Eltisley, Cambs. BAPTISMS - Disbrow family only 17 Aug 1606....Jacobus, ..........son of Jacobus jun & Elizabeth Disbrow 10 Apr 1608.....Elizabeth, .......dau. " James jun* & Elizabeth Disbrow 13 Dec 1608....John, ...............son " Jacobus sen & Elizabeth Disbrow 8 Oct 1609......John, ...............son " Jacobus jun Disbrow [no wife noted by name*] 3 Mar 1610......William, ...........son " Jacobus sen & Elisabeth Disborow 22 Jun 1611.....Joseph, ...........son " Jacobus jun & Elisabeth Disborow 13 Sep 1612.....Nathaniell,........son " Jacobus jun & Elisabeth Disbrow 18 Aug 1613.....Bruno, ............son " Jacobus sen & Elisabeth Disbrow 30 Apr 1615......Isaac, .............son " Isaac & Mary Disbrow 9 May 1615...... Rebecca, ........dau. " Jacobus jun & Elisabeth Disbrow 27 Oct 1616......Bruno, ............son " Jacobus sen & Elisabeth Disbrow 16 Feb 1616......John, ..............son " Isaac & Mary Disbrow 1 Aug 1617........Susan, ...........dau. " Jacobus sen & Elizabeth Disbrow 15 Feb 1618......Anna, ..............dau. " Jacobus sen & Elizabeth Disbrow 3 Nov 1619........Elizabeth, ........dau. " Isaac & Mary Disbrow 23 Nov 1619.......Dina, ...............dau. " Joseph Disbrow [no wife noted] 30 Nov 1619.......Samuell, ...........son " Jacobus & Elizabeth Disbrow 20 Aug 1622.......Elizabeth, ........dau. " Jacobus & Elizabeth Disbrow 23 Feb 1622.......Mathew, ..........son " Jacobus sen? & Elizabeth Disbrow 29 Jun 1624........Samuell,...........son " Isaac & Mary Disbrow 2 Mar 1624.........Isaac, ...............son " Jacobus & Elizabeth Disbrow 25 Oct 1625........Thomas, ...........son " Jacobus sen & Elizabeth Disbrow 25 Oct 1626........Hannah, ............dau " Isaac & Mary Disbrow 1 May 1627.........Sara,.................dau " Jacobus jun & Elizabeth Disbrow 26 Sep 1627........Elizabeth, ..........dau " Jacobus jun & Elizabeth Disbrow 26 Dec 1627........Annis, ...............dau " Jacobus sen & Elizabeth Disbrow 12 Dec 1628........Samuell, ...........son " Isaac & Mary Disbrow 7 Jan 1628...........Elizabeth, .........dau " Jacobus sen & Elizabeth Disbrow 9 Mar 1630...........James, ............son " Isaack & Mary Disbrow 24 Aug 1632.........Nathaniel, ........son " Isaak & Mary Disbrow 9 Apr 1635............Sarah*, .............dau " Isaack & Mary Disbrowe 15 Feb 1641..........Jacobus, ..........son " John & Ann Disbrowe 24 Dec 1646..........Isaac, ..............son (born) " Isaac jun & Elizabeth Disbrow 9 Apr 1649.............Elizabeth, ........dau " Isaac jun* & Elizabeth Disbrow >From 1653 to 1657 the dates are of births not baptisms. 10 Nov 1653...........Susanna, .........dau " Isaac Disbrow [no wife noted] 26 Feb 1654...........Isaac, ..............son " Isaac Disbrow " 5 Jul 1655...............Mary, ..............dau " Samuell Disbrow " 26 Mar 1657............Elizabeth, ........dau " John Disbrow " 30 Apr 1657.............Mary, ............. dau " Isaac Disbrow " "NO DISBROWS AFTER THIS DATE" [indicates Eltisley village historian: Mike Sawyer] NOTE: The above is based on modern microfiche lists, labelled as "Eltisley, Cambridgeshire - Bishops Transcripts," at the Cambridge Central Library (CCL) in downtown Cambridge, Cambs., England. I have indicated with a star [*] where Mike Sawyer diverges (only very slightly) from the "Bishop's Transcripts" list at CCL. You will note in the first starred item (1608) Mike Sawyer simply omits indication of either "jun" or "sen" for the father, James (which issue has been of such great interest to us recently). In 1635, he simply dropped one "a" at end of given-name for Sarah, & in 1649 he agian omitted a "jun" designation. These few indicated errors are obviously his own very minor transcription mistakes when he hand wrote out his list for me last December, 2001. His information, therefore, seems to conform quite well with the CCL material, from which he may have derived it. This means that a 'peek' at the ORIGINAL 17th c. documents is in order for me as planned for my next trip to England this fall, and it is also in order for anyone else with a "need-to-know" about this information. You will also note there is a "?" next to the "sen" designation for "23 Feb 1622, Mathew, son of Jacobus sen? & Elizabeth Disbrow." This is as it appears in the CCL material. Further all surnames are exactly as spelled in the CCL material. Surprisingly, there are only 5 divergent spellings indicated in the CCL material from that of the modern surname spelling of "Disbrow." Two early list divergent spellings of surname as "Disborow" is as indicated in the will abstract I believe we discussed recently too: for James the Elder. While all professional genealogists always caution against ever making too much of surname spellings (particularly secondary spellings usually doen phonetically), it is nevertheless "fun" to speculated on the evolution of how the name is being spelled over time. Please note that later, by 1635-41, there are two attempts indicated to spell the surname as "Disbrowe," according to the preference of the Major General and Samuel who are not known by records to have spelled it themselves in any other way. So saying, I do have yet ONE MORE copiy of the Eltisley VR material, gathered from microfiche at the CCL too. This item I do not quite know how to catagorize, since it only covers later 17th c. years (eg. beginning 1653 for baptisms) and a transcriber, "Mrs. N.K. Travers," is indicated for the year 1992. Her lists are fascinating to me for the many