts, on this List. I responded by saying I will post an index of Disbrow wills from the Consistory of Ely Probate Records, which I still intend to do. But quite such a "public" request to a normally generous person as I think I am (...but also a very busy one!), when perhaps it could have been more discreetly tendered off-List in private (since we had just completed an innocuous, very brief private correspondence), can only put me into an embarrassing public position and one probably designed expressly to elicit that information by so. I repeat, it is necessary for all of you not to rely on "second-hand information or transcripts, but to do the necessary individual "homework" in the home-land as may be necessary for you (concerning which there are certainly various convenient ways of doing that "homework! " without ever going to England, I have posted at least one CAmbridge address for wills already). This request on-List has been unfair to me! My position (&, yes, to some extent I have asked for it!) has now become a truly embarrassing one which the following e-mail, just received off-List, certainly does underscore (I received others just like it before our debate, & not simply due to my debater's enforced public request of me!). The following innocent sender shall remain anonymous on-LIST (publicly): "Hi! It's ...., I was wondering if you can make copies of what you have and send it to me. All the information that you have would be very helpful for my aunt and I since we have started looking into the Disbrow family ancestors. Alot of the info that I have been reading that you posted is about my family members as well. Please email me at .... Thank you so much." Personally, I think the above is actually rather moving and "sweet," ...while also quite SAD for being obviously impossible for me to fulfill (unfortunately, there can be NO substitute for, or short-cut in, doing your own homework). So saying all the foregoing, I now intend over the next few days to "publish" here as much of the 17th century Eltisley Disbrow vital records I have (& which have been of direct concern to me & my book-project), just as I collected these from two sources in England: 1. The "Cambridge Central Library" (its official name in downtown Cambridge, England), AND, #2. from Mike Sawyer, Eltisley village historian in December 2001. They are most interestingly entitled on the Library micro-films as: "Official Bishop's Transcripts." They conform in accuracy to the separately collected hand-printed VR material from the Eltisley village historian: Mike Sawyer. I have NOT yet seen the original 17th century documents from which these two "transcrip! tions" are themselves derived, but I hope to do so on my follow-up trip to England this fall. Thank you for your indulgence of all above matters. STSquires

Yes, sometimes the discussions may sound argumentative, but how else can we be sure of things unless they are questioned? ALL info and ALL sources should not be taken as "gospel", that's why it is good to banter back and forth about it all so we can compare. Again, don't take offense to anything questioned on or disagreed with!! a ninth gr-granddaughter to Thomas & Mercy, Carol Carol, Well put. Walter Disbrow

Hi, I have received a copy of a copy of a copy of the Will of John Disbrow the Elder. I don't think I'll be able to decipher much of it. Is there anyone that has a fairly complete transcription which could help me with reading what I have? Would appreciate it. Regards, Ed Man

Carl, Please don't stop the discussions! I am one of those "lurkers" who learn and enjoy from all the discussions on this list. Yes, sometimes the discussions may sound argumentative, but how else can we be sure of things unless they are questioned? ALL info and ALL sources should not be taken as "gospel", that's why it is good to banter back and forth about it all so we can compare. Again, don't take offense to anything questioned on or disagreed with!! a ninth gr-granddaughter to Thomas & Mercy, Carol

Hi All, For some of the newer list members who may not have gotten as far back as Thomas and Mercy in their personal family research I thought I would post some census findings. At http://www.us-census.org/search.html I found 40 hits on the name DISBROW, none on DISBROWE, 2 on DISBROUGH, 11 on DISBRO, and 6 on DESBROW. Keep in mind these are TRANSCRIPTIONS and not the actual census images, although there are some of those on-line as well. There are also new uploads every week. Happy Hunting :^) 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 am re-posting this for archives as I failed to re-format into "plain-text" for proper posting earlier today... CORRECTION: I incorrectly typed in name "Staploe" for wife of yet one more "James & Elizabeth" pairing (the 4th one) I found from lists given me by Eltisley historian Mike Sawyer. This surname should have been "NAPLE" for that additional JAMES/ELIZABETH Disbrowe at Eltisley, married "23rd Jan 1639," as I indicated in previous post "Carl: Sorry, No Go" Anna "Staplooe" married to "John Disbrowe" 1st Nov. 1636, from a listing immediately above my mistaken transcription! RE: Further explanation of ONE goal for my book project: I want to encourage Carl Dunn to "hang in there" with this debate and with his stunning analysis as to which Eltisley family Thomas Disbrow(e) may belong. This is the first good debate on this List in my memory and could NOT be of greater importance to my own project, as well as to the general history of the family (as I'm sure most List members agree!). Since I do not happen to agree with most of CarI's previous arguments just posted on this question, that does NOT mean there is NO merit to his overall speculations, which certainly DO have merit. I am, therefore, continuing