I found the letter transcribed, below, at the British Library, London (folio #84, ADD.29551) signed by one "Thomas Desborow" on June 7, 1664. It is written in a very neat & careful hand, especially in addressing the outer envelope which was addressed as follows: "For Mr. Holmes, Steward to the Lord Hatton [Sir Christopher Hatton, who also resided at Cornet Castle, Guernsey] From Mr. Desborow" ...and addressed also: "Thease Hon. Mr. Holmes Steward to the Lord Hatton // From Mr. Desborow" Thomas Desborow's letter had affixed a very curious small seal-symbol embossed into the hardened red wax: this symbol looks only very vaguely like three emphatically tall "TREES" (each formed by two very well-defined upright, straight vertical lines). Each "tree" is surmounted at their tops by a much smaller triangle sitting on the tip (pointing up). There is a tiny "c" symbol between each of these trees, just below the triangles. There seem to be very vague lines, or notches, near the bottom of the two front "trees" (could they be rigging?) but these are far too vague to really make anything out of (they perhaps come diagonally off the base of the two front "trees" only, also pointing upwards diagonally). Further, there is a neat horizontal slash from which the "trees" appear to be growing. This seal is altogether too crude to be sure, BUT it does now occur to me that the "trees" could be over-sized, exaggerated masts (highly stylized, PERHAPS)! If so, then the ! bottom under-line, which is hardly more than a slash, could be also as a "stylized" ship's line, as only a child might attempt to draw of a proper ship's hull. Such an interpretation DOES suggest an alternative possible identity for the writer, below. Any interpretation of this odd symbol, though, must remain extremely subjective, given how tiny, & therefore truly very difficult it was to make sense of. This symbol is most certainly NOT the famous three bears heads of the familiar Disbrowe family crest, which would have been in long use by this time. Although, THAT particular "rebel" crest, perhaps, was not the sort of "calling card" any Disbrow in 1664 might wish to use, especially upon a supplicating letter of need to a probably "royalist" patron such as Sir Christopher Hatton & his Steward Holmes in 1664... Worthy Sir, You know you promised before you went out of Town with my Lord, that I would receive fifty pounds in six months, if possible, part of the moneys due to my Mother upon bond:--- [illegible word; perhaps "And" or "As," but it's very heavily inked-up!] also that I should not faile of six pounds interest = money, due upon the said bond, the which becomes due this month; and if the said fifty pounds or part thereof now be paid with the said Interest - money, it will be the greatest of courtesies to me, for that my Trade is decayed, and my Indigency so great, that if this money be not speedily paid me, it will unavoidably be my ruine; I pray, sir, be my Advocate, and you shall have the prayers of the widow and the fatherless, consider my condition and let me intreat an Answer assoon [one word] as you can, whether I shall come to you ["my Lord" is crossed out with thick line] to receive it, or receive it in London; And to make an Ingenuous return of all your civilities, it shall be the Endeavor of him who is, your very Humble Servant Thomas Desborow ["o" is crossed out in "Thomas," but perhaps just a line-flourish to again top-off the "T" in his fancy manner of signature] [up & down left margin of this letter, the writer wrote the following: "When you Send, your letter must be directed to Bear Binder lane near Lumbard=Street, at the sign of ye Cradle." ALL case is as seen in original. FINISH] This letter is in volume II of the Christopher Hatton correspondence: "Hatton - Finch, 1663- 1668." The above letter can be seen embedded in a run of letters addressed to George Holmes at "Cornet Castell, Guernsey." All of which, upon further enterprising research, might very well suggest an identity for this "Thomas Desborow," above. Despite the curious seal-symbol seeming so alternatively "provocative" (even while only vaguely suggesting a SHIP), ...the Thomas Disbrow(e) of our present interest was a son of the Eltisley Disbowes, bp 1625 there, and married Susan MASON at St. Peter's Church, Cambridge 17 May 1651. Recall that older brother Samuel Disbrowe was directly related to the Masons already at CT Colony also, Captain John MASON there too, my own Mason line. This was via his becoming the brother-in-law to Rev. James Fitch of CT, both married within two years 1646/48 in the now famous "Whitfield House" parlor (see website for this museum at: http://www.hbgr! aphics.com/whitfieldmuseum/ ....BTW, Samuel is known to have built an identical stone 'manse' nearby in Guilford, CT). Fitch certainly did marry a "Mason" as his second wife, as did Fitch's own son as well. Both of these MASON/Fitch wives were daughters to the also very prominent Capt./Major John Mason of early CT history ("infamous" due to Pequot War, sadly now somewhat mis-interpreted via non-scholarly "presentism," & also for casino "pc" purposes now, ...yes, that certainly does happen!). The Fitch/Mason family often would inter-marry