In a message dated 8/3/01 3:52:07 PM, HANSER5@aol.com writes: << Letâ ™s continue the research and the good discussions! Jim Hancock >> Dear Cousin Jim: You have some very compelling evidence that would seem to establish that Robert, Edward, William, George, Thomas, and Jushua - sons of Robert - were descendants of Simon rather than his brother Augustine. I think you are probably right. I am convinced enough that my database has been changed to agree with yours. But I think we need to continue to search for the smoking gun. In the meantime, I accept your version as being the most likely. There is so much that we don't know. So many things that we can't prove. Just to continue the discussions, as you request, I can certainly share some thoughts. No proof; no strong convictions; just thoughts. Let's analyze carefully the quotation from the Bible to see if we have been misreading or misinterpreting something. From "The Johnstons of Salisbury", page 183: "In ye year 1620 William Hancock in search for Forrest for his building of ships, embarked for ye plantations, being one of ye company owners thereof, leaving his familye in England; on ye 22nd of March, 1622 he, with others, was massacred by ye salvages at Thorpe's House, Berkeley Hundred, fifty miles from Charles City." "In 1630, Augustin, son and heir of William, came to Virginia to claim the estate, and died, leaving children, Robert, William, Sarah and Ruth. William, born 1631, died 1672, leaving sons George, born 1658; Jubal, 1660, Jubal killed by Indians at 'Jinto.' George died leaving one child Robert, born 1679, died 1732. Robert left children, Robert, born 1711; he was ancestor of Col. William Hancock of Bedford County, Virginia; Edward, born 1713 died young ------" First off, I have always been bothered by the statement that Augustin came to Virginia in 1630 to 'claim the estate.' Based on the number of shares in the Company that William owned, he should have had a grant of about 500 acres. But if William died in 1622, there would have been no estate in Virginia in 1630. When men died, as so many did, or if they did not "take up" their grant within a couple of years, the Crown would take back the land and grant it to somebody else. On the other hand, William would have had a substantial estate in England that should have been probated following his death in 1622. Many years ago I hired a prominent professional genealogist in England to find the will and estate settlement. He found none. Some Hancock researchers claim that William was a son of Thomas Hancock and Agnes Nickolls and that he married Susan Poynter 26 Sep 1604 in London. It's a neat fit. But my researcher found that the William who married Susan Poynter was still living in England after 1622. The name Augustin, or Augustine, does not appear in any early Virginia records that I have seen. As the eldest son, he should have had a sizeable inheritance in England and should have been a purchaser of land in Virginia. Did he return to England after he learned that there was no estate in Virginia? The owner of the Bible was, supposedly, Simon Hancock (1717-1791), son of Samuel and Johan. I'm convinced that the early part of the record was copied from an older Bible. At what point does the older account end and the newer entry begin? The latter part must have been the writing of Simon. He says "George died leaving one child Robert, born 1679, died 1732. Robert left children, Robert, born 1711; he was ancestor of Col. William Hancock of Bedford County, Virginia." He can't mean that Robert (1711) was the ancestor of Col. William since Col. William was born 30 May 1720. He must be talking about Robert (1679-1732) but you are convinced that Robert was not a son of George but rather a son of Robert Hancock and Johan Ligon. How could Simon have been mistaken if he was talking about his cousin and contemporary? I have other reservations and concerns, but won't muddy the water any further for now. Regards, Arvil