my own accelerated examination of "confusing" Elizabeth Disbrow(e) wives: maiden named "HATLEY" & "MARSHALL," which names also certainly raise these issues directly. I will have something more on this, by way of Carl's speculations, very soon and he may NOT be disappointed. Meanwhile, this current "back & forth" has stimulated me to dig out my box of thick VR source material collected from micro-films at public library, "downtown" Cambridge, last December. I reviewed this material as copied then and also once just after my return, finding nothing immediately "startling." However, this was meant as a living resource (to "live" with) and not just to store away, & for my continued review now anticipating a return trip to England (made now more important in light of our debate and Carl Dunn's very new directions for us to go in). I, for one, have made the mistake recently of relying too heavily on the accepted "givens" from secondary family & historic resources: the past researchers & that 18th "history" by Mark Noble. The Dictionary of National Biography, for example, even while citing Noble's "Protectoral House of Cromwell" for General Disbrowe's late 19th/early 20th c. article, also said that resource was "full of the grossest errors." Meanwhile my history research also was indicating that their own long published article on the General (& even their "additions & corrections" of this article published in 1965!) was, itself, full of the grossest 'bias,' clearly inherited from a too long, past era of royalist "demonization" of the General. The General had been vilified, & for long after the Restoration, even along lines of the witchcraft-type persecution of my own Mercy Disbrow! This was evident in several contemporary 17th c. published pamphlets I collected at the British Library (to be dealt with in my book). All of this too is a lesson for me/us always to "check primary source" material whenever possible (& to constantly re-check it since NEW patterns constantly emerge in light of new information!). My book project about Mercy Disbrow's 1692 CT witch trial has, in part, also been dependent upon a significant new orientation in the "historiography" of the early settlement era, especially at CT and New Haven Colonies. This re-orientation is as Kevin Phillips has also outlined it in his recent book: "The Cousins Wars" (though I had already begun to see explicitly this same "startling" pattern in my research long before learning of his book!). This pattern presents the long overlooked notion that the American Revolution was the inevitable outgrowth of the settlement of New England by all those rabble rousing anti-monarchists of 17th century olde England (and specifically of its "Puritan Revolution," one significant leader of which was "our" Major General John Disbrow!). I have felt certain that this "notion" also must explain all those dozen or more CT/NY Disbrows who served as "loyal" patriots in the American Revolution (& "loyal" it would seeem to the "Good Old Cause" of our famous Major General!)! Author H. F. McMains wrote in 2000, when describing poet Andrew Marvell in the book "The Death of Oliver Cromwell," how the word "patriot" originally began in the era of this 17th c."Puritan Revolution" and to "denote monarchies critics"! This fact, among other such, is inevitably pregnant with meaning for us... So then, this debate will have very important consequences for me since I have most certainly began to see the pattern of southern New England settlement in just such terms of this new historiography in now re-considering the influence of Cromwellians directly in early American history. I too have discovered countless examples of immediate/extended family members closely allied to influential Cromwellians among settlers of southern New England, specifically, only some yet outlined on this LIST. There is, for example, that of Cromwell's nephew, a Col. John Cromwell (believe he was without checking my notes), himself settled in Westchester County, New York by 1660's (just after the Restoration) not far from our two significant Disbrows there: Henry & Peter, who themselves are otherwise associating with interesting families! Other examples include the author of "History of the Colony of New Haven" (1838), Edward R. Lambert, whose ancestor Jesse settled at Milford in 1680 (just about the time my Thomas Disbrow settled at nearby Fairfield too), claims an extended family relationship to General John Lambert, a close political ally to General John Disbrow back in England. I will soon post several interesting "new" findings re: extended Strickland families, with their direct & intimate association with TWO CT area Disbrows (Henry & Nicholas) and then also with Major General John Disbrow via Stricklands at the highest councils of English government. I am currently tracking down an IGI report that John Strickland also was married to a "Jane Fenwick," claimed to be the dau. of that George Fenwick I posted recently as associating with Samuel Disbrowe in Scotland, and who was founding settler at Saybrook too, etc, etc, much/much more likewise. So saying, I was disappointed on my last trip to England NOT to have collected virtually any new information on Thomas Disbrow's career in England as I should expect would be there if he was prominently well-connected. There was nothing for example at the National Army Museum in London, which perhaps is NOT very surprisingly since they had very little anyway as to army roster/muster lists for the Commonwealth forces---"royalist bias" undoubtedly having done its work even after these intervening centuries!). While I also did not find anything to upset the Thomas Disbrowe of Eltisley "apple cart,"...it is ALSO very important to find out more about such of Mike