Mike Disbrow asks: "what other evidence do we have, if any, besides Mark Noble's book "... The Protectoral House of Cromwell...", to show that James of Eltisley did indeed have such a son named Thomas?" This very natural question has raised Carl Dunn's truly interesting new and for me "startling" speculations concerning the TWO James Disbrowes, Senior and Junior,... with senior being only the father of the famous Civil War era Disbrowes and not necessarily of Thomas, bp 1625.....AS to just which James was which has long been confusing to me too,... but apparently NOT so to 18th century's Rev. Mark Noble, who I do recall was quite noted for his research into old parish records. This matter, I now recall was ALSO not ever too confusing to me either come to think of it and as pertains to the paternity of Thomas, bp 1625. Mark Noble was also closer in time to all these people, and than he was or they to us and the authors Harold Disbrowe and Eddis Johnson of 1986, who also were NEVER confused! So why have we ALL not much questioned this paternity for Thomas of Eltisley?? I think I can come to some resolution about that finally now, at least! Though each of you might! check for yourselves from readily available modern resources, and then please report if I'm wrong,... please! ... Mike Sawyer gave me his carefully copied list of all 17th c. Disbrow's from Eltisley parish records, also showing baptisms at Eltisley church (which church still exists), just as he so kindly listed them for me, as from 17 Aug 1606 to 30 April 1657. After that date, he notes "NO Disbrows were baptized" (interestingly, he uses modern spelling of Disbrow throughout, without "e"). However, right there in smack-center of his list (as I've seen it elsewhere in published compilations I must now dredge up for our certainty sake) he lists Thomas' baptism & paternity as: "25 Oct 1625 - THOMAS ...Son of Jacobus 'SEN.' & Elizabeth Disbrow." Please note he has very carefully indicated this father of Thomas as "Jacobus, Sen." (Jacobus is the old Latin for James of course; the "sen." obviously means "senior"). As I recall, there was also NO question of this particular paternity in the other more formal published lists I've seen either (but let's please check)... It is also important to note that these same parish lists of Mike Sawyer indicate the paternity of the "famous" Major General John too as being the same "Jacobus sen" of the paternity of Thomas, and John bp. 13 Dec 1608 ( this is the universally accepted date given for him, though there is yet another "John" who was baptized to that other "Jacobus"--JUNIOR--on 8 Oct 1609!). SO, it would appear at least for Thomas Disbrowe of Eltisley that his paternity, and even that of the Major General, are beyond question and shared at that (from this list at least made up for me personally by the Eltisley village historian!) Carl is also quite right though to speculate the "senior vs. junior" designation may be for little more than in order to distinguish two 'early' contemporary James at the very TINY village of Eltisley, 12 miles from Cambridge (which itself has a lovely very un-crowed & open rural ambiance). You have to visit Eltisley village to see just how small and rural it seemingly is (though perhaps deceptive that way---it regularly wins "village beautiful" awards ), and perhaps always was. Though there are compact residential areas hidden off away beyond the screen of trees ringing one side of the green, which therefore obviously must have accommodated all the various confusing families (hard to believe). There are SEVERAL very olde houses still standing at the "green" & from the era in question (including, besides the very lovely, not so very large "rectory" near the church which is the most imposing of those Disbrowe houses in the village, ...was it once called the "rectory" ! or the "manor house" because BOTH are referred to for our Disbrowes and exist as separate places, if I'm not mistaken. This rectory also has a fun history with a studded heavy oak door once used in the cellar for a jail there...this was sold I was told by the sisters who opened the house in the 30's and ran a tea house there). There is also an amazing, large boxy place with a MOAT around it, at the other end of the green from the rectory & church. That place is surrounded now by a carefully maintained perfectly rectangular body of water about 1o' wide, on THREE sides leaving the front open to traffic. I liked to believe when in Eltisley that this place too was inhabited by our Disbrowes, perhaps they can tell me yet. Well, there you have it. I'm shocked to think that now I have to play the expert at this particular gen. information when I have been relying, too secondarily I guess, on the past effort of those other researchers of earlier years. My ability and willingness to parse out the more obscure "cousins" of this family will also be sorely "tried," I'm sure in my up-coming trip (don't count on it). No. I'm not a willing "genealogist," please don't make me into one for too much of the extended English Disbrow/es.

Carl Dunn wrote: " Now there were two James Disbrowe's both with wives Elizabeth in Eltisley who were contemporaneous. The James Disbrowe called Senior was married to Elizabeth Marshall, 1 Aug 1605. The James Disbrowe called Junior was married to Elizabeth Hatley and they were parents of John Disbrowe, the Major General, and Samuel, the one who was in Connecticut and later returned to England." Carl: I for one am missing a "James Disbrowe" in above scenario (and would love to far hear more of how you derive Bruno into the your speculations). WE now have three James and two Juniors: this is since James Disbrowe, called "Senior," was called "elder" according to Eddis Johnson/Harold Disbrowe (1986) for his first son being also "James" (listed as yet another "Jr." to your own who himself so confusingly is also listed on parish registers for Eltisley while not mentioned in my materials from the 1986 authors I keep citing), though I'm NOT yet clear just how often, far back or just where this earlier James Jr. is listed in records before 1606----is he also somewhere on any "births" listing for this earlier generation of him then??). James Senior's own son "James" was born 16 Aug. 1606 per parish records, & my authors, as the clear elder brother to the famous General & Samuel (a LOT of this "confusion" for me is due to the identical names for at least THREE sets of BO! TH fathers & mothers, James/Elizabeth, as per so many these Eltisley records!). That James Jr, as first "son" to James Sr., & also an elder brother to "our" Thomas, bp .1625 (at least according to authors) is presumably NOT as yours referred to as dying 1634 (1 Dec), and who is on the records fathering children along with James Senior from 1609 onwards!! (FUN to go figure all this then, huh!!) It seems at least possible by date, that 1634 could also refer to this later gen. of James Jr, (if not at all probable to me for another reason as below speculated). This is because of that curious happenstance where James Senior made out his will in 1614 and never revised at all by 1638 for any of those presumed subsequent children (recall automatic "primogeniture" made this hardly very necessary!), at least some of whom we must be now able to tie directly to this James Senior (or perhaps NOT?? LET"S EXAMINE THAT POSSIBILITY THEN TOO). So, by 1634 it is at least a possibility! that this younger gen. of James Jr could be in that 1634 grave (per the authors I cite) and not your own presumed elder James "Jr" (who certainly also must have died sometime thereabouts) I'd sure like to know your total reasoning on all this since I don't see all the conclusive evidence there for this most curious, but actually very fascinating scenario. And since it is this later James Jr., elder brother to the General, who is also indicated as died at an "unknown" time by the authors I keep citing (targeting that 1634 date as likely). It does seem that 2nd son General John was the lord of the manor by a yet uncertain date for me. Most confusingly for me also, this James Jr, General's elder brother, is also presumed by authors to have married yet another "Elizabeth" Elizabeth Barron, assumably as his 1st wife..."probably" 30 Nov. 1626,... while also squeezing in a 2nd wife "Anna Proby" by 16 July 1630. THIS James, I don't believe, could likely have been that one listed as buried 17 Oct 1647 at Eltisley (of the five I have seen listed in "Burials at Eltisley" from Mike Sawyer: 1602 to 1703). This is because the dynamic General John was himself seemingly in charge of the Eltisley advowson "during the first six years of [the General's] marriage" in 1636 (per authors and many citations of John's career in military ...Also his elder brother, James Jr., has been speculated as that same James who "died young," according to the other famous brother: "our" own CT's Samuel Disbrowe via 1684 pedigree at London College of Heralds (cited by Waters, ...& meaning only that he died "relatively young in compa! rison to Samuel's age." per Johnson et al),... There does seem to have been some JAMES at Eltisley to confuse all my foregoing!! Then there is this in those "olde notes" handed to me by Village historian Mike Sawyer (and I have seen something similar from other secondary sources): "Henry Denne was Baptist minister of the Parish of Eltisley [Denne is TRULY very interesting, rather "famous" even, in larger history am pursuing too!], residing in Caxton, Cambs. It seems that John Disbrowe, the Lord of the Manor, was favourably disposed towards the Baptists, and became an elder in Denne's congregation at Fenstanton (Hunts'). So puritanical were the services that the Tory writer Noble remarks, 'psalm singing was as heinous a sin at Eltisley as bending the knee to Baal and it was then as much noted for the devout exercises practiced there as any other place in the kingdom.' [as quoted often by many Disbrow researchers]. Henry Denne's understanding of the Quaker position was gained at a meeting between Quaker's and Baptists in May 1659, when Alexander Parker wrote to George Fox [founder of Quakers] tha! t he had been to Eltisley: 'the man's name that did desire the meeting was one Desborough, an ancient professor, he is uncle to Major General Desborough. There a Baptist teacher spoke who is likely to have been Henry Denne or his son.' In 1674-5, John Elger of Papworth [interstingly to me, now called "Papworth EVERARD"!) was fined two steers for going to a meeting at the house of Elias Woodward in Eltisley. The information came from 'James Desborough of Eltisley informer.' " SOOO, then just who is this final James of 1674 at Eltisley (and even more provocatively for me just who is that "professor Desborough," elderly uncle of the General!??), could this James be that later Dr James Disbrowe (Dr. of Physick) who was only son to Samuel of nearby Elsworth, yet he actually seems to have been mostly(?) resident in Stepney, a London suburb??

