RootsWeb.com Mailing Lists
Total: 2/2
    1. Re: [HWK] William GULWELL
    2. BRIAN MORGAN
    3. Doug, my notes say IGI also parish register, father William Gulwell. The link to Luckington is based on the fact that the Gulwell name is particular in it's origins to that area, Luckington abutting Hawkesbury parish and Easton Grey (Grey Easton) a couple of miles further away. There is as yet no proof positive that the two Williams are the same but by the occurance of this surname, by elimination, by lack of other living Williams and by proximity I would say the probability of the link being correct must be very high. Genealogy being an ongoing and iterative process there is always room for change when facts indicate a change is necessary, so I would always be very pleased to hear if anyone has data to improve the validity on any entry of mine. I especially welcome information on Gulwell as this name is part of my One-Name Study. Brian Doug Thompson <doug.thompson@virgin.net> wrote: Brian On your website you give the father of Mary GULWELL (b 1690 Hawkesbury) as William GULWELL (b 1655 Luckington). Do you have any evidence on which you base this identification or is it just a guess? I copied this to the Hawkesbury list as there may be others who could comment. Doug Thompson ==== ENG-GLO-HAWKESBURY Mailing List ==== Visit Robert Millard's local and family history web pages at http://www.hawkesburyhistory.co.uk. ============================== Jumpstart your genealogy with OneWorldTree. Search not only for ancestors, but entire generations. Learn more: http://www.ancestry.com/s13972/rd.ashx

    05/11/2005 01:21:28
    1. Re: [HWK] William GULWELL
    2. Doug Thompson
    3. Thanks Brian I'll go along with that for the time being and call it a good working hypothesis! Doug on 11/5/05 7:21 am, BRIAN MORGAN at brian.morgan9@btinternet.com wrote: > There is as yet no proof positive that the two Williams are the same but by > the occurance of this surname, by elimination, by lack of other living > Williams and by proximity I would say the probability of the link being > correct must be very high.

    05/11/2005 11:32:48