Disbrow's alternative "Thomas Disbrows" as that one he lists for 1657: "tailor of Kings Lynne, Norfolk, left a will. (index to P.C.C Wills 1657-60, VIII, per Donald W. Disbrow)" from Mikes v. I, p. 19. Perhaps someone may have already collected this will or abstract, & can kindly post it here, or otherwise pass on to me in fairness for my project objectivity... Kings Lynn, BTW, turns out to have particular significance since Lynn, MA (which some believe may have been named for the English Norfolk town, & is also place in England where a "Captain John Mason" of New Hampshire was born,...CT Masons also very closely associated with Fitch who are related by marriage to Samuel Disbrowe too, ...whew!). I'm delighted to see in "stored" VR resources I copied that Eltisley is very well covered in official "Bishop's Transcripts" from Cambridge Library. These transcripts do not diverge in any 'vital' ways crucial to my previously posted arguments: derived then from lists I reported via village historian Mike Sawyer. BTW, these records also interestingly report a Joane "Pumfrett" m. William "MYCHELL. Recall too that "Pomfret" is surname noted in a Disbrowe will just discussed ("John Disborowe the younger" 1610, believed father of JAMES of our debate) and another "Pomfret" (Miles) who m. Eliz. Disborowe at Saffron Walden, place of those "other" somehow related Disbrowes (eg: Nicholas of Hartford, CT too). Mitchells of unknown relation to many Mitchells in Eltisley record were associating with both the Cambridge Mass. Shepard/Stricklands and also these same Mitchells with Coes/Disbrows at Westrchester Co., NY (such is just the sort of information I have been too feebly trying to track down). Other interesting surnames in 17th c. Eltisley records: Stow, Chapman Woodward, Russell, Marshall, Hall, Pecke, Greene, Wells, Ward, Stocker, Johnson, Browne, Crowch, Carrington, Cooper, Ludloe, Squire(!!), Andrus/Andrews, Taylor, Gray, Bull, Barnes...for such a tiny village it has an impressive roll-call of names for most of the 17th c., aho also turn up in southern NEW England! More on the OVER & Burrough Green material as I can find time soon... STSquires

My apologies to ALL for any comments I may have made contributing to concerns over "personal statements." I certainly have never meant to personally injure, only to clarify vital matters at very necessary issue here. These are issues which I have been working on for well over the past year, often posting here, and taking two expensive trips to England for same! It is true that I have been too willing to rely on past conclusions of other, previous Disbrow researchers (re: at least concerning Thomas as brother to the Major General), we all should know to check the primary materials. But the VR material as "published" second-hand on this LIST may well have some serious flaws factually & as Carl has transcribed them, considering what I otherwise received from Mike Sawyer in Eltisley (see my posting: "Carl: Sorry, No Go."). I have also tried to address any possible VR archival errors also in my most recent posting too, written before reading all this rather more hostile/personal commentary now... Come on gang, let's get on with this vital debate and please not misinterpret that debate as somehow being over personal questions. (As regards the convenience of the Disbrow Archive as accurate resource: I only just figured out myself how to access VR material there since it was never very clearly labeled, and done so at SECOND hand transcription only (this particular archive also does not allow easy/accessible "browsing"). Further, I have had a long, rather difficult time just in getting what Disbrow VR material I could get before my trip to England last December, motivated in part from a concern to get exactly this material. WE should be able to debate these & other factual issues here without also mis-interpreting motives...Let's do try, what do you say? Thanks so much. STSquires

CORRECTION: I incorrectly typed in name "Staploe" for wife of yet one more "James & Elizabeth" pairing (the 4th one) I found from lists given me by Eltisley historian Mike Sawyer. This surname should have been "NAPLE" for that additional JAMES/ELIZABETH Disbrowe at Eltisley, married "23rd Jan 1639," as I indicated in previous post "Carl: Sorry, No Go" Anna "Staplooe" married to "John Disbrowe" 1st Nov. 1636, from a listing immediately above my mistaken transcription! RE: Further explanation of ONE goal for my book project: I want to encourage Carl Dunn to "hang in there" with this debate and with his stunning analysis as to which Eltisley family Thomas Disbrow(e) may belong. This is the first good debate on this List in my memory and could NOT be of greater importance to my own project, as well as to the general history of the family (as I'm sure most List members agree!). Since I do not happen to agree with most of CarI's previous arguments just posted on this question, that does NOT mean there is NO merit to his overall speculations, which certainly DO have merit. I am, therefore, continuing my own accelerated examination of "confusing" Elizabeth Disbrow(e) wives: maiden named "HATLEY" & "MARSHALL," which names also certainly raise these issues directly. I will have something more on this, by way of Carl's speculations, very soon and he may NOT be disappointed. Meanwhile, this current "back & forth" has stimulated me to dig out my box of thick VR source material collected from micro-films at public library, "downtown" Cambridge, last December. I reviewed this material as copied then and also once just after my return, finding nothing immediately "startling." However, this was meant as a living resource (to "live" with) and not just to store away, & for my continued review now anticipating a return