As this has been requested of me off-List, I post it now on-List...TWO will abstracts pertinent just now to our discussions: >From "English Origins of New England Families" by Gary Boyd Roberts, vol 3 (NEHGR excerpts, 1st series, 1984) I. JEFFRY DISBOROWE, Whaddon, County Cambridge, yeoman. will 16 March, 1622/3; proved 10 May, 1623. To son Bruno Disborow [tora] per annum for education at the school and university during life of his mother. To Bruno, James, Willyam and John 100 marks each. To two daughters Agnes and Rose 50 pnds each. [If wife Rose die before son Bruno and John, and his brothers-in-law Thomas Pentlow and John Bonner, to use of three sons, James, Willyam, and John, etc. etc To poore of Whaddon---[all erased; actually this could still be perhaps very readable, but for calligraphy, as it is simply crossed-out with single line in my original copy!] Residue to wife Rose, executrix. Witnesses: Clement Sentloe, Thoms Sentlow. Archdeaconry of Ely, Liber 7 (1611-1628), folio 317. 2. James Disbrowe of Eltisley the elder. Will 14 January, 1614/5; proved 25 October, 1688. To be buried in Eltisley churchyard. To wife Elizabeth tenements in Eltisley 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. This is just to confuse things for us that this will of this JAMES, who my notes say married Elizabeth HATLEY, has as witness one surnamed "Marshall." The James who married a "Marshall" is believed not to have had sons named John & William, of course, as to just who did marry that Marshall it has seemingly been my fate to always wonder until I can try to make something of this at Cambridge this fall (or perhaps Carl Dunn already has)... It was also wrong of me to constantly believe the two James Disbrowes of Eltisley were in a linear line as even Johnson and Harold Disbrowe most emphatically DO NOT MAKE THAT CLAIM, as I mistakenyl too quickly noted too quickly today. HERE following is just what Eddis Johnson/Harold B. Disbrowe in 1986 DON'T have to say about this matter (and no I'm not going to post all their material without getting my scanner to work better!): John Disbrorowe, the Elder, of Eltisley, Yeoman c. 1526?-1574 m. Alice---- abt 1649; parents unknown {his will exists also: dated 14 September 1574, proved 24 September, son John, other son Bruno, dau. Johane, "to James Disbrowe" (unnamed relation but listed by these authors as a 4th child, for whom a written marginal note by another researcher says also had himself a son also named "James" b/c 1580 who was the one who ma. Elizabeth Marshall! John Disborowe, the younger, of Eltisley, Yeoman, c. 1550-1610, son of John & Alice above, & noted in father's 1574 will, & who also himself had still existing will, dated 27 August 1608, proved 23 June 1610: naming his wife Joan, 2d son Joseph, 3d son "Izhak," 4th son Nathaniel, dau. Sara, cash legacies to Alice "Pomfret" my daughter" [most CURIOUSLY: there is also a Miles POMFRET who m. one Elizabeth Disborowe in Saffron Walden, 12 June 1581, listed by authors as unidentified "Disborowe" in same village of those "other" VERY interesting Disbrowe's: "joyner" Nicholas of Hartford & his parents], to children of Francis Waspe 'my daughter', to children of eldest son James; and the executrix/"residuary legatee": wife Joan. The Disbrow authors also list Mark Noble's book for more children still in this family: 1.William, d. infant, 2.John d. age 20 not marr., 3.James "the father of the two celebrated sons, Maj. Gen. John and Samuel;" 4. Lawrence who died in infancy, 5.Joseph who by Ann his wife had a daughter Dinah; 6.Isaac who by Mary his wife had six sons & three daughters; 7.Sarah Accordingly, for the authors, it was THIS James who married Elizabeth Hatley and also had "my" Thomas Disbrowe, bp 1625 (p. 6) among some 14(!) children total! It is also NOT clear to the authors just where Jeffrey Disborowe fits in,...though the above will abstract for him I have always felt does indeed shed some light on that one, not unlike Mr. Dunn's conclusions. Sorry for any of my gross errors in ANY of this just now (I need to escape from this machine for some sleep!), but the Eltisley are confusing (at least to me!) and certainly DO need further clarification on several points. So, let's discuss for any of you "in the know" (DON'T presume I am some sort of all-knowing expert!)... STSquires

I also wish to avoid confusing factual mis-impression perhaps left in my "Redux: Thomas Disbrow, WHO IS HE?". Rev. John Eliot, the famous 17th c. NE "apostle" to the Indians, was the person ("HE") who was that very close adherent to Thomas Hooker and his "reader" assistant in his congregation back in England. Sorry for any likely confusion that "reader" was a DISBROW, which I certainly did not mean to imply (obviously enough). I had the following also ready for posting, before all latest interesting back/forth: It is now known on public record when Nathaniel Disbrowe was married to "Anne Corbett." According to the "A Calendar of the Marriage License Allegations in the Registry of the Bishop of London, 1597 to 1700" (page 11, The British Record Society, Limited), this marriage took place in London on October 31, 1664 (our Halloween, OOPS, so sorry couldn't resist!). Nathaniel was 2nd son to General John Disbrowe, according to Johnson & Disbrowe (see below), who have now gotten it "wrong"(?) concerning Thomas as "brother" to General John (per Carl Dunn)....NOW then this marriage is also important because Johnson & Disbrowe in 1986 claim her as one of "10 daus. of John Corbet, bart. of Stoke, Shropshire." CORBETS, yes, this name too figures into those "Disbrow NETWORK" proofs I'm using as to just who my Thomas Disbrow may have been: This is a "relationally" important perhaps even unique enough surname for more proof yet, since another "Corbet" (of unknown relation to the above Anne!) was also listed along closely with that Thomas Desborough/Delborough in Colham's "Bonded Passengers..." first edition as being sentenced with him for transportation, 1675 (I saw the Sessions books in London concerning too). Concerning that listing, if you like I can discuss further what I discovered about the famous "L" Mike has raised as possibly misinterpreted by Coldham's "Bonded Passengers to America," Mike correctly dismissing this spelling in his own vol. I of "Thomas Disbrow Descendants," p. 20. RE: that "Thomas Delborough, pardoned for being transported"...as "Delborough" vs. "Desborough" (hint: it is most certainly an "s", as even Coldham corrected in later editions at London... This correct Desborough spelling is also as confirmed from the original document at the PRO which I certainly did photo-copy there while receiving opinions from staff concerning spelling). For Curiosity sake: just 3 days earlier a Joseph "Sherwood" m. Mary How in London, ....several days before Francis "Rowe" m. Elizabeth "Campfield. Both surnames important to early CT, w/ Owen "Rowe" very prominently involved in New Haven Colony & much else, but stayed behind...eventually to serve w/ General Disbrowe & Cromwell in Commonwealth & Protectoral government. Owen Rowe died ignominiously, as I believe, in hands of the royalists upon the Restoration.. Other interesting London marriages are close in date to Nathaniel's and hold very familiar "network" surnames to these Disbrowes: including "Jordan" & "Marshall" (also within days). Also listed for curiosity sake: one Edmund "Rolfe" m. Grace Jeaquise December 3, 1664. Nathaniel Disbrowe was listed by both Eddis Johnson & Harold Disbrowe as the second son (third child) to Major General John Disbrowe, b. c. 1641, d. unknown (but probably, by my reckoning, abt 1671, as also based on modern scholarly information concerning his intriguing activities & when he is lost to the official record). There is actually much abt this Disbrowe in the CSP (Calendar of State Papers-Domestic) during Restoration era contemporary to when "My Thomas was forcibly "transported." Most of which material I believe I have collected at London (I should hope!). This includes a letter published from his wife: Anne Corbet (of prominent family), who was moving "heaven & earth" to get him released from the Tower of London where he had been imprisoned for over a year, a period almost contemporary as prisoner of his own father there, General Disbrowe who was released by 1667 (YES, this man was the father to Nathaniel!). Nathaniel is the subject of a fascinating 12 page article in the 1951 issue of journal "HISTORY" (#42), "Captain Nathaniel Desborough: A Post Restoration Sidelight" by Jones (at most university libraries), whereby what ever now can be known of his spying activities are pretty well discussed, even concerning possibility he was actually "double agent" for the crown (say it wasn't so, Joe). There is still much more to be known about OTHERS of the General's intimate family members involved in intrigues, including a very curious record concerning Valentine, another son, arrested at the time of the famous Rye House Plot (just picking up all the routine suspects perhaps!). In any case, a modern study has concluded from the above article that Nathaniel was a "double agent" against his own father's interests & intrigues from Holland (see "Intelligence & Espionage in the Reign of Charles II, 1660 to 1685" by Alan Marshall (HEY, not Marshall can be related to the "network"!). I'm NOT so sure! Eddis Johnson and Harold B. Disbrowe collaborated on detailed study, esp. of the Eltisley Disbrowes: "Disbrowes of Canada and Their English Antecedents and Kinsfolk." With Harold B. Disbrowe listed as "publisher" 1986 (from London, Ontario). Eddis Johnson also produced a 1976 effort entitled: "Disbrow Families of England, 16th & 17th Centuries: An Interim Report" which I have also been much reliant upon. These show much enthusiastic effort and genuinely rigorous attention to what sources they could uncover, including the "biased" mid-18th century Noble and his "Memoirs of the Protectoral House Of Cromwell." STSquires

I just mentioned the following, which CALLS for my very immediate clarification: "Carl's [Dunn's] remarks last year were not withoutr some criticism off-Line to me, but I now must go back and see just why....never fear---no names involved!" I do NOT mean to create unnecessary controversy in this forum, Dunn was in NO way ever critical to me, or my vice versa....My only clumsy attempt here above was to note that one or two folks on this list (not the "list-owner") did indeed question Mr. Dunn's listed conclusions last year, criticisms I thought worthy but was still far too ignorant to raise myself here....NOW, this would have all been unnecessary altogether, and we all would have been much further along with this matter had we all had more COURAGE in debating these issues forthrightly, on this LIST, in respectful "back & forth"---That is what the LIST exists for! If you think I'm a nutty "crock" then say you reasons (based on factula representations only PLEASE!). I'll be grateful to debate the matter...PERHAPS I'm even WRONG, gasp! But we won't get to the bottom of it with the sort of response I got to my many 'outrageous' ('courageous')theories & ideas presented last year, ...which was basically no response whatever, but from the occasional Mr. Dunn, in this forum anyway, ...which has since been ignored by all for almost the past year...YES unfortunately, this List was of virtually NO help to me, where I otherwise once thought it could be absolutely invaluable. Let's see some debate---perhaps I won't much like that debate, but it could help us all arrive at the truth far more quickly than my traipsing back & forth to England! So, Good Work, Carl! STSquires attempt was simply to

