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