trip to England (made now more important in light of our debate and Carl Dunn's very new directions for us to go in). I, for one, have made the mistake recently of relying too heavily on the accepted "givens" from secondary family & historic resources: the past researchers & that 18th "history" by Mark Noble. The Dictionary of National Biography, for example, even while citing Noble's "Protectoral House of Cromwell" for General Disbrowe's late 19th/early 20th c. article, also said that resource was "full of the grossest errors.! " Meanwhile my history research also was indicating that their own long published article on the General (& even their "additions & corrections" of this article published in 1965!) was, itself, full of the grossest 'bias,' clearly inherited from a too long, past era of royalist "demonization" of the General. The General had been vilified, & for long after the Restoration, even along lines of the witchcraft-type persecution of my own Mercy Disbrow! This was evident in several contemporary 17th c. published pamphlets I collected at the British Library (to be dealt with in my book). All of this too is a lesson for me/us always to "check primary source" material whenever possible (& to constantly re-check it since NEW patterns constantly emerge in light of new information!). My book project about Mercy Disbrow's 1692 CT witch trial has, in part, also been dependent upon a significant new orientation in the "historiography" of the early settlement era, especially at CT and New Haven Colonies. This re-orientation is as Kevin Phillips has also outlined it in his recent book: "The Cousins Wars" (though I had already begun to see explicitly this same "startling" pattern in my research long before learning of his book!). This pattern presents the long overlooked notion that the American Revolution was the inevitable outgrowth of the settlement of New England by all those rabble rousing anti-monarchists of 17th century olde England (and specifically of its "Puritan Revolution," one significant leader of which was "our" Major General John Disbrow!). I have felt certain that this "notion" also must explain all those dozen or more CT/NY Disbrows who served as "loyal" patriots in the American Revolution (& "loyal" it would seeem to the "Good Old C! ause" of our famous Major General!)! Author H. F. McMains wrote in 2000, when describing poet Andrew Marvell in the book "The Death of Oliver Cromwell," how the word "patriot" originally began in the era of this 17th c."Puritan Revolution" and to "denote monarchies critics"! This fact, among other such, is inevitably pregnant with meaning for us... So then, this debate will have very important consequences for me since I have most certainly began to see the pattern of southern New England settlement in just such terms of this new historiography in now re-considering the influence of Cromwellians directly in early American history. I too have discovered countless examples of immediate/extended family members closely allied to influential Cromwellians among settlers of southern New England, specifically, only some yet outlined on this LIST. There is, for example, that of Cromwell's nephew, a Col. John Cromwell (believe he was without checking my notes), himself settled in Westchester County, New York by 1660's (just after the Restoration) not far from our two significant Disbrows there: Henry & Peter, who themselves are otherwise associating with interesting families! Other examples include the author of "History of the Colony of New Haven" (1838), Edward R. Lambert, whose ancestor Jesse settled at Milford in 16! 80 (just about the time my Thomas Disbrow settled at nearby Fairfield too), claims an extended family relationship to General John Lambert, a close political ally to General John Disbrow back in England. I will soon post several interesting "new" findings re: extended Strickland families, with their direct & intimate association with TWO CT area Disbrows (Henry & Nicholas) and then also with Major General John Disbrow via Stricklands at the highest councils of English government. I am currently tracking down an IGI report that John Strickland also was married to a "Jane Fenwick," claimed to be the dau. of that George Fenwick I posted recently as associating with Samuel Disbrowe in Scotland, and who was founding settler at Saybrook too, etc, etc, much/much more likewise. So saying, I was disappointed on my last trip to England NOT to have collected virtually any new information on Thomas Disbrow's career in England as I should expect would be there if he was prominently well-connected. There was nothing for example at the National Army Museum in London, which perhaps is NOT very surprisingly since they had very little anyway as to army roster/muster lists for the Commonwealth forces---"royalist bias" undoubtedly having done its work even after these intervening centuries!). While I also did not find anything to upset the Thomas Disbrowe of Eltisley "apple cart,"...it is ALSO very important to find out more about such of Mike Disbrow's alternative "Thomas Disbrows" as that one he lists for 1657: "tailor of Kings Lynne, Norfolk, left a will. (index to P.C.C Wills 1657-60, VIII, per Donald W. Disbrow)" from Mikes v. I, p. 19. Perhaps someone may have already collected this will or abstract, & can kindly post it here, or otherwise pa! ss on to me in fairness for my project objectivity... Kings Lynn, BTW, turns out to have particular significance since Lynn, MA (which some believe may have been named for the English Norfolk town, & is also place in England where a "Captain John Mason" of New Hampshire was born,...CT Masons also very closely associated with Fitch who are related by marriage to Samuel Disbrowe too, ...whew!). I'm delighted