Due to potential mis-interpretations, I have re-crafted this last slightly to eliminate those on Archival record>>> Dear Michael, Sounds like you HAVE watched too much Court TV, Mike,...but then SOMEBODY has to. Being a terrific genealogist who gathered all the then-known facts, listing no less than 17 probable Thomas "D.s" back in England (pp. 18-20, v. one) in your "Descendants" books, some undoubtedly recaps of others.... it is the job of every TRUE genealogists to stay focused on "just the facts, mam..."! We are truly very lucky to have you still keeping us all "honest"... But then I am emphatically NOT a "genealogist" (don't much like that part of the job, & couldn't stand the thought of having t write up all that detail as so wonderfully, accurate & comprehensively presented in Mike' 2 volumes)...No, for me its just about the history, sorry gang!...Though I too am dedicated to finding ALL those facts, "mam...". For a "historian," where known "facts" are absent, then relationships & obvious circumstances are permissible "proofs" too, ...when the known facts fit that is, ...& when all else can fit into its proper place too. This is being recognized academically now with increased use of genealogy by professional historians, ...and despite their inevitable past snobbery about the "lesser" discipline of family history" (once so fraught with truly commonplace & foolish pretensions as to only the "facts" that "fit"!). For our Disbrow/es, the so-far "known" facts are honestly beginning to fit beautifully, in fact! This is not just because of all those networked surnames, as only a few examples springing to my mind now: "Sherwoods" (both at Eltisley & in Samuel D.'s extended family too, PLUS as next-door-neighbors to our own Thomas of Compo, CT, ...even visiting him in his parlor to discuss the Bible per Mercy's trial transcripts), or those "Greens," or many such others as I've been trying to, far too occasionally, note here on this List as they come to me (Gold, Goldinghams, Goldins/ens, Wards, etc for your attention, & much more too!), WHILE then requesting ALL your assistance as to gen connects back to their namesakes in England. I do have many OTHERS still, with more YET to reveal about us, ...all in tight extended-families on BOTH sides of Atlantic, as too apparent it seems to me (including at CT). Only some I've yet been able to gen-connect back in England side of things (hard work you know!)...Well, that's my "theory," anyway, am working mightily upon,...with my working ("circumstantial") list (within "the Disbrow Network") getting much much longer all the time, but still only very tightly revealing something truly "startling," even obvious, without having to look too far-afield about it. ALL of it, I feel, must be telling us something about our own CT Disbrow/es (or more importantly for ME & my book project too much blared about herein, about Mercy Disbrow's witch trial at Fairfield of 1692, very specifically---please recall how that is MY only focus for my book project!!---so plse DO NOT expect pure genealogy lists, ...oh my gosh!). These facts-on-file that "fit" are particularly compelling in the LONG absence, now, of any OTHER qualifying information about our still very mysterious Thomas. I try not to stray more than a marriage or two away from my focus, and keep it within close locational/circumstantial relationships, many now proven by gen.---BUT, hey ya know, I am NO "miracle worker,"... and this gen-chat List has honestly been of far less help to me than I had hoped in coming up with verifiable "cross-oceanic gen. connections" for quite so many of these otherwise obviously inter-connecting surnames (oh well, at least the PATTERN here can be persuasive too, together with what gen-facts I have discovered about this, & they are potent for just who they are concerning). Such gen. verifications should be even far more possible NOW, with internet tools making less need--ha, ha--to cross the Atlantic for research! Well, ha, ha to that.... Actually, the reason why academic historians have so very long snubbed genealogy, despite some of the best (& worst! "NOT" mentioning that somewhat laughable/too "pc" Westport, CT history just printed couple years ago) of that 19th c. phenomenon of local histories being written by genealogists, is because the gens over on our side of the "pond" have presumed (for various political, culturally chauvinist reasons, as well as convenience of research necessity!) that history only BEGINS with the landings at Jamestown/Plimouth, not back in "forgettable" olde England (a check of James Savage's Dictionary randomly demonstrates!)....Truly an obvious problem for any historian wishing to use genealogy in his research. Now, on more positive note please see the new book by Kevin Phillips, THE COUSINS WARS, for some new historiography actually correcting this very same problem, belatedly, while demonstrating how foolish past family pretensions can hold us back & paradoxically too be the source of new interpretations (even while Americas were, pathetically enuf, much further along in recognizing how the Puritan Revolution impacted our American Revolution, much further than the "Brits" still villifying their Cromwellians for obvious reasons of "royalist" bias).. This problem, over on our side, especially perpetuated by many the oldest families as American "self-mythologizers" of "ye olde" NEW England, ...each with an obvious stake in that very "new" history of America (the very influential 19th century Adams family alone is responsible for generations of historical amnesia/prejudice by calling the Puritan era a "cultural desert!"). These olde families obviously include that paragon of history (& history writing), now NOT AT ALL IN-APPROPRIATELY being celebrated on best-seller lists: the Revolutionary Massachusetts ADAMS family, via their chroniclers: 19th c. Henry, Charles Francis, etc....(BTW, while I do TRY NOT to be a 'gold-digger,' I did just discover that the New England progenitor of this "famous" American family, the very obscure Henry Adams who settled at Wollaston (once Thomas Merton's infamous "Merrymount"), was married to someone named "SQUIRE," ...OH, Oh, there I go again, eh....."The Squire family, that of Henry's wife, was a tiny bit more distinguished [note: author meaning that neither were anything but the most obscure DIRT farmers back in England!]. Two sisters of Edith Squire Adams also migrated, Anne and Margaret, Mrs. Aquila Purchase and Mrs. John Shepard respectively [HEY, don't we Disbrow/es also have some "Shepards" in extended family, pertinent to our more obscure history---AH YES, that all-important CAMBRIDGE connection again!!]. This [author continues], not a Dragon, is probably what moved Henry across the water." (p. 34 "First Families: The Making of An American Aristocracy" by Nath'l Burt, 1970---HEY, so who's this author "Burt," descended then from those "Burts" at Salem tangling with our Isaac Disbrowe thereabouts in 1630s/40's?, recall how the PENNOYERS tell us much about very likely motivations then);...that "Dragon" stuff noted above has long been provocative secret history in Adams "chronicles," here also something to do with secret societies, & "congregational" religion,..and other such fun stuff, ...but you guys just wait!)... I will hope to discuss in some "remarkable" detail in my book project actually, the idea of "relational analysis" revealing some truly REMARKABLE history (& not just "implausible history!"), long overlooked FACTS, in actual fact, now made obvious via a wealth of circumstantial (& not "just" so...) relationships of inter-relating families with their convergent, very often POTENT histories. ALL the "facts" fit..., now so obviously so far 9and I'm looking for ALL, since I know what to expect otherwise,especially from those wonderfully contentious British academicians)---Hence, my initial emphasis on the "startling" discovery that Samuel Disbrowe's close family relations: the Pennoyers, were intimately involved in my own Mercy Disbrow's 1692 witch trial, in more ways than you yet know! From which startling revelation many wonderful new facts truly do reveal themselves (so, you guys want everything revealed here, instead of via my much promised "book project"!??), all further confirming those relationships I am proposing, of course....(but THAT is my book project, gang! So read it when I can get it written, ...if I ever CAN, ...WHENEVER! ...NOT all is being revealed on this List, I might add---I can't give it ALL away for gosh sakes... Nor can I get the job done simply by answering questions, posting endlessly here----except those more nagging, vital questions, via YOUR help, about such as those WILLS at Cambridge's Shire Hall....so WHO will help?). What you all do not quite know (& it is NOT my intention to post everything on this LIST soon as I discover it, I would have no time for anything else!!), is just how MUCH of the remarkable history of England (at the highest levels of activity!) during those turbulent years of the Puritan Revolution is also actually being reflected right back into the settlement of early Connecticut/New Haven, and expressly (YES, I know this is ALL very hard to accept!) through our complex little maze of Disbrow(e)s, each settling down so very early right here in olde CT, quite specifically!! This back-ward reflection is via a host of families constituting what I have been calling, not just for convenience sake: "The Disbrow(e) Network," who much concerned themselves with early CT settlement during & after Hooker (actually with him too, as with our Roxbury Disbrows hooking up with the "famous" Rev. John Eliot,... HE was actually a follower of, & "reader" for, Hooker's own congregation back in England! Those Cambridge connections at BOTH ends being central to soo much of this "networking" going on, both intellectually & economically> Eliot was also closely involved, on the record, with both Rev. Henry Whitfield and our own Samuel Disbrowe at Guilford, where Eliot's own son became pastor, that one later figuring so importantly in the "reprieve" of our Mercy Disbrow"(/e)"---(NO, our Thomas never did spell it with that "e"). This provable "network" includes the SAME family surnames, at very high levels of government, also associating with our own extended Disbrows of CT on very intimate terms (not just via those amazing "Stricklands" on BOTH ends whom I have uncovered significantly more concerning, yet to note here... But, as a sampling at least for now since they are NOW on my mind much, ALSO such as: Sir Henry Rich, the just noted George Fenwick, the Winthrops, the Hutchinsons (very startling new stuff there, "relationally"/factually!)---As to the Winthrops (there is more yet) recall too that our own Mercy Holbridge was "farmed-out" as an in-law "servant" into the household of that very same famous CT Governor's "closely involved" New London medical/alchemical colleague/partner (& her own "in-law relation"---so, have said that one explicitly enuf?): "Rev. Gershom Bulkeley!" Those are just off-top-of-head for being most recently worked on, and do not begin to set the pattern or do justice to it here (with many others in my notes). This missive, is obviously NOT to Mike Disbrow, who has done (and continues to do) us all such great & necessary service, and now by also keeping us focused on the issue for him, with our feet firmly planted upon the ground! He must do only "the necessary" in showing us the VITAL importance of those Cambridgeshire wills, and which we ALL must now contribute to examining (not just ME!!)... While my "facts" are a bit more "circumstantial" presently ("RELATIONAL"), such is presently ALL we can hope for from what we now know,... They are to me nevertheless very potent for what they are saying , & potent for HISTORY'S sake, even whether or not our own Thomas Disbrow of Fairfield turns out to be quite exactly who I certainly do believe him to be right now (given ALL my "relational circumstances!"). Despite our current "speculations" as to whether those Cambridgshire wills may or may not precisely identify our own Thomas ever (actually, I tend to think not, though I obviously MUST go back to see for myself!!), we must realize that we nonetheless DO have some very good handle on this question...(it so far is my own feeling, from what few of them I did see, some NOT copied and from list I have of them, that we are NOT likely to find out much more about our own Thomas of Fairfield from those---though I'd better never say "NEVER!"). We also know that his father (see, I'm already convinced), "James Disbrowe" of Eltisley had many additional offspring recorded in Parish records along w/ one "Thomas" of my circumstantial "presumption,"... These later children are NOT mentioned in the 1614 will, of course, or as proved even in 1638! Just as Eddis Johnson/Harold Disbrowe have pointed out as only mildly curious to them (this not unheard of), but still odd I think. There could be MANY reasons for this though, including that one unmentioned female dau. we know as his, Rebecca, who married Rev. George Greene, was no longer his personal financial responsibility (it was extremely commonplace to "drop" such females from wills when they got married back then, becoming the responsibility of their husbands). Since our Thomas was only 13 years old also in 1638, still under his mother's care (as far as I know, we have no obvious death record whatever for this Eltisley Thomas ---though I'm looking---don't want those "Brit" academicians after me!), with "primogeniture" ruling all the roosts back then too (legally required inheritance by eldest son in order to keep land-holdings together in one family line, a feudal-holdover for manorial power,... actually this being an issue for correction for some Cromwellians during "their" truly remarkable, but failed revolution). Yet, what is not known to most non-lawyers, even those who watch court TV, is that "circumstantial" evidence almost ALWAYS is the reason court cases are won or lost! AND, I count it a near "miracle" that so far, with such highly talented and aggressively motivated genealogists as all of you on the Disbrow-List, that we ALL have come up with nothing further to confirm our man, Thomas's positive identity,...beyond my "circumstantial evidence" that is (which is actually far more than most historians use for their own necessary "speculations"). BTW, the Shire Hall clerk groaned at me when she heard I was a "Disbrow" researcher, asking me: "What is up with that name!" I tried to tell her our compulsions, which is exactly WHY we will most certainly figure this out in the end! IT has been my hope to do so & just whomever our Thomas may turn out to be...BUT one thing is already for certain---he is one of that close network of "Disbrow(e)s" so important to my state's earliest history, yet for quite so long a time all but forgotten... STSquires ----- Original Message ----- From: "Michael Disbrow" <dizzy@michweb.net> To: <DISBROW-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Monday, September 16, 2002 10:51 AM Subject: [DISBROW] Question about identity of Thomas Disbrow > >From - Mike Disbrow, listowner > > Subject - Do we yet have proof of Thomas Disbrow's parents? > > > This question can go to Steve Squires, or anyone else who might know or have ideas on the subject: > > Since James Disbrowe's (of Eltisley) will of 1614 does not mention a son Thomas (presumably because the will was written before said Thomas' birth ca1625) what other evidence do we have, if any, besides Mark Noble's book "... The Protectoral House of Cromwell...", to show that James of Eltisley did indeed have such a son named Thomas? > > I hesitate to be a skeptic, but it seems we are taking Noble at his word a bit too willingly here, without any other corroborative evidence (I've been watching too much Court TV lately!). Or am I wrong? Yes, there was a Thomas Disbrowe (or perhaps more than one?) in the area at about the right time, etc., but what proof do we have for his parentage? That seems to be what we're looking for here, in such places as these old wills, etc. If I'm forgetting or have overlooked some other piece of proof, please correct me. > > Steve, thanks for posting the old wills, or what you can decipher of them. I've seen some of this old English "script" and I know it can be nearly illegible to the "modern eye". I'm in accord (with a degree of skepticism, of course) with the links you're making between our Thomas of Fairfield and that Thomas who came over on the Crown Malligoe, the one who appeared in the Assize records, and that Thomas of the Eltisley/Cambridge area, which linkage I made some limited attempt to prove in my book. Keep up the great work you're doing. > > Mike > > > ==== DISBROW Mailing List ==== > The Disbrow Family Web Site: > http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/Ranch/5853 > > > ============================== > To join Ancestry.com and access our 1.2 billion online genealogy records, go to: > http://www.ancestry.com/rd/redir.asp?targetid=571&sourceid=1237 > >

