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 > >