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, labeled: "Eltisley, Cambridgeshire - Bishops Transcripts" from the Cambridge Central Library (CCL), downtown Cambridge, Cambs., England. I have indicated with a star [*] where Mike Sawyer, Eltisley village historian, diverges (only very slightly) from "Bishop's Transcripts" list at CCL. You will note in the first starred item (1608) that Mike Sawyer simply omits an indication of either "jun" or "sen" for the father "James" (which question of designation has been of such great interest to us recently, & at the heart of our interesting debate). For the 1635 item, Sawyer has simply dropped one "a" at end of given-name for "Sarah,." In 1649, his last divergence from CCL list, he again omitted a "jun" designation. These few 'errors' of his are obviously due to 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, and serves as a good back-up for it (though he perhaps just derived his own from the CCL). This means that a 'peek' at the ORIGINAL 17th c. documents is in order for me, as I planned for my next trip to England this fall (just as 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 just as it appears in the CCL material. Further, all above 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 divergent spellings above show surname as "Disborow," which is as also indicated in the will abstract, I believe, which we discussed recently too: for James the Elder. While all professional genealogists always caution against ever making too much of surname spellings or mis-spellings (particularly secondary spellings usually done phonetically), it is nevertheless "fun" to speculate on the evolution of these over time. Please note that later, by 1635-41, there are 2 attempts indicated to spell the surname as "Disbrowe," which was always the known preference of the Major General & Samuel, who are not known by records to have spelled it themselves in any other way. So saying, I do have still ANOTHER copy of the Eltisley VR material, gathered from microfiche at the CCL also. This item I do not quite know how to categorize, since it only covers the later 17th c. years (eg. beginning 1653 for baptisms); and a transcriber, "Mrs. N.K. Travers," is named in 1992. Her lists are fascinating to me for the many convergent surnames indicated there (& on the CCL material above) which appear BOTH at Eltisley and in southern New England; such names as just from these "Baptism" lists as: Bull, Mansfield (I am now Iiving in "Mansfield," CT, derived from early settler of that surname at NEW HAVEN!), Chapman, Peck/e, Wells, Russell,Green/e, Mitchel/l, Peters, Taylor, Robinson, Woodward, Johnson, and several others I previously indicated in this forum of absolutely undoubted significance to us and the "Disbrow Network." Meanwhile, this transcriber, Mrs. Travers, indicates yet another spelling for Disbrow, as "Disbrough" on 10 Nov 1653, listing "Susanna d. Isaac born" not noted in the above two other VR lists of mine. This is her first of only three Disbrows she notes since she begins her list much later, for inexplicable reason (she spells it "Disbrow" in her other 2 listings!). AGAIN, according to professionals surname spelling is one of the LEAST important of "indicator" issues we should be concerned with (though I do think it is great "fun" and always interesting!). MY BRIEF ANALYSIS (yes, I could go on endlessly!): Please note my above list for Eltisley Disbrow baptisms diverges VERY significantly from that which was posted during our recent debate, and there derived from the error-filled Disbrow-L Archive lists. I have, myself, rarely ever consulted that Archived material for reasons already given (#1. My difficulty accessing List Archives VR material w/out knowing e-mail address of the presenter; #2. AND because there was some question raised when 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 earlier Archive-L baptism list for the years 1618/19, 1624/25 (as I raised in debate), and with additional names/clarifications now given as necessary for that List as well: including "Dina" for year 1619 (23 Nov, dau. Joseph/Mary). I have NO idea how many other errors there may be in the Disbrow-L Archive from late 2000 posting. I, nevertheless, very much appreciate ANYONE who attempts to post to this forum with quite so complicated & detailed a listing. The presenter then should be much praised for a very difficult job on behalf of us all, where errors could have crept in virtually ANYWHERE along the line! It is interesting also to me that while my above Disbrow Baptism listing 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 above 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" above (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 own 1680 