Dear Michael, Sounds like you HAVE watched too much Court TV, Mike,...but then SOMEBODY has to. Being a terrific genealogist who gathered all the then-known facts, listing no less than 17 probable Thomas "D.s" back in England (pp. 18-20, v. one) in your "Descendants" books,.... it is the job of every TRUE genealogists to stay focused on "just the facts, mam...! We are truly very lucky to have you still keeping us all "honest"... But then I am emphatically NOT a "genealogist" (don't much like the job & couldn't stand the though of writing such wonderfully accurate & comprehensive volumes as yours...No, for me its just about the history, sorry gang!...Though I too am dedicated to finding ALL those facts, mam...). For a "historian," where known "facts" are absent, then relationships & obvious circumstances are permissible "proofs" too, ...when the known facts fit that is, ...& when all else can fit into its proper place too. This is recognized now academically with the increased use of genealogy by professional historians, ...and despite their inevitable past snobbery about the "lesser" discipline of family history" (once so fraught with foolish pretensions as to "facts" that "fit"!). For our Disbrow/es the so-far "known" facts are beginning to fit beautifully, in fact! This is not just because of those, as only a few examples springing to my mind now, "Sherwoods" (both at Eltisley & in Samuel's extended family too, PLUS as next door neighbors to our own Thomas of Compo, CT, even visiting him in his parlor to discuss the Bible per Mercy's trial transcripts), or those "Greens," or many such others as I've been trying to, too occasionally, note here on this List as they come to me (Gold, Goldinghams, Goldins/ens, Wards, etc), requesting all your assistance as to gen connects back to their namesakes in England. I do have many OTHERS still, with more YET to reveal about us, ...all in tight extended-families on BOTH sides of Atlantic, apparently/seems to me (including at CT), only some I've yet been able to gen-connect back in England side of things (hard work you know!)...Well, that's my theory anyway, am working mightily upon, with my working ("circumstantial") list (within "the Disbrow Network") getting much much longer all the time, but yet tightly revealing something "startling, " even obvious, without having to look too far-afield about it. ALL of it, I feel, must be telling us something about our own CT Disbrow/es (or more importantly for ME about Mercy Disbrow's witch trial at Fairfield of 1692, specifically---please recall how that is MY only focus for my book project!!---so plse DO NOT expect pure genealogy lists, ...oh my gosh!). These facts-on-file that "fit" are particularly compelling in the LONG absence, now, of any OTHER qualifying information about our still very mysterious Thomas. I try not to stray more than a marriage or two away from my focus, and keep it within close locational/circumstantial relationships---BUT, hey ya know, I am NO "miracle worker,"... and this gen-chat List has honestly been of far less help to me than I had hoped in coming up with verifiable "cross-oceanic gen. connections" for quite so many of these otherwise obviously inter-connecting surnames (oh well, at least the PATTERN here can be persuasive too, together with what gen-facts I have discovered about this, & they are potent for who they are concerning). Such gen. verifications should be even far more possible NOW, with internet tools making less need--ha, ha--to cross the Atlantic for research! Well, ha, ha to that.... Actually, the reason why academic historians have so very long snubbed genealogy, despite some of the best (& worst! "NOT" mentioning that somewhat laughable/too "pc" Westport, CT history just printed couple years ago) of that 19th c. phenomenon of local histories being written by genealogists, is because the gens over on our side of the "pond" have presumed (for various political, culturally chauvinist reasons,as well as convenience of research necessity!) that history only BEGINS with the landings at Jamestown/Plimouth, not back in "forgettable" olde England (a check of James Savage's Dictionary randomly demonstrates!)....Truly an obvious problem for any historian wishing to use genealogy in his research. Now, on more positive note please see the new book by Kevin Phillips, THE COUSINS WARS, for some new historiography also now correcting this same problem, belatedly, while demonstrating how foolish past family pretensions have held us back (even while Americas were, pathetically enuf, much even further along in recognizing the Puritan Revolution for its impact on the American Revolution than the "Brits" for obvious reasons of "royalist" bias).. This problem, over our side, especially perpetuated by many the oldest families as American "self-mythologizers" of "ye olde" New England, each with an obvious stake in that very "new" history of America (the influential 19thc. Adams family alone is responsible for generations of historical amnesia/prejudice by calling the Puritan era a "cultural desert!"). These olde families obviously include that paragon of history (& history writing), now NOT AT ALL INAPPROPRIATELY being celebrated on best-seller lists: the Revolutionary Massachusetts ADAMS family, via their chroniclers: 19th c. Henry, Charles Francis, etc....(BTW, while I do TRY NOT to be a 'gold-digger,' I just discovered that the New England progenitor of this same "famous" American family, the very obscure Henry Adams, who settled at Wollaston once Thomas Merton's infamous "Merrymount," was married to someone named "SQUIRE," ...OH,Oh, there I go again, eh....."The Squire family, that of Henry's wife, was a tiny bit more distinguished [meaning neither were anything but the most obscure DIRT farmers back in England!]. Two sisters of Edith Squire Adams also migrated, Anne and Margaret, Mrs. Aquila Purchase and Mrs. John Shepard respectively [HEY, don't we Disbrow/es have some "Shepards" in the extended family, pertinent to our extended history---AH YES, that all-important CAMBRIDGE connection again!!]. This, not a Dragon is probably what moved Henry across the water." p. 34 "First Families: The Making of An American Aristocracy" by Nath'l Burt, 1970---(HEY, so who's this author "Burt" descended from, those Burts at Salem tangling with our Isaac Disbrowe thereabouts 1630s/40's ??, recall the Pennoyers tell us much about probable motivations then);...that "Dragon" stuff noted here also something to do with secret societies, & "congregational" religion,.. of but you guys just wait!)... I will hope to discuss in some "remarkable" detail in my book project, actually, the idea of "relational analysis" revealing some truly remarkable history (& not just "implausible history!"), long overlooked FACTS in actual fact, now made obvious via a wealth of circumstantial (& not "just" so...) relationships of inter-relating families with their convergent often POTENT histories. All the "facts" fit..., now so obviously---Hence, my initial emphasis on the "startling" discovery that Samuel Disbrowe's close family relations, the Pennoyers, were intimately involved in my own Mercy Disbrow's 1692 witch trial! From which startling revelation many wonderful new facts truly do reveal themselves (so, you guys want everything revealed here, instead of via my much promised "book project"!?), further confirming those relationships I am proposing, of course....(but THAT is my book project, gang! So read it when I can get it written, ...if I ever CAN, WHENEVER! ...NOT all is being revealed on this List, I might add---I can't give it ALL away for gosh sakes... Nor can I get the job done simply by answering questions, posting endlessly here----except those more nagging, vital questions, via YOUR help, about such as those WILLS at Cambridge's Shire Hall....so WHO will help?). What you all do not quite know (& it is NOT my intention to post everything on this LIST soon as I discover it, I would have no time for anything else!!), is just how MUCH of the remarkable history of England (at the highest levels of activity!) during those turbulent years is actually being reflected right back into the settlement of early Connecticut/New Haven, and expressly (YES, I know this is ALL very hard to accept!) through our complex maze of Disbrow(e)s each settling so very early right here in olde CT, quite specifically!! This back-ward reflection is via a host of families constituting what I have been calling, not just for convenience sake: "The Disbrow(e) Network," much concerning themselves with early CT settlement, during & after Hooker (actually with him too, as with our Roxbury Disbrows hooking up with "famous" Rev. John Eliot, HE was actually a follower of & "reader" for Hooker's own congregation back in England! Those Cambridge connections at BOTH ends being central to soo much of this "networking" going on, both intellectually & economically> Eliot was also closely involved, on the record, with both Rev. Henry Whitfield and our own Samuel Disbrowe at Guilford, where Eliot's own son became pastor, he later figuring so importantly in the "reprieve" of our Mercy Disbrow"(/e)"---(NO, our Thomas never did spell it with that "e"). This provable "network" includes the SAME family surnames, at very high levels of government, also associating with our own extended Disbrows of CT on very intimate terms (not just via those amazing "Stricklands," I have uncovered significantly more about, yet to note... but, as a sampling at least for now as they are NOW on my mind much, ALSO such as: Sir Henry Rich, the just noted George Fenwick, the Winthrops, the Hutchinsons (very startlingly new stuff, "relationally"/factually!)---As to the Witnhrops (I do have more) but recall too that our own Mercy Holbridge was "farmed-out" as an in-law "servant" into the household of that very same famous CT Governor's "very closely involved" New London medical/alchemical colleague/partner (& her own in-law relation---I have said this explicitly enuf?): "Rev. Gershom Bulkeley!" Those are just off-top-of- head for being worked on recently, and do not begin to set the pattern, or do justice to it here (with many others in my notes). This missive, is obviously NOT to Mike Disbrow, who has done (and continues to do) us such great & necessary service and now by keeping us ALL focused, with our feet firmly planted upon the ground! He must do only "the necessary" in showing us the VITAL importance of those Cambridgeshire wills which we ALL must now contribute to examining (not just ME!!)... While my "facts" are a bit more "circumstantial" presently ("RELATIONAL"), such is presently ALL we can go hope for from what we now know,... They are to me nevertheless very potent for what they are saying , & potent for history's sake, even whether or not our own Thomas Disbrow of Fairfield turns out to be quite exactly who I certainly do believe him to be right now (given ALL my "relational circumstances"). The currently "speculative" Cambridgshire wills may or may not precisely identify our own Thomas ever (actually, I tend to think not, though I obviously MUST go back to see for myself!!) It so far is my judgment, from what few of them I did see (some NOT copied), and from the list I have of them, that we are NOT likely to find out much more about our own Thomas of Fairfield from those (though I'd better never say "NEVER!"). We also know that his father (see, I'm already convinced), "James Disbrowe" of Eltisley had many additional offspring recorded in Parish records along w/ one "Thomas" of my circumstantial "presumption,"... These later children NOT mentioned in the 1614 will, of course, or as proved even in 1638! Just as Eddis Johnson/Harold Disbrowe have pointed out as only mildly curious to them, this is not unheard of, but still odd I think. There could be many reasons for this though, including that one unmentioned female dau. we know as his, who married Rev. George Greene, was no longer his own financial responsibility (it was extremely commonplace to "drop" such females from wills when they got married back then, becoming the responsibility of their husbands). Since our Thomas was only 13 years old also in 1638, still under his mother's care (as far as I know, we have no obvious death record for this Eltisley Thomas either---though I have looked!), with "primogeniture" ruling all the roosts back then too (legally required inheritance by eldest son in order to keep land-holdings together in one family line, feudal-holdover for manorial power,... actually this being issue to correct for some Cromwellians during "their" truly remarkable, but failed revolution). Yet, what is not known to most non-lawyers, even those who watch court TV, is that "circumstantial" evidence almost ALWAYS is the reason court cases are won or lost! AND, I count it a near "miracle" that so far, with such highly talented and aggressively motivated genealogists as all of you on the Disbrow-List, that we ALL have come up with nothing further to confirm our man's positive identity,...beyond my "circumstantial evidence" (which is actually far more than most historians use for their own necessary "speculations"). BTW, the Shire Hall clerk groaned at me when she heard I was a "Disbrow" researcher, asking me: "What is up with that name!" I tried to tell her our compulsions, which is exactly WHY we will most certainly figure this out in the end! IT has been my hope to do so & just whomever our Thomas may turn out to be...BUT one thing is already for certain---he is one of that close network of "Disbrow(e)s" so important to my state's earliest history, yet for quite so long a time all but forgotten... STSquires ----- Original Message ----- From: "Michael Disbrow" <dizzy@michweb.net> To: <DISBROW-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Monday, September 16, 2002 10:51 AM Subject: [DISBROW] Question about identity of Thomas Disbrow > >From - Mike Disbrow, listowner > > Subject - Do we yet have proof of Thomas Disbrow's parents? > > > This question can go to Steve Squires, or anyone else who might know or have ideas on the subject: > > Since James Disbrowe's (of Eltisley) will of 1614 does not mention a son Thomas (presumably because the will was written before said Thomas' birth ca1625) what other evidence do we have, if any, besides Mark Noble's book "... The Protectoral House of Cromwell...", to show that James of Eltisley did indeed have such a son named Thomas? > > I hesitate to be a skeptic, but it seems we are taking Noble at his word a bit too willingly here, without any other corroborative evidence (I've been watching too much Court TV lately!). Or am I wrong? Yes, there was a Thomas Disbrowe (or perhaps more than one?) in the area at about the right time, etc., but what proof do we have for his parentage? That seems to be what we're looking for here, in such places as these old wills, etc. If I'm forgetting or have overlooked some other piece of proof, please correct me. > > Steve, thanks for posting the old wills, or what you can decipher of them. I've seen some of this old English "script" and I know it can be nearly illegible to the "modern eye". I'm in accord (with a degree of skepticism, of course) with the links you're making between our Thomas of Fairfield and that Thomas who came over on the Crown Malligoe, the one who appeared in the Assize records, and that Thomas of the Eltisley/Cambridge area, which linkage I made some limited attempt to prove in my book. Keep up the great work you're doing. > > Mike > > > ==== DISBROW Mailing List ==== > The Disbrow Family Web Site: > http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/Ranch/5853 > > > ============================== > To join Ancestry.com and access our 1.2 billion online genealogy records, go to: > http://www.ancestry.com/rd/redir.asp?targetid=571&sourceid=1237 > >

