Hello Arvil: I appreciate your latest comments! As a middle child, I have a propensity to attempt to mediate and to reconcile contradicting matters, as will be reflected in my comments which follow: 1). You have established that our William is not the same as the one who m. Susan Poynter in England. So his ancestry remains unknown. You also find no estate there on our William. This all fits okay. Until we learn otherwise, I am content with the possibility that the Bible is accurate as to William the immigrant coming over in search of forest; his being killed in the massacre in 1622 (I think your old letter dealt very thoroughly with the possibility that he did die in the massacre); and with son Augustin coming over in 1630 to claim the estate. We don't know what financial difficulties William may have been experiencing when he came here. His investment was small and he was not styled "Gentleman" as an investor in the London Company. He was young and maybe just starting in his ship-building business. For all we know he had borrowed heavily in England. If he had left a substantial estate there, why wasn't it found? He may have gotten into some financial trouble and felt the need to make the trip to Virginia with hopes of succeeding. He would send for his family later.   Possibility: If our William left no estate in England it would explain why son Augustin came over anyway. Augustin may have had nothing to gain financially by remaining in England, so he came to America in hopes of claiming something from his father's estate. The Bible only gave Augustin's motive for coming here, not that he had succeeded. When Augustin came over he may have found no estate, and that the land had in-fact been granted to someone else. To continue with your thoughts, once he found nothing in America, Augustin went back to England. He therefore left no known Virginia records of his stay here. 2).  A look at the later part of the Bible record according to "Johnstons of Salisbury:" The Bible record is right on target as to George (b. 1724), marrying Mary Jones, and as to the names of their children. This has been substantiated by the deed records. The Bible also has this George as being the son of Robert Hancock. This is exactly where the deed records are pointing us. We have agreement here between the Bible notes and the deed records, in that George Hancock had wife Mary Jones; that they had children (as named in the Bible); and that Robert was George's father. This is major!   Some comments on the other part of the Bible which says "George died, leaving one child, Robert, born 1679, died 1732. Robert left children, Robert, b 1711; he was ancestor of Colonel Wm. Hancock, of Bedford county, Virginia; Edward, born 1713...:"   I agree with you that Robert, b. 1711, couldn't have been the ancestor of Col. William, b 1720.  But that is exactly what the text we have says. We know then that that part is wrong, and that whoever wrote the notes simply failed to use parentheses and otherwise put this part of the sentence in it's proper place. To be accurate then, it should have read "George died, leaving one child, Robert, b 1679, died 1732 (he was ancestor of Colonel Wm Hancock, of Bedford co., Virginia). Robert left children: Robert, b 1711; Edward, born 1713..." This we know. We know of that error in the Bible record, and that with proper placement in the narrative the material fits just fine.  We might apply this to other parts of the Bible notes also.  For instance:  From other sources we know that Robert and Johan (Ligon) Hancock had a son, Robert, Jr., who married Margaret. We know that Robert, Jr died, and that his wife Margaret, had many land dealings with people having the same names as those referred to in the Bible as children of Robert (1679-1732). I see know no way around it. This info, taken with the previously mentioned deeds confirming George Hancock and wife Mary Jones, strongly tie these lines together, and compel us to rethink the Bible record here. One way to 'reorganize' this part of the Bible record to make it fit with the deed records, is for it to have said: "George died, leaving one child. [Period, disconnecting from the next part]  "Robert, b. 1679, died 1732. Robert left children, Robert, born 1711..."   I guess this is possible, but it's probably pushing it a bit. A natural reading of what we have reads smoothly, i.e. "George died, leaving one child, Robert, b. 1679..." We don't really know who had possession of the Bible. It may have been someone more contemporary than Simon (whom we think had the Bible).  If so, then it could have been copied wrong. If Simon did however, have possesion of it, it's harder to explain, since we know that he was contemporary with the info about "George leaving one child, Robert."   However, this is all just supposition, and it might be best to say that whoever wrote that material down actually thought it was true, but was simply wrong. I wish I could come up with other ways to reconcile all this. I am continuing to look at the Virginia records for more clues. As always, my best to you, Jim