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.