In a message dated 9/16/02 9:49:35 AM Central Daylight Time, dizzy@michweb.net writes: > > I hesitate to be a skeptic, but it seems we are taking Noble at his word a > bit too willingly here, without any other corroborative evidence (I've been > watching too much Court TV lately!). Or am I wrong? Yes, there was a Thomas > Disbrowe (or perhaps more than one?) in the area at about the right time, etc. > , but what proof do we have for his parentage? I cannot answer the question of the identify of Thomas Disbrow, the immigrant, but In the archives of this list, in Sep 2000, the heading is Inst#3, as I recall, will be found Baptisms-Marriages- Burials of Eltisley in the 1600s. This was submitted by Barbara Hutchins, from material developed by Della Alsup Disbrow who got it from either the Bishops Transcripts or Parish records of Eltisley, Cambridge. Those who are interested can look this up in the archives. We find a Thomas Disbrowe, baptized 25 Oct 1625, son of James Disbrowe SENIOR, and Elizabeth. Now there were two James Disbrowe's both with wives Elizabeth in Eltisley who were contemporaneous. The James Disbrowe called Senior was married to Elizabeth Marshall, 1 Aug 1605. The James Disbrowe called Junior was married to Elizabeth Hatley and they were parents of John Disbrowe, the Major General, and Samuel, the one who was in Connecticut and later returned to England. James Disbrowe JUNIOR was buried 1 Dec 1634. His father was John Disbrowe, died 1610. James Disbrowe SENIOR was buried 23 Oct 1638 in Eltisley. It is uncertain who his father was. The following is speculation - it is not proven - we need more wills. It is possible (perhaps even probable) that James Disbrowe SENIOR was son of Bruno Disbrowe. This Bruno being the brother of the John who died 1610. I base this solely on the fact that this James SENIOR had a son Bruno. In addition, Steve Squires, just today posted will information of Jeffrey Disbrowe of Whaddon. This Jeffrey also had a son Bruno. He also had a brother James. It would fit that he was a brother of James SENIOR. I point out that SENIOR and JUNIOR do not refer to father and son - only that 2 of the same name and parish were present and one was elder. I believe that I have seen it claimed that Thomas Disbrowe was brother to John, the Major General, and Samuel, the Connecticut erstwhile resident. This is not correct as per the Eltisley records. As to whether the Thomas born 1625 is the 1677 immigrant, I leave it to others to contemplate.

>From - Mike Disbrow, listowner Subject - Do we yet have proof of Thomas Disbrow's parents? This question can go to Steve Squires, or anyone else who might know or have ideas on the subject: Since James Disbrowe's (of Eltisley) will of 1614 does not mention a son Thomas (presumably because the will was written before said Thomas' birth ca1625) what other evidence do we have, if any, besides Mark Noble's book "... The Protectoral House of Cromwell...", to show that James of Eltisley did indeed have such a son named Thomas? I hesitate to be a skeptic, but it seems we are taking Noble at his word a bit too willingly here, without any other corroborative evidence (I've been watching too much Court TV lately!). Or am I wrong? Yes, there was a Thomas Disbrowe (or perhaps more than one?) in the area at about the right time, etc., but what proof do we have for his parentage? That seems to be what we're looking for here, in such places as these old wills, etc. If I'm forgetting or have overlooked some other piece of proof, please correct me. Steve, thanks for posting the old wills, or what you can decipher of them. I've seen some of this old English "script" and I know it can be nearly illegible to the "modern eye". I'm in accord (with a degree of skepticism, of course) with the links you're making between our Thomas of Fairfield and that Thomas who came over on the Crown Malligoe, the one who appeared in the Assize records, and that Thomas of the Eltisley/Cambridge area, which linkage I made some limited attempt to prove in my book. Keep up the great work you're doing. Mike

>From - Mike Disbrow, listowner Subject - how to change your address for this list I have received several requests from Disbrow Mailing List subscribers to change their email address. The best way to do this is as follows: Send a message with ONLY the word UNSUBSCRIBE, using your old address to DISBROW-L-request@rootsweb.com (or DISBROW-R-request@rootsweb.com if you are subscribed to the Digest mode of the mailing list) Then: Send a message with ONLY the word SUBSCRIBE, using your new address to the DISBROW-L-request@rootsweb.com (or DISBROW-R-request@rootsweb.com if you want to subscribe to the Digest mode of the mailing list) If this absolutely does not work for you, then please contact me, tell me you're having trouble with it, and I will make the change manually. Thank you, Mike