to see in "stored" VR resources I copied that Eltisley is very well covered in official "Bishop's Transcripts" from Cambridge Library. These transcripts do not diverge in any 'vital' ways crucial to my previously posted arguments: derived then from lists I reported via village historian Mike Sawyer. BTW, these records also interestingly report a Joane "Pumfrett" m. William "MYCHELL. Recall too that "Pomfret" is surname noted in a Disbrowe will just discussed ("John Disborowe the younger" 1610, believed father of JAMES of our debate) and another "Pomfret" (Miles) who m. Eliz. Disborowe at Saffron Walden, place of those "other" somehow related Disbrowes (eg: Nicholas of Hartford, CT too). Mitchells of unknown relation to many Mitchells in Eltisley record were associating with both the Cambridge Mass. Shepard/Stricklands and also these same Mitchells with Coes/Disbrows at Westrchester Co., NY (such is just the sort of information I have been too feebl! y trying to track down). Other interesting surnames in 17th c. Eltisley records: Stow, Chapman Woodward, Russell, Marshall, Hall, Pecke, Greene, Wells, Ward, Stocker, Johnson, Browne, Crowch, Carrington, Cooper, Ludloe, Squire(!!), Andrus/Andrews, Taylor, Gray, Bull, Barnes...for such a tiny village it has an impressive roll-call of names for most of the 17th c., aho also turn up in southern NEW England! More on the OVER & Burrough Green material as I can find time soon... STSquires

>From - Mike Disbrow, Listowner Subject - I guess I asked for it, didn't I? This mailing list is a place for discussion and there's been a good one going on here, pertaining to the roots of Thomas Disbrow (OUR own Thomas? Who knows for sure?) and the Disbrows of Eltisley. There's been some differences of opinion stated here between Steve Squires and Carl Dunn, which has unfortunately turned sour, and now I feel I must jump in, though I don't feel my role here is one of mediator. You gentlemen have both been posting some interesting and thought provoking material and I, for one, have enjoyed reading every bit of it. I hate to see it come to an end over something trivial. The list of Cambridgeshire baptisms, etc., was indeed posted on this list two years ago and is still available in the archive, just as Carl states. Anyone can look at that list and come to any conclusion they wish as to James Sr., Jr., Elder, Younger or what have you. We can't go back in time and decide what was in the clerks' minds as they made their entries, or whether they were consistent in their appelations. It may be aggravating, but it can't be changed. All we can do is make our best educated guess based on what we now know, which both Steve and Carl have done, coming to different conclusions. I would ask both of you to PLEASE keep posting your thoughts to this list, but PLEASE try not to make personal statements that will "rankle" the other. I will stay out of that discussion for now. I don't have access to all the different records Steve and Carl do, so I can't make any deductions as to who is who. The more information we can dig up the better, and if Steve can get ahold of more of those old wills, etc., on his return trip to England, maybe we'll be able to glean even more valuable information from them. I am in accord with Steve when he talks in one of his recent posts about "history" vs "genealogy", if genealogy is taken to mean just names and dates. There is nothing of interest in dates except to place someone in context. It's the stories (history) that make this all so interesting. When I was compiling my books on the descendants of Thomas and Mercy Disbrow I tried to find something personal when I could, but unfortunately for so many people there is nothing left but the barest of facts - birth, death, perhaps a marriage and children, and burial, and this of course was particularly true of the women. ! I too prefer the term "family history" to "genealogy". I'd like to see more of our members get going on some discussions on different aspects of our Disbrow family history. Perhaps many of you are more interested in your more "recent" past ancestors, and would like to post stories or even short anecdotes relating to them. Please feel free to do so. This is what we're all about. I will try to get something like this going very soon, by posting a story my grandfather, Arthur Wellesley Disbrow, wrote about his own boyhood in Steuben County, New York. I hope others will follow the lead. Mike

In a message dated 9/17/02 9:57:51 PM Central Daylight Time, jyscoach@rcn.com writes: > > RE: REBUTTAL Arguments...the 2 "JAMES" of Eltisley > Carl: > As usual you have raised provocative & truly very interesting questions > (though, please,...why wait till now to "spill ALL the beans"??). I feel we > could have benefited from your arguments up-front other day, ..no? Again > too, am honestly very sorry we couldn't have discussed this over a year ago > as I hoped to initiate discussion re: "my confusion" exactly > these James listings when you raised these lines then, well before my trip > to England last fall when I may have set aside more time to collect/ study > the wills which I "stumbled" upon at Cambridge. The message from which I extracted the baptisms of the 2 James Disbrow's in Eltisley (not omitting any, nor adding any), was posted to this list in September 2000 (as I previously indicated two times). The list does include many other Eltisley Births-marriages-deaths. The others have no bearing on whether Thomas, bapt 1625, is brother of Major General John. This information was part of this list's archives before I joined the list and before Mr. Squiires went to England. I am not responsible for doing Mr. Squires homework. I hereby abstain from any further discusssions with Mr. Squires. I am not interested in being provocative or argumentative. Carl Dunn

