RE: Over VR on any late 16th - early 17th c. Hatley/Disbrow marriage: Since I may not get around to posting any VR analysis for the Village of Over, as I hoped to do at some point, I thought I'd report now (& since the issue is being forced) that there are NO marriages listed between any Disbrow with ANY Elizabeth Hatley, particularly from the relevant period of 1585 to 1610. Nevertheless, absence of evidence is neither "evidence of absence" (for this marriage), nor is it evidence of its having taken place under another name, or in another village (virtually ANY village!). The only thing we can conclude from this is that one more uncertainty about the TWO Elizabeths is NOT yet eliminated conclusively, namely that the TWO Elizabeths could actually be just ONE. Please recall that the only evidence we have for the existence of one Elizabeth "Hatley" (as Hatley) is the recall of Samuel Disbrowe as an old man 1684, among other such (if I'm not mistaken) non-VR type anecdotal evidence where personal preference or recall may have mixed-up an init! ial married name with a maiden name. Samuel was, BTW, severely handicapped by the time of his pedigree statement for the visitation in 1684 (& almost blind, I believe it was). This is according to a separate testament to this curious fact which I found in the Calendar of State Papers at the PRO, Kew. This 'testament' is made by his own son-in-law Lord Mayor Sir Patience Ward at about the same time (it is in my stack of CSP papers), who, perhaps rather curiously, was very aggressively protesting Samuel Disbrowe's bid to be appointed sheriff for Cambridgeshire, protesting this on the basis of Samuel's far too severe handicaps/incapacities---I planned to discuss this issue in detail much later when I could pull it all out of my stack of CSP papers, along with my rasons for "another shoe to drop". But, so be it for now... Look, we ALL would love much greater certainty about many "facts" concerning these fascinating and wonderful people entirely, but sometimes it just doesn't always happen. Though, as far as I'm concerned, there is yet very little evidence to topple, with ANY degree of certainty, at least one major presumption, as long held by MANY: namely, that Thomas was "brother" to the Major General and both were sons to one "JAMES the ELDER" (as indicated by the Eltisley VR). There seems to be MUCH still in the way of a positive "revision" to this, a revision which would require a great deal more change made to much else besides, including the universally accepted historical record about the Major General's birthday (perhaps this too IS mistaken then---& wouldn't that be exciting), to Samuel's and John's older brother (another JAMES, Jr!), etc (as see further on 1614 will below). Though I would certainly grant, as I have been trying so hard to make VERY clear, that there is LESS ! certainty (NO, sir, not far less certainty by any means!) about this than I, and past reputable researchers, may once have believed...OK?? Is that satisfying to you Mr. Carl Dunn? So saying, please understand my own equivocations: the weight of predominate evidence simply weighs STILL most in favor of the old, original interpretation of this matter (& as to the paternity of the Major General specifically, as also to Thomas). This is not simply based on the Eltisley VR material which seems only "somewhat" contradictory (far less than we might have supposed earlier in our debate), but this weight of evidence also rests upon that 1614 will of "James the Elder," will made 1614/proved 1638 (YES, this/or some "JAMES" does indeed show up, as expected, in the list of burials at Eltisley VR for 23 Oct 1638). This same will shows that EVEN yet one more son ( a "3rd son") is ALSO mentioned in this so crucial will (perhaps other wills may yet yield better info), just as we've seen from its published abstract. That THIRD son is one "WILLIAM": yes, mentioned there as "the 3rd son," just as JAmes is noted as FIRST son and John as SECOND son, all very app! ropritaely enough. This info entirely conforms exactly with ALL other information we have now available to us, both about this 3rd son William and about the two more centrally interesting brothers (one the "famous" Major General according to the VR). William also is confirmed in the Eltisley VR material (which is beginning to show far LESS contradiction altogether, won't you agree??)... Virtually all so-called "conflicted" VR material in our debate so far has now also shown, unequivocally, that not only the Major General and Thomas, but also this very same "William" (3rd son; baptized 3 Mar 1610---BEFORE the will was drafted 1614) were all born to none other than our significant "Jacobus SENIOR and Elisabeth," just as the will of 1614 demonstrates t least for William, James and John (w/ James & John noted there clearly also by 1610, as we should expect). Could Thomas, then, have ALSO been born into this very same family in 1625? I can only know now what the VR materia! l also has unequivocally stated all along, & despite all so-called "conflicted" ancillary questions (& there are some of those regarding one or two instances of other people, as I've stated), and also what the Rev. Mark Noble reported in the 18th century (who certainly was some sort of authority on these church records, despite his many other biases, etc), namely that Thomas ALSO was born and baptized into the family of Jacobus SENIOR (& one Elizabeth) 25 Oct 1625. Good lord, let's have a rest to this for the time being (in absence of anything NEW). Thanks. SSquires