Carl Dunn wrote: "The VR, Marriage records, (which Mr. Squires has yet to post), give a marriage of James Disbrowe SENIOR to Elizabeth Marshall." [snip] COME on Carl, there is no "conspiracy" on my part in my not yet having posted the Disbrow Marriage VR material (which I also just emphatically promised to do prior to your own posting now). If I had recognized ANY glaring contradictions in the above stated facts you again mention (given my "homework in the homeland") as to the two Elizabeth's with obviously different original surnames (are they maiden names??) and needful of my immediate posting, then you ALL obviously would have heard from me about it before now! Please do NOT impugn my already stated intentions, which include the rather tiresome task of having promised to post ALL of the VR material I have collected in Cambridge for the Eltisley Disbrows (CCL of Cambridge, England). BTW, what makes you so certain that these two surnames of Marshall & Hatley are even both "maiden" names, and for TWO different individuals?? Do we know this (though it's a possibility I too think is the most likely)? As I said once before, they BOTH could be for the same person (considering all the possibilities), with one of these names perhaps being a previously married surname so often confusingly & commonly referred to back then (& perhaps now too). We simply do not know, now do we, ....or do you then for some reason?? Have you thought of ALL the possibilities here then, Carl? I too happen to believe that we are dealing with two different/individual women, but feel compelled to also point out from my separately collected Over VR material (again from CCL---& which I have NO intention of posting here, given its very extensive multi-family nature!!) that there are in the nearby village of OVER a very great many "Marshalls" indicated, as well as only just a v! ery few "Hatleys" there, which also may suggest that only one Elizabeth is carrying BOTH Hatley and Marshall by maiden name and first marriage name, to our subsequent confusion (Over is, by all indications, just where Elizabeth Hatley is supposed to have originated too). Make no mistake about it, I'm NOT sure I "buy" this possibility, but it must enter into our debate fairly so. As to what you argue once again: You are repeating your original argument, which unfortunately adds nothing new to the debate so far. I will, therefore, also then repeat what I have said: namely that ALL the "conflicted" VR material collected so far unequivocally, at least, identifies "Thomas" as son to James the Elder, just as it ALSO identifies the Major General as his son ALSO, and by the universally recognized birthdate for the Major General of 1608 (with this very SAME paternity given for James "the Elder"). Then, of course, we also have the 1638 will of James "the Elder" (which I have posted in abstract, & is readily available in Robert's publication cited), confirming the universally recognized pattern of a "James as first son" and then also a "John as second son" to this particular "James the Elder," which also conforms exactly to the 1684 Pedigree of both Samuel Disbrowe (as published by Henry Waters) and to all other available "bio" information (includi! ng your highly regarded "Dictionary of National Biography") as regards the famous TWO "brothers:" Samuel Disbrowe and Major General John Disbrowe, at least. The 1638 "James the Elder" will was written too early (by 1614) to include many more offspring as we know he had after that date (from Eltisley VR material). This is clearly because it was never revised since 1614 apparently (as would certainly NOT be too uncommon under primogeniture law), & as is obvious withal, therefore to also then include the several subsequently identifiable children (from the VR) of this very same JAMES, the ELDER. This is as has been also indicated & speculated upon by the 1976/1986 researchers Harold B. Disbrowe & Eddis Johnson, who have concluded exactly as I have from this far more accurate VR material I collected than was posted in 2000 by Barbara Hutchings on the Disbrow-L). Unfortunately, it is now incumbent upon you to add something new to this debate by advancing our factual knowl! edge or with further analytical insights about these issues. I have promised to look into these matters on my up-coming trip to England, where certain "glaring contradictions" in the perhaps somewhat more "official" VR record from Cambridge may still indicate the need (as I also have already stated). Please notify us as soon as you can whenever you too may come up with some new angles for us to think about. Thanks so much. Meanwhile, I certainly have every intention of completing the Disbrow VR record posting as I already promised to this forum, & just as soon as I get moved to do so "this week" (as I believe I said). This is just as I already promised, but unfortunately, unlike too many on the web who are truly "addicted" to these machines, I must pace myself with these sometimes frustrating machines or simply go "crazy"! So Enjoy... Stephen T. Squires