over succeeding generations (in fact, a cemetery in my own home-town here has late 19th c. stone for local Fitch with a Mason tombstone immediately next to it!!...I went to grammar school with Hank Mason, never knowing we were apparently long-lost cousins!). Captain Mason certainly did have important, even very prominent ties back in England just like Samuel Disbrowe: specifically to Sir Thomas Fairfax, the general commanding the Parli! amentary Army at outbreak of Civil War, (and Cromwell's commander then!) who invited Captain Mason back to an important role in his command. As in the above letter, our Eltisley Thomas was also a "fatherless" child (his father, James died in 1638; BTW Eltisley is pronounced ELL-tisley,...just as I was so corrected by the locals). Further, I believe it is certainly very possible that his own mother was still living in 1664, all of which is indicated in the above letter. The Eltisley Thomas could have easily been in dire financial straits at this time as well, ...with his "trade decayed" perhaps, especially as this is soon after the Restoration (of 1660) which certainly caused very dire chaos for his much older and far more famous two brothers: Samuel, & especially John (exiled in Holland at this time!). So saying however as to our Eltisley Thomas, I also do recall a very brief, too brief, very late 17th c. reference (1696?) at the British Library to a sea-captain who was also named "Thomas Desborow" (or variant spelling like "Desborough") but I must now pursue this much further there (inexplicably then, I could not/did not copy this reference to my regret ever since! You never know what you'll do when tired..ready to pack-it-in for the day! For some reason, I also did NOT think it was any big deal then! OK, call me stupid!). Now please recall, Mike Disbrow's own reference (v. I, p. 57, "Thomas Disbrow Descendants") to a "Capt. Thomas Desborough, Master of NY, of the Brigantine 'Mary' which Ben Franklin's "Pennsylvania Gazette" (4 March 1746) reported was captured at sea by a French Privateer (BTW, I bought a beautiful ship model of just exactly such an 18th c. French ship at "Nauticalia" in Windsor, &--believe it-- for a surprisingly inexpensive cost, doing so wit! h this incident in mind---ship model named for the Courer!). This 1764 reference is undoubtedly too late for that much earlier 1696(?) far too brief "flash-by" I saw in London, but I now must pursue this most provocative angle much further, of course, for the possibility at least of generational connection perhaps. Could it be that our own Thomas Disbrow(e) (who most certainly could ONLY have been the Eltisley "Thomas" even now as given much NEW "relational analysis" further confirming this,...together with so much already reported here!!)...could it be that HE too was a sea-captain, or perhaps his son Thomas of Compo and Westchester Co.?? Let's think boldly for a moment, recalling that especially the Eltisley Disbrowe's were well-connected to all those fascinating financial adventurers making colonial settlement possible and necessary, via se-borne trade . Consider those trading enterprises (the above letter also refers to the "decayed Trade" of Thomas, perhaps not as ambiguously as we may think!), such as William Pennoyer, Matthew Cradock, Maurice Thompson, ...with famous early involvement of them also with one privateering Captain Jackson of the Providence Island raids onto Spanish shipping in 1640' to '50's. Could our own Thomas, or his son Thomas later (wild speculation here gang!!) have been a sea-faring rogue like that maybe not so mysterious "Captain Cromwell," who suddenly visited Plimouth Colony and who was himself also involved with ALL these characters of ours. And, as I now believe for reasons I must confirm, related perhaps also to our famous Cromwell family relations. Well, I just don't know! about our Thomas you see!! 'Wild' speculation won't do it for us!....Could the many sea-captains working VERY closely with Pennoyers and Maurice Thompson & Cradock too (besides important merchant-backer of MA Bay Colony, Mathew Cradock was also a large-scale ship-builder at Medford, MA, immediately near Salem in 1630's and employed Robert Pennoyer and may well have even employed perhaps our own Isaac Disbrowe on his multi-year jaunt to America before returning to Eltisley!! Well, I intended to go on & on about historical "relational analysis" in this missive and not about sailor boys, even about some curious "name magic." I hoped to discuss such as "Mary Pendaloe" who accompanies one "Thomas Desborow" (same spelling as the above letter) on the our ship "Crown Malligoe" in 1677(--see Mike's p. 21, v.I; ...this is none other than our very own Thomas & considering that quite so many other surnames--including my "Squire"-- are all aboard with him while then turning up also in Fairfield village!!). Well, that "Pendaloe" name is certainly startling now isn't it, since the far too similar surnamed "Thomas Pentlow" turns up in the 1623 will of Eltisley's own Jeffrey Disbrow and himself very closely related to Thomas Disbrowe's own father, James, who died in 1638 mentioning Jeffrey Disbrowe in his will. Oh well, enough already! So please enjoy....STSquires