convergent surnames indicated here (& on the CCL material above) which are BOTH at Eltisley and in southern MNew England as well: such names just froim "Baptisms" as Bull, Mansfield (I am now Iiving in "Mansfield," CT, from very early settler of that surname of NEW HAVEN!), Chapman, Peck/e, Wells, Russell,Green/e, Mitchel/l, Peters, Taylor, Robinson, Woodward, Johnson, and several others I previously indicated on this List of undoubted significance to us and the "Disbrow Network." Meanwhile, this transcriber, Mrs. Travers, indicates yetr another sp[elling for Disbrow, as "Disbrough" on 10 Nov 1653, listing "Susanna d. Isaac born". This is her first of only the last three Disbrows noted above in my list since she begins hers much later for inexplicable reason (she spells it "Disbrow" in other two listings!). AGAIN, according to professionals surname spelling is one of the least important of "indicator" issues we should ever be concerned with (though I do think it is "fun" and always interesting!). BRIEF ANALYSIS (I could go on endlessly, OK!): Please note my above list for Eltisley Disbrow baptisms diverges VERY significantly from that which was posted during our recent debate and derived from the error-filled Disbrow-L Archive lists. I have, myself, rarely ever consulted that Archived materila for reasons already given (1. difficulty of access via List Archives w/out knowing e-mail address of presenter; 2. AND because there was some question raised when it was posted in late 2000 as to just how many different "hands" this material went through before its posting to our List--it would seem it was as many as 4 or 5 people). Significant errors are now indicated in the aerlier List for years 1618/19, 1624/25 (as I raised in debate), and with additions apparently now given to that List as well, including "Dina" for year 1619 (23 Nov, dau. Joseph/Mary). I have know idea how many other errors there may be in the Disbrow-L Archive from that material there. It is interesting also to me that while this resolves SOME of the contradictions raised in our recent debate, it by no means resolves all of them obviously, as I indicated then. For example, I also note that Rebecca is listed in my material as dau. to James "jun," which naturally contradicts all available resources I have as to her being the sister of Thomas, who is listed as son to James "sen" (eg: co-authors Eddis Johnson & H.B. Disbrowe in 1986 "English Antecedents," and author Harold B. Disbrowe in 1976 "Interim Report," etc). Rebecca is also, of course, clearly identified as the SISTER to the 'famous' Samuel Disbrowe in his 1680 will (proved 1690) while Thomas is NOT mentioned there (I have been told many reasons for this: including that a widowed sister in need of support would be recognized, while married sisters with living husbands usually were NOT so, ...just as were not 'lesser,' younger brothers who were far away & out-of-mind in America---did he also discredit Samuel's tenuous hold onto respectabiolity after the Restoration in some way too---whatever, I'm not sure I completely "buy" such arguments! But, we'll see...). Thomas in my above listings is also indicated as a "brother" to that John who is known as the "Major General," by all accepted historical dates for his own birth in 1608 (could these long-accepted dates for that famous birth simply be WRONG ---wouldn't THAT be fun for us to resolve then for history's sake!!--- And was he actually then born on 8 Oct 1609, as the other above "John"??!) I will be closely examining all such possibilities on my trip to England late fall... BTW, a "John Disbrow h. to Ann," shows up as father/mother in Eltisley VR Baptisms by 1641 (given above). These same two parent-names of "Ann & John Disbrow" ALSO show-up in the microfiche VR material I also collected at the CCL for the village of OVER (eg: w/ dau "Elizabeth"--inevitably!!-- born 10 Oct 1653, p. 37, OVER). This is where Elizabeth Hatley herself is believed to have come from and one early mysterious JAMES is burried in 1633, as also noted by Gary Boyd Roberts in his There are also many MORE "Marshall" surnames in the OVER VR material than there are "Hatleys," which surname actually numbers very few there). I will have much more on all this at a later time, esp some analysis re: OVER lists (before my up-coming trip I hope) and about those TWO Elizabeths: Hatley/Marshall, whom I mentioned I hoped to study in earnest just before our recent debate on List (BTW, did you know that some scholarly withcraft researchers have noted that "ELIZABETH" is an unusually well represented given-name among suspected "witches?" See Murray's "Witchcraft Cult in Western Europe" for lists at end of her book, etc!). I may have to delay further report on much of this until AFTER my up-coming trip to England, & in order to check into some sketchy/provocative information which I received last trip too! Regarding these provocative angles: I will have another "shoe to drop" myself (derived from my last trip/requiring confirmation!), this one much more favorable to my recent debater's point-of-view (re. the TWO "James Disbrows"--jun & sen-- of early Eltisley)! Make no mistake about it, I am VERY sympathetic to that point-of-view myself, and planned to approach this p[roblem from the standpoint of the TWO Elizabeths: Hatley & Marshall, which may yet be a a far more fruitful means of approach now (together with the wills at Cambs. Shire Hall). So, there is much more "fun" ahead yet!