RE: REBUTTAL Arguments...the 2 "JAMES" of Eltisley Carl: As usual you have raised provocative & truly very interesting questions (though, please,...why wait till now to "spill ALL the beans"??). I feel we could have benefited from your arguments up-front other day, ..no? Again too, am honestly very sorry we couldn't have discussed this over a year ago as I hoped to initiate discussion re: "my confusion" exactly these James listings when you raised these lines then, well before my trip to England last fall when I may have set aside more time to collect/ study the wills which I "stumbled" upon at Cambridge. Unfortunately too, you do seem to be using obviously circular arguments in deciding when to accept Eltisley church records as being accurate (for your purpose) and when not to (as against your purpose). Is this fair? Therefore, your analysis is only sometimes valid, and certainly may indicate transcribing inaccuracies in official church records at Eltisley, but such is not uncommon either (eg: it is interesting that, as you say, James the first son of James "elder," is listed as bp 17 Aug 1606 to that other Jacobus ("JUNIOR"!) when this SAME date is being used by Johnson/Disbrowe 1986 authors for the first son of James "the elder's" bp.!). I recall occasionally just such similar minor issues with many church records I've examined, including at Easthampton, L.I for very the early Squires there, 1670 to 1720. So then, I am yet very FAR from being convinced of your speculations (as see also below, my further arguments). In such instance then, I'm inclined to accept Rev. Mark Noble as some sort of arbitrating "historical "authority (let's not be too DISMISSIVE of him now, in blanket fashion, & for reasons of our own modern prejudice so like his own perhaps...Some of what he has to report is actually accurate!), even one much closer in time to the "truth" of the question despite Noble's biases (& yes, HE was known for being a very attentive student to the church records, perhaps far more comprehensive records than now may exist too after some 250 years. Yes, I for one am still convinced that Thomas was son to James "Senior," and as also listed in those church records as a "brother" to the General John as well, just as NOBLE has claimed quite explicitly. Then again, PERHAPS those "all-knowing" Cambridge wills may provide far more clues. While we have not yet identified the "other" James (Junior) at Eltisley of the baptismal records we see (or HAVE we seen him,...I don't seem to have other records I know of---but WHAT do you folks have then...?), we do know from the will abstract of James ("Senior") enough to perhaps say at least that this James ("the elder" as he is so titled via that same will abstract, and conclusively from internal evidence of dates, as I already posted), we know not ONLY that he had a "2d son John" by 1614 (CLEARLY, this can be only our Major General), but he is listed as also having that very same "first son" JAMES, whom you now have mistakenly ascribed to the paternity now of James "JUNIOR," that now so mysterious contemporary of the "elder" at Eltisley. Therefore, your theory does not work as to this end of it and can be discarded more broadly, while perhaps awaiting further "light" shed on ALL these matters & which you too are now incumbent upon providing us objectively. As to the wills, the extent of my interest will be to collect as many, and as pertinent, as possible with interest for your arguments, but ALSO for the genuine mysteries you have raised about these other more obscure Disbrowes at Eltisley. Further, you must please understand too that there were MANY James & Elizabeths who were 'partnered-up' in little Eltisley, unfortunately. If it is accurate (& maybe you will tell us better), there is even yet one more of these I have discovered, identically named "JAMES & ELIZABETH" now by 1639 marriage record there. This as from the "Marriages at Eltisley" list came with Mike Sawyer's gift to me of those "olde notes". This short list includes: "Jacobus Disbrowe [married] to ELIZABETH Staploe---23rd Jan 1639! Well now, who can THIS JAMES & ELIZABETH pairing possibly refer to?? The problem with your argument unfortunately is that you may be mistakenly presuming that the vital records lists you have (& I seem to have to) are somehow all & ENTIRE, inclusive,....this is a dangerous presumption when concluding too certainly as to the musical chairs of which James is which in your, nonetheless, interesting speculations. Now, VERY importantly, I simply DO NOT see from my material the listings you cite from yours, as follows : Carl wrote: "> We have 2 children of James not identified as Sr or Jr : > Samuel 1619, Isaac 1625.... > When we see that James Senior has children baptized in > 1619 and 1625, and James Junior does not, it would seem > logical to place Samuel 1619 and Isaac 1625 as children > of James Junior. " [snip] MY listings simply do not conform to yours in the above matter AT ALL (re: "ISAAC as bp 1625," or that JAMES SENIOR---or any other JAMES for that matter, as having ANY children except the one "SAMUEL" listed in year 1619)! Mike Sawyer's material from Eltisley reports that your cited Isaac was actually baptized on 2 Mar 1624 (NOT 1625!). This easily allows for pregnancy margins of delivery, and, YES, as horrifying as this may seem to MODERN sensibilities, almost yearly births were all too common back then (in "patriarchal" times it was often a necessity of economics & health to keep wives "barefoot & pregnant," and not to mention for some machismo satisfactions of paternity too!). Also here, ...that JAMES "the ELDER" had a son recorded as "SAMUEL," above, in the year 1619,...but NOT as to any