HERE is all I can do for you on those few Disbrowe wills I collected last December, Cambridge Shire Hall: 1. Elizabeth Disbrow/Disborowe of Swaffham Bulbeck, ?Day of July 1621--- names included: Agnes Stanton, John Disborough, John Layton?, Marrabelle? Greene, Agnes? Greene, Luke Disborough, Luke Sirling?, John Disborowe ("hir brother...made sole executor"), witnesses: Edward Poaror?, Richard Milkin?, Peter Harringford? 2. James Disbrow of Over, 15 June? 1699 (apparently probated 1702 by such numerals penciled in at top? notes Reign of William III, "Defender of the Faith," etc---these Puritans must have LIKED the "Glorious Revolution of 1688"!!)--- names: Joan "my dear & loving wife," Grandson James Disbrow and his brother William Disbrow, Clement? Willigo "my daughter the wife of Thomas Willigo," "my loving James Disbrow," James Disbrow & William Disbrow "my grandsons...to put them out Apprentices at the discretion of my executors," Robert Transum? "my godson," James Transum "my godson," "to my godson Nathaniel Disbrow the sonn of Nathaniel Disbrow of Bugden in the county of Lincolnshire yoeman, to my daughter Sarah Tisher? daughter of Micah? Tisher? of ?---," "...I give and devise unto my said loving wife and Thomas Willigo my grand Sonn the Sonn of my daughter Clement? Willigo all my goods and chattells whom Joan hereby constitutes Exec-cutrix? of this my last will & testament..." "Joanna Disbrow Relickt Et Thomas Willigo Junior is Executor ..." 3. Eltisley JAMES DISBROW; 14 January [1614...proved 25 October 1638---this is clearly "our" Thomas's father here, but the calligraphy is extremely elaborate to the point of illegibility for me until I work much more on it]; Names I can make out: Jeffrey Disbrowe "living in Eltisley...," "James Disbrowe "my now eldest son...," John Disbrowe "my second son...," witnesses: Jeffrey Disbrowe, Phillip? Marshall, William Woodward? [the full names I give here as helped from brief abstract we have on file for this James Disbrowe of Eltisley---father of our Thomas Disbrow of Fairfield, CT who is NOT mentioned in this copy of the will or abstract since this was oddly never revised after its draft in 1614, never to reflect James' additional recorded offspring such as Thomas, bp 1625, among others too!] 4. The next will is too dark/smudgy/arcane to make out even as to "for whom the bell tolls," date 1574, names: Bruno Disborough/Disborowe?, John Disborowe, very difficult legibility over 3 pages long, requires more work & eye strain! 5. WHADDON C JAFFRIDI? DISBORROWE {formal calligraphy], "I Jeffrey Disborrowe of Whaddon in the County of Cambridge yoeman...," names: [we also have printed modern abstract of this will with following names] "son Bruno Disborrowe," "Bruno, James, Willyam & John," "my two daughters Agnes and Rose," "my two brothers James and John, and brothers-in-law Thomas Pentlow and John Bonner ]from abstract as I can't do better here!], "to use of three sons James, Willyam, and John...." Wife Rose, executrix...witnesses: Clement Sentloe, Thomas Sentlow" [from abstract;...perhaps witness names are also "Pentlow"--spelled w/ "P", as w/ above "brother-in-law Thomas PENTLOW," ....now also recall my earlier note re: "Mary Pendaloe" as fellow passenger with our "Thomas Desborow" on 1677 ship CROWN MALLIGO to Maryland, further linking him to the Eltisley Disbrowes!] That's all folks, for now, and a terrible cartoon they really are my present state of interpretation...(I warned you!)...may be will have better luck "next time" round, STSquires

I DO NOT HAVE MUCH INFORMATION TO WORK WITH. SEEKING INFORMATION ON: ELIZABETH OR EMILY DISBROW BORN EITHER 08/1863 OR 08/1853 INFORMATION BLURRED WAS HARD TO READ PLACE OF BIRTH UNKNOWN * PARENTS NAMES UNKNOWN SHE MARRIED: JOHN MORRIS BORN 08/1851. THEY HAD THREE CHILDREN: GEORGE C. MORRIS BORN 01/1880 ELIZABETH G. OR EMILY G. MORRIS BORN 11/1893 INEZ E. MORRIS BORN 1884 ON THE PAPER I OBTAINED FROM THE FUNERAL HOME IT STATES MY GRANDMOTHER'S MOTHER WAS ELIZABETH DISBROW. ON THE 1885 N.J.CENSUS IT STATES HER NAME WAS EMILY SO I AM NOT SURE IF HER NAME WAS ELIZABETH OR EMILY DISBROW. THEY LIVED IN NEPTUNE (MONMOUTH COUNTY) NEW JERSEY UNFORTUNATELY, WITHOUT KNOWING HER PARENTS NAMES OR PLACES OF BIRTH, I AM AT A STANDSTILL/BRICKWALL. IF ANYONE HAS ANY LINES FROM MONMOUTH COUNTY, N.J. MAYBE HER NAME HAS SHOWN UP IN THERE LINES. IF YOU HAVE ANY ADDITIONAL INFO PLEASE LET ME KNOW.

I see an important typo 5th parag. of my last post: "The Banker 'Desboe.'" I mistakenly typed "Jon Disbrow" instead of the correct "JOHN," which is name of our interesting 17th c. goldsmith "banker." Also, I note somewhat fortuitous mistake in my previous post today: "Nich Disbrowe & Robert Pennoyer" The Rainsborough "uncle" of those TWO Rainsborough sisters who married the Winthrops (father & son!) was NO UNCLE to them at all! Rather better still, he was their own BROTHER! Great stuff, esp. since HE was the very guy I discovered from Maurice Ashley's book, "John Wildman: Plotter & Postmaster," page 162, who was ALSO arrested with our own Major General John Disbrowe in 1660, upon suspicions of "White's Plot" (so-called by the Royalists!), according to Ashley. No telling what ever became of poor Captain Thomas White (NO, his given name does not expressly show-up among the Hobson "Whites" of our own Disbrowe relation, sorry!). STSquires

