Robert, Yesterday I wrote -- >A quick glance at the first paragraph didn't impress me. <sigh> That >paragraph referred *only* to NEHGR 55:410-416, which I do own. No >other source was mentioned, yet there were two errors: the TAG article >said that Edward's baptismal record listed in the NEHGR article identified >him as a son of Robert FULLER "the butcher" (it didn't, it only listed him >as "son of Robert") and that Robert FULLER "the butcher" mentioned >son-in-law John SPAULDING (he didn't, he mentioned "son-in-law James >Spalding"). So I can only conclude that the authors of the TAG article >misread the NEHGR article and didn't consult any other sources for >this particular paragraph and the information therein. Maybe they were >prone to typos like I've been lately. :-) I have finished comparing the TAG 61:194-199 with NEHGR 55:192-196 and 410-416, both written by Francis H. Fuller, and NEHGR 48:345 (some extracts, supplied by Francis H. Fuller, of Topcroft, Norfolk parish registers; Roger FULLER lived & died in Topcroft, which is very near Redenhall). I must say that I am very curious about this whole thing. I hesitate to say this, but either Francis H. Fuller was fabricating or misreading data or Bruce C. MacGunnigle, Robert M. Sherman, and Robert S. Wakefield were doing so. In addition to the errors I pointed out above, the TAG article contains other discrepancies as well: The TAG article says that John FULLER's will, proven in 1608/9 "mentions by name only his eldest son William" yet NEHGR 55:415, which seems to quote from the will, mentions sons John and Thomas. Rather than relying on the NEHGR article for the wording of the will, the TAG article uses LDS film #94,928. I have not viewed this film, so I can't say what it is but would hope that it is a film of the actual will. Also, the TAG article says that Roger FULLER's will, proven in 1644, mentions daughter "Grace Tyle [or Tyte] wife of Robart" yet NEHGR 55:194, which seems to quote from the will, calls her "Francis Tyte wife of Robert Tyte." The TAG article uses LDS film #167,117. Again, I have not viewed this film. Anyway, these errors are not enough to make me doubt the basic premise of the TAG article -- that Dr. Matthew FULLER who died in Barnstable MA in 1678 was the son of Edward FULLER. I agree with that. Yet it also doesn't convince me that Edward and Samuel FULLER were not sons of Robert FULLER of Redenhall, an opinion evidently shared by Robert C. Anderson and eventually by Bruce C. MacGunnigle when he published V. 4 of the "silver book"on the FULLERs. Between the time MacGunnigle published the TAG article in 1986 and 1990 when he published V. 4, he seems to have accepted their parentage. I think that Robert FULLER "the butcher" of Redenhall, Norfolk had at least 4 sons: Thomas bp. 1573, Edward bp. 1575, John bp. 1578, and Dr. Samuel bp. 1580. John died rather young, in 1608, leaving 4 sons: William (called eldest in his father's will; was he perhaps born ca 1600 after John married Margaret BALLS in 1599?), John bp. 1602, Matthew bp. 1603, and Thomas bp. 1606. At first glance, it appears that their son William was baptized posthumously in Redenhall in 1609. But I think perhaps this was a second son named William, the first dying soon after his father. That could also be why John's father Robert mentioned only his grandson John in his 1614 will -- this John was now the oldest grandchild, so Robert made provisions for him to have a trade. It is also possible that Margaret was a second wife and that William was born to the first wife. There was an Anne FULLER, wife of John, who was buried in Redenhall 3 Aug 1598 (NEHGR 55:413). This FULLER family seems to make it a habit to use the same name for sons even if they are both living, simply calling one "older" and the other "younger" (see NEHGR 55:415 for the will of John FULLER, proven May 1599, for a good example of this). It is also possible that John's sons Matthew and Thomas died young, or perhaps ended up in London. After all, Mr. Thomas COTTON of London was named supervisor of John's will. So, I see no reason to doubt that there was another Matthew FULLER, born ca 1805 (where?) to Edward FULLER. He's the one who came to America and died in Barnstable, MA in 1678. As for Giles FULLER, who died in Hampton NH and who was the son of Roger FULLER, I don't really see what the problem is. I think his father Roger (who died in 1644 in Topcroft, Norfolk) was the son of John FULLER who died in Redenhall, Norfolk in 1599. And I think this John FULLER was a brother of Robert "the butcher" of Redenhall. Which means that Giles and Dr. Matthew, son of Edward, were second cousins. As the TAG article speculates, "closest kinsman" could simply have meant he was the oldest of the "cousins" in New England. I agree with this. Ah well, this is all quite confusing. And I'm still no closer to finding an answer to my question about James (or John?) SPAULDING, son-in-law (or stepson) of Robert FULLER "the butcher." I welcome any input on this. Vickie Elam White