paternity regarding simply that "SENIOR vs JUNIOR" designation for the listed "JAMES" (there is NO OTHER listing for this or ANY other JAMES & ELIZABETH in my list for that year of 1619! There is one, however, paternity of JAMES "Senior" dated "15 Feb 1618: ANNA,"... again leaves plenty time for Samuel's arrival by 30 Nov, 1619), ....So then, all this certainly is "no big deal" in sequence of these things back then. It offers no startling contradictions...AGAIN, we must avoid taking the inconsistencies of "ancient" records far TOO literally, simply as though we today are all-too-used to the simple-minded logical linearities of those computer-machines we use & are melding onto nowadays (as I am right now!). People, anyway, simply DO not/DID not act very consistently/logically every moment, even on the most careful record. There is simply NO "biggy" about seeing JAMES paternity indicated without that "SENIOR/JUNIOR" designation, and NO other births for his namesake occurred in my records that year either. Carl wrote: "Note also that sons of Major General John were named Nathaniel and Samuel. Nathaniel appears as son of James Junior." There is also "no biggy" involved when identical GIVEN-NAMES appear across the borders of nuclear family lines, especially when it comes to the Eltisley Disbrowe, as we know. For example, I quickly found another NATHANIEL, this time son to Isaac Senior (according to Johnson/Harold Disbrowe 1986 material). Samuels, Nathaniels, Brunos, Johns, especially ELIZABETHS seem to run in ALL these various inter-relating Eltisley families. ALL my above being fair warning, perhaps, not to take ANY one source TOO literally or at face value, or for just any ONE convenient purpose at that while discarding it for others. YES, I do believe modern day "web-gens" can fall prey to the "myth" of the "Forlorn Hope", that one "irrefutable" source always hoped for. Do try to believe we are never hopeless if we are willing to abandon that constant compulsion.... So, philosophically speaking: "JUST WHAT CAN WE EVER KNOW ABOUT SO-CALLED FACTS "OVER" ANY PERIOD OF TIME???" Much to muse on here.... I will deal with that other consuming Disbrowe issue which I already anticipated, and is inextricable involved with Carl's above concerns (if more narrowly focused): issue of "Hatley" vs. "Marshall" maiden names of wives Elizabeth for JAMES at Eltisley. Don't expect all the ANSWERS, but perhaps a few more questions... STSquires

Source: Abstracts of Chancery Proceedings Relating to the Family of Desborough. Chan: PRO : Charles I M37/42 Dated 24 April 1632 Francis Mannock purchased the Rectory of Eltisley, Co. Cambridge, and the advowson, being of the clear yearly value of Pounds 200, and entailed all the said premises. ( John Mannock was son of Francis Mannock, and he died intestate about 1604). In the answer of James Desborowe, dated 4 May 1632, he states that Francis Monnocke was seized of the Rectory of Eltesley, and the advowson, ... by indenture 8 Apr 6 Elizabeth (1563 or 1564 ?), made.. (with) ... Sir John Wentworth and Henry Wentworth of Bunsteed at the Tower, co. Essex ... that John Monnocke sold the fee simple in remainder to John Desborowe, defendants father for Pounds 600 or 700, and by the Indenture 14 Oct 42 Elizabeth (1599 or 1600 )... Depostion by Robert Halley of Over that (Monnocke) sold the premises to said John Desborough for Pounds 650. ---------------------------------- The above proceeding seems to pin down the Disbrowe seisen (ownership and possession) of the Rectory and advowson of Eltisley to either 1599 or 1600. It also indicates that John Disbrowe, (died 1610) had sufficient money (650 pounds) to purchase said rights. Other property in other parishes were owned by the sons and grandsons of John (died 1610). What was the original source of this wealth ? Carl Dunn

Source: Alumni Cantabrigienses, compiled by John Venn and J. A. Venn, Part I From the Earliest Times to 1751, Volume II, Dabbs-Juxton, Cambridge At the University Press, 1922 --------- only Disbrowes from Cambridgeshire and Essex or unknown ---------- DISBOROUGH, Bruno. Matric. sizar from Trinity, Michs. 1623; of Cambridgeshire. Migrated to Queen's 1626. B.A. 1626-27. M.A. 1630. Ord. deacon (Peterb.) Jun 13; priest, June 14, 1630. P.C. of St. James, Duke's Place, London, 1640 to perhaps 1658. DISBOROUGH, George. Matric. sizar from Christ's, c. 1592. DISBOROUGH, James. Admin. pens. at Queen's, Mar 31, 1645 of Cambridgeshire. Perhaps same as the next. DISBROWE, James. M.A. 1673 (Lit. Reg.). Perhaps s. of Samuel, of Elsworth, Cambs. M.D. of Stepney, Middlesex and of Elsworth, Cambs. Will dated Nov. 26, 1690. Another of these names, clerk, buried at Eltisley, Cambs., Dec. 25, 1703. Cousin of James, M.D. (Munk I, 477; H.F. Waters, Geneal. Gleanings, I. 244) DISBOROWE, John. Scholar of Trinity 1562. B.A. 1564-5; M.A. 1568. Master of Saffron Walden School, 1573-1607, buried there Dec. 5, 1607. DISBOROUGH, John. Matric. Pens. from Queen's, Michs. 1587. Of Essex. DESBOROUGH, Nathaniel. Adm. pens. at Christ's, Sept. 12, 1626. S. of James, of Eltisley, Camhs. School, St. Ives Matric. 1626. B.A. 1630-31. (Peile I, 377). DESBOROUGH, Nicholas. Matric. pens. from St. John's, Easter 1627. DESBOROW, ____. Adm. Fell.-Com. at Trinity, 1656. Perhaps James Desborowe 'and s. of Right Honorable John Lord Desborowe' who was adm. at Gray's Inn July 8, 1658. ------------ Abbreviations adm. admitted at a College Fell.-Com. - Fellow commoner; the first of the 3 ranks in which students were matriculated. Matric. - matriculation Pens. - pensioner; the 2nd of the 3 ranks Sizar - the 3rd of these ranks The only early Disbrowe in the comparable register for Oxford is Valentine Disbrowe, matric. 1656, son of John Disbrowe, the parliamentary general...