So, you all ready to be part of a "famous" family? IF so then you're ready for the Banker "Desboe". This one's a fascinating story of random treasure discovered in ye olde London town, the financial section of course. I was down that way one day looking for "famous" Coleman street, that place so radical & important to our very early New Haven Puritan founders (including our Holbridges, plus even Rev. Jones too, in fact---so what's up with THAT connection then!). One infrequent rainy day, on one of my very infrequent DAYTIME rambles, I stumbled into the Bank of England Museum "downtown" not just to get outta the rain (This was outta routine since I usually was working all day at Brit Library or PRO, so most of my touring was done during "midnight" rambles, to maximize research time: including one such down Grey's Inn Road to Holborn---after I closed down Brit. Library that night, half mile up the road--- Holborn is where "The Cromwellian Gazetteer" said I might encounter Cromwell's ghost, ....So, of course I did! Well, not till just this month actually, but still spooky nonetheless, since just THIS month of September I came across a recent book VERY disturbingly pertinent to that very SAME place of that particular "midnight ramble" where "resurrection men" once hung-out with their "wares" (corpses for selling to medical types), plus a very olde pub full of 17th c. ghosts near Red Lion Square, plus the tale of Cromwell's "gh! ost," ...and now I can see all that ramble was not just for the "fun" of it, but somehow strangely pertinent to such as the secret swapping of Oliver Cromwell's body long after his very PROBABLE "assassination" by the King's agents using poison. Those Holborn "resurrection men" actually may have saved Cromwell's corpse from its humiliating date with the hangman & desecration, by instead perhaps burying his long dead corpse in nearby Red Lion Square, raising later legends of his ghost (so next time you're in London give all reverence to the great man, probably quietly resting in the center of this first, intentionally planned, "garden square" of London---also read "The Death of Oliver Cromwell" by McMains, pub. 2000!....Grey's Inn is at Holborn too, where our more lawyerly Disbrowes were educated to the law, as was Oliver Cromwell himself and a few others pertinent to our family story, but I digress,...too easily...). While poking around the very well set-up Banking Museum that rainy day in the financial district, what should I stumble upon in one of their very early exhibits (modern banks & the Bank of England did not start up until the late 17th c.!!)? YES, that's right: the Banker "Desboe." Here's what the display said next to an original bank note: "THE EARLIEST KNOWN BANK NOTE 1660, 8 DECEMBER...FROM MR. VANACKER TO MR. DESBOE. My heart stopped, ...my ultimate in "name magic." Could it possibly be? ...Well, yes, it possibly could be! Here's why: there were two generations of Disbrowes immediately descended from the Major General who were tied to the family of one Cornelius "VANDEN ANKER" (perhaps sometimes hastily shortened even as the above spelling "VanAcker"???). Eddis Johnson & Harold Disbrowe (of Canada) report in their genealogy of the Disbrowe antecedents from England (1986), concerning Benjamin Disbrow, son of the Major General: "His 2nd marriage was to Sa! rah (Norden) Sarn, relict of Andrew Sarn, merchant of Dort, Holland and secondly, of Cornelius Vanden Anker, merchant of LONDON [my emphasis], apparently there were no children by this marriage to Disbrowe. she died 9 April 1692 [momentous year THAT], and was buried at Downham, M.I. [This 2nd wife] had had by her second marriage to Cornelius Vanden Anker a daughter Cornelia, who married Cromwell Disbrow, son of her third husband Benjamin Disbrowe and his first wife, Elizabeth Armsted. Thus, Cornelia became Benjamin Disbrowe's step-daughter, as well as his daughter-in-law (footnte: "Memoirs of Protectoral House of Cromwell," Noble, v. II, 252-3) Our Disbrowes were very prominent of course, even after the flashy guys had had their brief day in the sun under Cromwell. So, by later in 17th c. Disbrowes were settling into quiet prosperity and a more secure social standing, gradually,...doing so "the olde fashioned way." This includes one "John Disbrowe" who had become a "goldsmith" (which profession is as the name implies & who also acted as money lenders/banker types: now recall my preoccupation about a year ago w/ Fairfield surname of Gold/Gould, and then too my decidedly odd, growing interest in the profession of 17th c. "goldsmithing" then??). Goldsmiths were the earliest "modern" bankers, not to mention imbued with a certain alchemical mystical aura, as I believe was inevitable. Just as Jews had once been both too, ...for many hundreds of years they were the informal "bankers" of Europe, supplying much needed service to kings & lesser investor-types alike, ...so did the Knights Templer, actually --which ! is why they were obliterated, and to some extent the Jews as well---afterall, who doesn't end-up resenting one's banker, I guess....King Phillip of France became jealous & so covetous as to bluntly destroy the Templers in order to rob them (with the help of a greedy pope back in 14th c.)... but that King never did find their fabulous "treasure"----So, where'd it all go...have I then found it in "Mr Desboe" & Company??? So, who was this "Desboe" guy then? There is following I found at Cambridgeshire Library (don't ask me why I find these things!), from "The Proceedings of the Cambridge Antiquarian Society, Oct 1932-33, v. XXXIV;" this article: "A Cambridge Seal-Box of the 17th C. by A.S. Gow, Trinity College....The silver box, of which the lid and bottom are here illustrated, belongs to the Earl of Home, who has kindly allowed me to publish it. Its history has been forgotten but can, I think, be reconstructed with some certainty [not unlike our own Disbrowes too, as I'm doing]; before I begin to reconstruct it, however, let me describe the box itself and the cord which passes through it....The latter consists of two lengths of plaited thread, one of gold, the other of silver.....etc. [from 1st pg. of article: p. 59;....then on page 69 is the following]...Urlin was not the only qualified goldsmith resident in Cambridge at this time; there was another, Jon Disbrow who had supplied ! the seal-box for the Duke of Monmouth's patent in 1674; and he also renders his account in a form which suggests that he was the maker and not the middleman...The evidence is not absolutely conclusive---in such a case, conclusive evidence can hardly be expected---but there seems to me to be a strong presumption that all these three boxes were made in Cambridge, and that Monmouth's and Albemarles were also finished there." [note: that would be Duke of Albemarle who was once a very important colleague of our own Samuel Disbrow in Scotland under Cromwell: later given his title by Ch II, for services in ushering in the Restoration, & for which act Albemarle was bitterly hated by many "republican" types who felt betrayed,... hence that so-called "White's Plot" of 1660 to murder him that I've mentioned, & then so much more intrigue than that too;....MORE than one son of our own Major Gen. Disbrowe is reputed to have been involved in very serious post-Restoration intrigues, as wa! s the General himself from Holland, this includes the "famous" Rye House Plot, and even, as I believe, the above Duke of Monmouth's uprising which help usher in the later "Glorious Revolution" of 1688, a "revolution" much longed for by our own Disbrowe Puritan types, now called "dissenters" & "Whigs," just as was our own Thomas Disbrow-2 of Fairfield so called a "dissenter" at Westchester, NY by 1703, etc....This article also has the following footnote, #2, abt our "goldsmith" John Disbrow]: "Disbrow, unlike Urlin, was a Iocal man. He was baptized at Chesterton [thank you Carl Dunn for coincidentally raising "Chesterton" just yesterday from our musty Disbrowe attic!] on 5 April 1646 and was the son of John Disbrow of that parish, a malster, who in May 1662, pleaded guilty in the Vice-Chancellor's court to a charge of unstatutable dealing in barley and malt within the University boundaries [note: sounds like our Arthur Holbridge from New Haven records!!], and is described ! in the proceedings as "yoeman" (Registry MSS. 37.2.17). The son apprenticed himself in London to John WARD [note some "name magic": recall the 1681 Lord Mayor of London, Sir Patience Ward, who m. a Hobson sister-in-law to our Samuel Disbrowe via his m. to Rose Hobson Pennoyer] on 5 July 1661, and became a freeman of the Goldsmith's Company in 1668; he is identifiable by the description "goldsmith" in three lists of townsmen enjoying University privileges (Registry MSS. 36.2.74:one undated, one of 1676, one of 1679)---in which he appears as servant to Dr. Linnett of Trinity (who was Vicar of Chesterton)---and as the Mr. Disbrow who was sent to London to choose plate for the Corporation in 1689 (see below, p. 71). The name, very variously spelt [!!]....{note: HEY WHAT, so even as "Desboe" probably then when someone is in a rush??], is common in Cambridge and in the district, and further identifications are less certain. I take the goldsmith to be the John who married Ann Ri! chardson of Chesterton in 1670, describing himself as of LONDON [my emphasis!!}, where he had been from at least 1661 to 1668 (Cambs. Parish Registers, Marriages, I, 62). Probably he is also the John who became a freeman of the town in 1679-80, was fined for passing office in the same year, but was among the auditors of the treasurer's accounts in 1686 ("Liber Rationalis" among the Bowtell MSS. in Downing College), and among the Common Councilmen removed from office two years later ("Alderman Newton's Diary," p. 93). There was also, however a John of Barnwell who paid hearth-tax in 1664 and three years earlier harboured a thief at his house, the Sign of the George (W. M Palmer, "Reformation of the Corporation," C.A.S. Comm. XVII, 112); one who was buried in Trinity Parish in 1668; one who was married in 1609 ("Cambs. Par. Reg., Marriages," VII, 3), to say nothing of natives of Cheveley, Madingly, and Swavesey (ibid.II, 75, III, 130, VIII, 78; Cooper, "Annals," III, 641, c! f. p. 459). Why the University on this occasion employed Disbrow and not Urlin, the older man, I cannot guess [can any of you then???]...IT is possible that Disbrow and Urlin were not the only goldsmiths in Cambridge at this time; in 1668 the University paid John Richardson[related to John Disbrow's wife Ann, above???] 28s. for the Marshal's engraved badge, and in 1671 for engraving a seal-box (p. 74); in that year Trinity College paid "Richards the goldsmith" 10s. for repairs to plate. I have encountered neither (if indeed they are two) elsewhere. The records of the Company contain several apprentices of both names, but none of them were Cambridge men by birth. " Now then, there is more yet about Disbrow "bankers" in subsequent generations of the Disbrowe, from Eltisely even. There is the following from very old notes graciously given to me by the village historian at Eltisley, Mike Sawyer. While not always quite accurate, these very old notes do fill in far more blanks than I ever knew even existed! "From the book 'Contemporary Biographies'.--1912. Charles John Desborough, J.P., HARTFORD HOUSE [my emphasis: so, it would be called that right!?], near Huntingdon; son of the late William Henry Desborough, BANKER [my emphasis; my family also had a William Henry Disbrow in the line I think he was, as my Dad just reminded me other day, very coincidentally,... went to RPI, I believe], a descendant of General Desborough, of the Cromwellian period, who married a sister of the Lord Protector; born at Ramsgate, Kent, August 1850; educated at Harrow. BANKER [my emphasis]; a Director of Barclay and Company, LTD.; Justice of the Peace ! for the County of Huntingdon. Amongst former Mayors of Huntingdon are recorded Laurence Desborough in 1768 and 1774, and William Desborough in 1801. Married, in 1878, Constance, Daughter of the late Edward Maule (Solicitor and clerk of the Peace for Huntingdon), and has issue three sons and three daughters" WHEW, can resist noting that MAULE name,straight from Hawthorne's House of Seven Gables then?? (Wasn't there actually someone also named "Maule," I guess, in Salem witch trials, ...must go back & confirm!?) Happy early Halloween! STSquires

The following 2 books by Charlotte Anne Albinia Disbrowe, daughter of Sir Edward Cromwell Disbrowe, the Minister of United Kingdom to Russia, are from abebooks site. The 2nd is the one mentioning the descent from John Disbrowe of Hargrave,Northants. 2. DISBROWE, Charlotte Anne Albinia. Old Days in Diplomacy. VG Recollection of a Closed Century. By the eldest daughter of the late Sir Ed. Cromwell Disbrowe. 330pp, 5 plates 1903. *The author's father was Minister Plenipotentiary to the Court of St. Petersburg 1825-27 & the book contains Sir Edward's memorandum of the (Decembrist) "Conspiracy of 1825". 5. Disbrowe C. A. A., Montgomery Campbell, M. (ed.): Records of Stirring Times Based upon Documents from 1726 - 1822 London: Heinemann, 1908 By the authoress of "Old Days in Diplomacy". Letters and papers from "various well-known personages belonging to the inner circle of Court and political life". Illustrated, purple cloth, some fading, xii plus 323 pages including appendices and index.

I urge all to read the article in the NATIONAL GENEALOGICAL SOCIETY QUARTERLY,VOL60,# 4 of Dec. 1972 titled"ENGLISH ANCESTRY OF ROBERT PENNOYER AND WALTER BUTLER OF CT" BY Peter Wilson Coldham. Chuck Rockett

>From - Mike Disbrow, listowner Subject - Stephen Squires' question about Margaret (Haddon?), wife of Henry Disbrow Steve - Here is what you asked: >>Speaking of the surname of that "Lordly" addressee from the Thomas Desborow letter 1664 (Sir Christopher HATTON, VERY prominent guy then!), isn't that the very same name of HATTON (or at least variant "Haddon"?) ALSO believed to be the maiden-name of Henry Disbrow'ss own wife at Mamaroneck, NY??!. ON WHAT AUTHORITY DO WE KNOW THAT MAIDEN NAME FOR HIS WIFE ...can anyone please tell me?? (See just how much FUN we all can have w/ this stuff, eh?!)<< I've been looking through my references and the best I can come up with is that a certain JOHN HADDEN or HADDON of Westchester County, New York, in his will dated 18 Apr. 1683, mentions his wife Elizabeth, sons John and Edward, and speaks of "brother-in-law" Henry Disbrow. From this it has been inferred that Henry's wife Margaret was a Haddon. Another clue is the 23 Jan. 1771 will of Henry Disbrow of Westchester Co., who names as his executors his "cousins" Benjamin Griffin, JOHN HADDEN and Isaac Gedney. This latter Henry is apparently Henry Disbrow IV (1730-1771), great grandson and namesake of the first Henry. The source for these will references MIGHT BE a book called, "Early Wills of Westchester County, N. Y., 1664-1784" by William Smith Pelletreau, published by Francis P. Harper, New York, 1898. I learned this from a correspondent named J. Elwood Arnold, who wrote to me back in 1990 and he wasn't too sure of his original sources, but thought it might have been from! the above book. I may have more definitive info in my files, but this is the best I can come up with right now. Perhaps someone else can do better. Mike