will (probated 1691), while Thomas is NOT mentioned there at all (I have been told many reasons for this: including that a widowed sister in need of support would indeed be recognized, while married sisters with living husbands usually were NOT so, ...just as were not recognized 'lesser,' younger brothers who may have been very far away, of unknown vital status, & out-of-mind in America---did Thomas perhaps ALSO somehow discredit Samuel's somewhat tenuous hold onto respectability after the Restoration in some way---WHATEVER, I'm not sure I completely "buy" any such arguments! But hopefully, 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 John's own birth in 1608 (could these long-accepted dates for that very famous birth simply be WRONG ---wouldn't THAT be fun for us to help resolve then for history's sake!!--- And was he actually then born on the alternative 8 Oct 1609, as the other above "John"??!). I will be closely examining ALL such possibilities on my trip to England in late fall... Most interestingly too, yet another "John Disbrow" (as husband to one "Ann") shows up as father/mother in Eltisley VR Baptisms by 1641 (shown above). These same two parent-names of "Ann/John Disbrow" ALSO show-up later on in 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). RECALL too that I'm looking for that not so mysterious "goldsmith" of Cambridge, also "John Disbrow," who may be that very same "Desboe" of the now very famous "first banknote" as displayed at the Bank of England Museum in London I mentioned recently & will be photographing (as possible w/out flash) on my return trip---I now have much MORE on this very provocative issue; inclding that the "Disbrow" surname was also being spelled at OVER as "Desbrow" by 1685, very significantly enough re: DESBOE!! OVER is where Elizabeth Hatley herself (mother of the "famous John & Samuel of Eltisley) is believed to have come from. Further, one early, "mysterious" JAMES is buried at OVER on 20 Jan 1633 (this is the reason was I was so insistent that the James Jr. who is in that "1634 Eltisley grave" may actually be the later James Jr. who is son of James, & probable brother of both Thomas & John, the Maj Gen.,.... PERHAPS (just as the authors Johnson/Disbrowe have speculated about this same 1634 burial too, in theirs of 1976/1986). This 1633 James Disbrow burial at OVER is also provocatively noted by Gary Boyd Roberts in his "English Origins of New England Families," which book source I noted in our recent debate. There are also far MORE "Marshall" surnames in the OVER 'VR' material than there are "Hatleys" (which latter surname actually numbers very few there). I will have much more on all this at a later time, esp some analysis re: OVER 'VR' lists perhaps before my up-coming trip, we'll see;...plus ALSO abt those TWO Elizabeths: both "Hatley" & "Marshall" (whom I have noted I'd already begun to study just before our recent debate on List). BTW, did you know that some 'scholarly' witchcraft researchers have noted that "ELIZABETH" is an unusually WELL represented given-name among suspected "witches" of 17th c. England? See esp. Murray's "Witch Cult in Western Europe" for name lists at end of her book, etc... I may have to delay further reporting on much of this stuff until AFTER my up-coming trip to England (tho I still plan to post the Shire Hall Disbrow wills index as promised), & in order to check into some still too sketchy, but VERY provocative information which I received on my last trip regarding ALL these very provocative/fascinating angles: I will have another "shoe to drop" myself (derived from my last trip/now requiring confirmation & re. "James, jun" at OVER 1633 burial, as above noted!). THIS "shoe" is much more favorable to my recent debater's own point-of-view (re. the TWO "James Disbrows, jun & sen"-- at very early Eltisley, who's-who/what's-what, & with Thomas too)! Make NO mistake about this: I am VERY sympathetic to Carl Dun's own point-of-view despite our rigorous & very necessary debate. I had planned to approach this very same problem from my own standpoint of the TWO Elizabeths: Hatley & Marshall, which may yet be a very fruitful means of approach now (together with those wills, perhaps, at Cambs. Shire Hall). So, ....much more "fun" yet ahead! SSquires PS---Sorry for my delay in sending the above promised material,...I hoped to use a new "scanner" have been struggling to properly connect-up to my computer, & just in order to reduce any "transfer" errors for my own material above, ...BUT the "OCR" function (Optical Character Recognition) on mine, and on most EVERY other 'scanner' (as I'm told by a local "techie") really just stands for "OFTEN CANNOT RECOGNIZE!" So much for yet another magical computer myth! Wonderful, huh!!