Was Thomas Disbrow, baptized 1625 the brother of Major General John? I say he was not. The following lengthy discussion contains my reasons. The following is extracted from the archives of this list. This can be found in the archives for 2000, search for hutchkraft and inst " In 1975, the Archivist at Cambridge University, referred me to Margaret Bone, a researcher to abstract all references to the name Disbrow found in the Eltisley Parish records. She had access to the records from1602 through 1653. The Cambridge County Archivist, J. M. Farrar, abstracted the records after 1653" 1605, Aug 1, m. James Disbrow, the elder to Elizabeth Marshall. 1606, Aug 17, Bapt., James, s/o James Disbrow, Jr. & wife Elizabeth. 1608, Apr 10, Bapt. Elizabeth, d/o James Disbrow, Jr. & w/ Elizabeth 1608, Dec 13, Bapt. John, s/o James Disbrow Sr. & w/ Elizabeth 1609, Oct 8, Bapt. John, s/o James Disbrow, Jr. & w/ unnamed. 1611, Mar 2, Bapt. Willliam, s/ James Disbrow, Sr. & w/Elizabeth. 1611, June 22, Bapt. Joseph, s/o James Disbrow, Jr. & w/Elizabeth. 1612, Sep 13, Bapt, Nathaniel, s/ James Disbrow, Jr. & w/Elizabeth. 1613, Aug 18, Bapt. Bruno, s/James Disbrow, Sr. & w/ Elizabeth. 1615, May 9, Bapt. Rebecca, d/o James Disbro, Jr. & w/Elizabeth. 1616, Oct 27, Bapt. Bruno, s/o James Disbrow, Sr. & w/Elizabeth 1617, Aug 1, Bapt. Susanna, d/o James Disbrow, SR & w/Elizabeth 1619, Feb 15, Bapt. Ann, d/o James Disbrow, SR & w/Elizabeth 1619, Nov 30, Bapt. Samuel, s/o James & Elizabeth Disbrow 1622, Aug 20, Bapt. Elizabeth, d/o James Disbrow, Jr. & w/Elizabeth 1623, Feb 23, Bapt Mathew, s/o James Disbrow, SR & w/Elizabeth 1625, Mar 2, Bapt. Isaac s/o James & Elizabeth Disbrow. 1625, Oct 25, Bapt. Thomas, s/o James Disbrow, Sr. & w/Elizabeth 1627, May 1 Bapt. Soiror, d/o James Disbrow, Jr. & w/Elizabeth. 1627, Sep 26, Bapt Elizabeth, d/o James Disbrow, Jr. & w/Elizabeth. 1627, Dec 26, Bapt. Annis, d/o James Disbrow, SR & w/Elizabeth 1629, Jan 7, Bapt. Elizabeth, d/o James Disbrow, Sr. & w/ Elizabeth. We have thus listed Children of James Senior. John 1608, William 1611, Bruno 1613, Bruno 1616, Susanna 1617, Ann 1619, Matthew 1623, Thomas 1625, Annis 1627, and Elizabeth 1629. We have the children of James Junior listed as James 1606, Elizabeth 1608, John 1609, Joseph 1611, Nathaniel 1612, Rebecca 1615, Elizabeth 1622, Soiror 1627, Elizabeth 1627. We have 2 children of James not identified as Sr or Jr Samuel 1619, Isaac 1625. When we see that James Senior has children baptized in 1619 and 1625, and James Junior does not, it would seem logical to place Samuel 1619 and Isaac 1625 as children of James Junior. We do not find a James as son of James Senior, but it is entirely possible he would fit in as born in 1606 (perhaps baptized in another parish ?) Turning to the marriages of the two James and the two Elizabeths, we find that James Senior married Elizabeth Marshall. From the Dictionary of National Biography, the entry for John, the Major General, states his mother was Elizabeth Hatley. It also identifies Samuel as his brother. Note also that sons of Major General John were named Nathaniel and Samuel. Nathaniel appears as son of James Junior. The abstract of the will of James the Elder just posted by Mr. Squires shows that James Senior had a son William but no William is listed for James Junior. While the DNB has Major General John's baptism as 13 Nov 1608, the preponderance of the facts indicate that the Major General and his brother Samuel were sons of the James Junior. Any other James are irrelevant to identifying the father of Maj. Gen. John and Thomas. Conclusion: Major General John and his brother Samuel were children of James (Jr) and Elizabeth Hatley. Thomas was son of James (Sr) and Elizabeth Marshall. I have not seen the material by Noble, Harold Disbrow, or Eddis Johnson. Even if their material disagrees I would be reluctant to change my reconstruction. On another note, as an answer to another of Mr. Squires lengthy messages, if anyone has any criticism of my messages, please direct them to me, or post to the list. Carl Dunn