I better post this following or forget it forever (OK, not likely!)...BOTH Nicholas Disbrowe and Robert Pennoyer were wood "turners" by trade... or, as would be a bit MORE accurate, perhaps, at least for our own Nicholas Disbrowe: that HE was a "joyner" (not as in country clubs or something!). They BOTH worked with wood, fashioning fabulous things! In the case of our Nicholas Disbrowe of Hooker's Hartford (Nicholas who arrived there abt 1637, two years AFTER Hooker...see below...), well we actually can still touch many of Nicholas' ancient items of handy-work, including the most famous item of all at the Houston Museum of Fine Arts (if only I'd known back when I lived in Texas for couple years after college). This is the only known example of a "signed" 17th c. piece of furniture (the Allyn Chest), with other scattered Disbrowe items, including one at the CT Historical Society in Htfd: the famous "Governor's" chair (Gee, everything seems to be getting quite "famous! " with our suddenly NOT so obscure Disbrow/e's, eh what..??). That chair was "apparently" made for Gov. John Winthrop, Jr. upon his return in 1662 from England with CT's famous Charter (which also not so incidentally obliterated New Haven, ...guess why!)---SO, recall the CHARTER OAK story---a story which surprisingly or not, also comes to us via our same olde friend ---and Mercy Disbrow's too (God bless him!)--Rev. Gershom Buckeley from his published work, WILL & DOOM, wherein he excoriates Charter government while "vividly" defending our own family "witch:" my poor Mercy (ah yes, poor Mercy... such trials, even now then!!). Well, the point of these two: Robert Pennoyer & Nicholas Disbrowe being career twins by sharing the wood-working trade (turners, joyners), ...have you guessed it yet----YES exactly!, the point being Matthew Cradock's truly very extensive ship-building 'conglomerate' on the banks of the Merrimac River at Medford, MA in the early 1630's (our Nicholas does NOT show up in Hartford until 1637, serving first in Pequot War as soldier then)...YES, certainly Robert Pennoyer was at Medford after his 1635 ship arrives, leaving abt 1640 or so, absconding suddenly to Long Island (this period would likely be BEFORE our Disbrows were in that area too, certainly before Peter Disbrow buys Rye). Is it then at least possible that our own Nicholas Disbrowe, a fellow wood-craftsman of true skill & present fame, himself may have been likewise "brought over" specifically for his craft use at Medford "factory" (his Disbrowe "Network" being determinative!). We do know Robert Pennoyer was at ! Medford, says the book "Pennoyer Brothers," & that he must have applied his wood-craft to Cradock's ships. Couldn't Nicholas Disbrowe also have then been doing exactly so in those early "lost" years of the 1630's??? Recall, that Nicholas Disbrow's own father (also Nicholas, back in Saffron Walden, England) was himself ALSO a "joyner" of undoubted skill-- judging from the son's. Saffron Walden, BTW, is close to Eltisley, as crow flies, and was even the site of couple very important councils of war by Cromwell himself during Civil War years.... Speaking of "famous" then...while I have much more still on this yet, re: our Disbrowe "Network" & the Winthrop clan, ...it is NOT at all insignificant that the son of CT's Governor John Winthrop, Jr, namely "Fitz John," himself became an officer under General Monck in SCOTLAND at the very same time our own Samuel Disbrowe was so prominent there in the civil administration, after Samuel's return from CT 1650/51 (Samuel, you'll recall, was soon enuf to become Chancellor/Keeper of the Great Seal of Scotland under Cromwell, ...so why not!). Meanwhile, Fitz John's own uncle, Col. Stephen Winthrop (son of Governor John Winthrop, Sr. of MA Bay Colony) himself served on several committees of the administration under Samuel Disbrowe's direct leadership of them in Scotland (including, according to Firth, a committee to regulate the Scottish universities, I believe it was where I saw his name on the short list; also see "Perry of London" by Price, p. 16 & note 45, p. 146). Thes! e "lesser" Winthrops served in Scotland with our own Disbrowe, and then along with him were several other vitally important New Englanders whom Disbrowe obviously must have recruited from his time back in frontier CT: Richard Saltonstall, Jr., George Fenwick, & George Downing... but then all that's another "string" for a rainy day, not this beautiful sunny one! Suffice to say, from author Price in his "Perry of London": ..."of the four, the most important was Disbrowe, who had lived in New Haven colony from 1639 to 1650...and whose superior connections made him a member of Parliament, a member of Cromwell's council in Scotland, a judge of exchequer, Lord Keeper and ultimately Chancellor of Scotland." page 16. BTW, (there is always a "BTW" to the stories of our family!!), Governor John Winthrop, Sr. of MA Bay Col., himself married, as his fourth wife the year before he died, one "Martha Rainsborough." Meanwhile her own younger sister, Judith, married the old Governor's own 4th son: the above named Col. Stephen Winthrop (he had become Colonel in Cromwell's "New Model Army")! Now what is truly "fun" here happens to be fact that the uncle of both these two Rainsborough sisters who married Winthrops (father & son Winthrops at that, just like my own CT Fitch also m. MASON sisters, ...so there!!), well this uncle, Major William Rainsborough (according to Maurice Ashley's book: "John Wildman") was arrested with our own Major General John Disbrowe in 1660 upon the royalist scare of a plot to burn London & kill General Monck for betraying the "Good Old Cause," this via something called WHITE'S PLOT by a Captain White (say weren't there Whites who had married a sister or two of Rose! Hobson Pennoyer Disbrowe, Samuel's 2nd wife?!!), which "plot" may have been, but probably wasn't then, actually for real! ....HUMMM, so what ALL goes on here....trust me to figure it "all" out (...I hope!), so back to London gang, STSquires

Speaking of the surname of that "Lordly" addressee from the Thomas Desborow letter 1664 (Sir Christopher HATTON, VERY prominent guy then!), isn't that the very same name of HATTON (or at least variant "Haddon"?) ALSO believed to be the maiden-name of Henry Disbrow'ss own wife at Mamaroneck, NY??!. ON WHAT AUTHORITY DO WE KNOW THAT MAIDEN NAME FOR HIS WIFE ...can anyone please tell me?? (See just how much FUN we all can have w/ this stuff, eh?!) In that regard: please note ("relationally"!) how Robert Pennoyer, brother to the very influential merchant-adventurers back at London, Samuel & William (these Pennoyers being very important to my original witch-trial analysis as to just who our own Thomas Disbrow/e happens to be, plse recall!), Robert Pennoyer himself also lived his later life at MAMARONECK, NY and undoubtedly also very well knew our own Henry Disbrow there! What's so very interesting about all this too is Robert, just like our own Eltisley Isaac Disbrowe, also came over on the ship HOPEWELL in 1635 (though our Isaac came over on the FIRST voyage of this ship in April). Robert came with another also listed on manifest as "Pennaird" (Thomas, alias "Pennoyer!"). We do know that Robert Pennoyer (this is well BEFORE Samuel's later marriage abt 1656 to Rose Hobson Pennoyer back in England) did, indeed, work for the vitally important Mattew Cradock at Cradock's Medford, MA ship-building & fishing enterprise (very near Salem, MA, ....where our own Isaac Disbrow had some doings as well, not so long after himself stepping ashore in 1635!). Robert Pennoyer is the father of that Thomas Pennoyer who testified at Mercy Disbrow's 1692 witch trial, so loyally for the defense, as did his own wife, Lydia "Penoir,"... who herself was closely related to the accusing Westcott family (much more on them I now have ALSO, ...including a probable reason for their particular animus toward our Disbrows of Compo, ...THIS once AGAIN relating to Eltisley Disbrowe's, via Elizabeth Desborough of Guilford, CT, Isaac Disbrowe's own daughter born at Eltisley---she m. a Rolfe then Johnson). Oh well, this and so much MORE (trust me!) is all that "name magic" I decided not to bore you guys with, after all my other wild speculations just indulged in (NOPE, you folks just "won't believe it," as they say... but you will...for all of what I've discovered to date--w/ MUCH more to come!). Enjoy! STSquires

I guess, my long post just now did not pop-up all that well off internet "ether"...several split-off sentences, etc. (but readable,...now you all know why I sometimes cannot STAND these 'dumb' machines!! Will they ever just do what we want them to??). This posting to DISBROW-L did NOT correctly produce reference website for Whitfield House, Guilford, CT, where Samuel Disbrowe was married to Dorothy Whitfield, 1646 (BTW, Samuel, as first Magistrate of Guilford, is ALSO credited in local histories as PERFORMING the very first marriage ever in Guilford, CT,... conducted at this very same stone house which is now a CT state museum: http://www.hbgraphics.com/whitfieldmuseum/ ). FURTHER, I made a mistake in this last posting by signing the 1664 "Thomas Desborow" letter with his FULL first-name. Instead, he had simply fashioned a very elaborate "Tho:" in signifying the "Thomas" for his letter's signature. There can, however, be absolutely NO mistake that such does mean "THOMAS"...OK!! So now then, please make NO mistake about this, just as the British Library has made no mistake in listing him as THOMAS too, OK (listed on their web catalogue as "Thomas Desborow," for any enterprising enough to wish to find this there). I must take this opportunity to say also that the red wax seal-symbol on Desborow's letter, which I so carefully described, may indeed actually indicate ship MASTS, now that I get used to the idea (has to indicate something comprehensible, heh??!), and this also since 3 so-called "trees" obviously show only the middle one as very appropriately taller than the other two, despite being enclosed in a circular "cartouche" border line (therefore, this is exactly ALSO like the actual masts of a "full-rigged" ship!)...Oddly enuf, the ship model I bought at Windsor in England late last December truly did remind me of Mike's own reference to that "Thomas Desborough, Master of NY" captured in the "Mary" by a French privateer, 1746. MY very speculative history (now) about our earlier several "Thomas Disbrows" of our own line (as perhaps having at least something to do with the SEA), is certainly PARTICULARLY provocative for me. This is because such may be especially important to! my own slightly later family history in the CT/NY area. This is because my own grt-grt. grandfather, Captain David Disbrow (of Thomas' line not so very long afterward!) was himself a sea-going captain of coasting schooners (who died in a storm almost exactly 100 years after the 1746 date above). Further, my own David Disbrow was himself a "Desborough, Master of NY" (my Captain lived in New York City at the time of sea-going death, at the heyday of seafaring there!). He too could have commanded full-rigged ships out of NY Harbor....So, now, at least you, can see my important stake in the very curious line of 'wild' speculation about the 1664 letter. Don't worry, you sceptics out there, it's just as likely that the "Thomas Desborow" of my speculation has nothing whatever to do with our family line,...But then who is HE....No doubt, we'll SEE afterall! At least wish me luck! STSquires