Old myths seem to die hard! DNA studies have shown that there is only a 0.02% chance that John and William were brothers. Not very likely. In fact, there is less than a 0.2% chance that they were close cousins. They may share a common Hayden male ancestor but there is only a 16% probability that that common ancestor lived since the time of Thomas de Heydon or ca. 1200. -----Original Message----- From: hayden-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:hayden-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Ernie Jones Sent: Wednesday, June 13, 2007 2:37 PM To: hayden@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [HAYDEN] John of 1630 I do not have a solid source for this, only a note from a deceased Hayden relative whom I've never met or talked to. She did do some pretty heavy research though. Her note says that John's brother William was an "English Baronet". IMPORTANT to note here that I have not seen any real evidence to verify this. However, if it were true that would make John the younger brother not William. The Baronet title would be inherited by the oldest male child born in wedlock. When looking at the A, B, & C passenger lists for the Mary & John it could look like John is the younger, but it's not real clear. Anyone have input??? http://www.maryandjohn1630.com/passengerlist_c.html shows William as 18 and John as 17. Another source http://www.pennlaird.com/eggleston/ MnJ.html shows William born in 1616 making him 13/14 years old when coming to America. I suspect this source was in error so I didn't pay much attention to it beyond noting this. It is not clear, as I think we know, if John and/or William were on the Mary & John. However, this ship was only one of many during 1630/31 bringing Puritans to the new world. (Someone please correct me if I'm wrong.) My conclusion is that if they were not on the Mary & John herself then they would have been on one of the sister ships. Right??? There is a possibility that John's father may have been Gideon, but not the Gideon of Cadhay Ottery St. Mary. HOWEVER, I want to be clear that I only throw this out for thought and consideration and that I don't have even a slight shred of evidence to support this. It's just something to ponder - after all John had to have had a father and Gideon is a possible name, but then so is Fred, William, or Henry. His father being Gideon COULD explain the confusion. Again I'm only offering this for thought and I don't want to confuse things. On Jun 13, 2007, at 10:53 AM, CEVaughan412@aol.com wrote: > > In a message dated 6/13/2007 1:38:21 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, > hayden-request@rootsweb.com writes: > > Be careful with this site as it shows incorrectly that John, > spouse of > Susanna Pullen, has known parents. This fact has been shown in > numerous cases as > incorrect. > > Were you able to find the sources for the data shown? > > Jim > >

I had seen this before but don't recall where. Perhaps not a myth but the perpetuation of old information that was once believed true and the modern evidence does not support. Bottom line is still the same though. However the information at http://www.hayden.org/hayden/hayden1.htm. still indicates this connection. ( I almost accepted that connection even though I had seen the info on the Stith Valley site. I had just not realized that I was looking at the same wrong connection until now.) Not sure who should be notified to either remove that or place disclaimers there. Is there any indication that this William who was once believed to be the brother of John is older or younger and if he did have the Baronet title? One thing I am getting from this is that those of us that are in the line of John from 1630'ish is that we really don't have any information that takes the family back any further. Is that correct? Thanks Ernie On Jun 13, 2007, at 11:59 AM, shayden wrote: > Old myths seem to die hard! > > DNA studies have shown that there is only a 0.02% chance that John and > William were brothers. Not very likely. In fact, there is less than > a 0.2% > chance that they were close cousins. They may share a common Hayden > male > ancestor but there is only a 16% probability that that common > ancestor lived > since the time of Thomas de Heydon or ca. 1200. > > -----Original Message----- > From: hayden-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:hayden- > bounces@rootsweb.com] On > Behalf Of Ernie Jones > Sent: Wednesday, June 13, 2007 2:37 PM > To: hayden@rootsweb.com > Subject: Re: [HAYDEN] John of 1630 > > I do not have a solid source for this, only a note from a deceased > Hayden relative whom I've never met or talked to. She did do some > pretty heavy research though. Her note says that John's brother > William was an "English Baronet". IMPORTANT to note here that I have > not seen any real evidence to verify this. However, if it were true > that would make John the younger brother not William. The Baronet > title would be inherited by the oldest male child born in wedlock. > When looking at the A, B, & C passenger lists for the Mary & John it > could look like John is the younger, but it's not real clear. Anyone > have input??? > > http://www.maryandjohn1630.com/passengerlist_c.html shows William as > 18 and John as 17. Another source http://www.pennlaird.com/eggleston/ > MnJ.html shows William born in 1616 making him 13/14 years old when > coming to America. I suspect this source was in error so I didn't > pay much attention to it beyond noting this. > > It is not clear, as I think we know, if John and/or William were on > the Mary & John. However, this ship was only one of many during > 1630/31 bringing Puritans to the new world. (Someone please correct > me if I'm wrong.) My conclusion is that if they were not on the Mary > & John herself then they would have been on one of the sister ships. > Right??? > > There is a possibility that John's father may have been Gideon, but > not the Gideon of Cadhay Ottery St. Mary. HOWEVER, I want to be > clear that I only throw this out for thought and consideration and > that I don't have even a slight shred of evidence to support this. > It's just something to ponder - after all John had to have had a > father and Gideon is a possible name, but then so is Fred, William, > or Henry. His father being Gideon COULD explain the confusion. > Again I'm only offering this for thought and I don't want to confuse > things.

Gideon must be a popular Hayden name. I have at least 3 in my Hayden line. --- Ernie Jones <ernie_jones@comcast.net> wrote: > I had seen this before but don't recall where. > Perhaps not a myth > but the perpetuation of old information that was > once believed true > and the modern evidence does not support. Bottom > line is still the > same though. > > However the information at > http://www.hayden.org/hayden/hayden1.htm. > still indicates this connection. ( I almost > accepted that connection > even though I had seen the info on the Stith Valley > site. I had just > not realized that I was looking at the same wrong > connection until > now.) Not sure who should be notified to either > remove that or place > disclaimers there. > > Is there any indication that this William who was > once believed to be > the brother of John is older or younger and if he > did have the > Baronet title? > > One thing I am getting from this is that those of us > that are in the > line of John from 1630'ish is that we really don't > have any > information that takes the family back any further. > Is that correct? > > Thanks > Ernie > > > On Jun 13, 2007, at 11:59 AM, shayden wrote: > > > Old myths seem to die hard! > > > > DNA studies have shown that there is only a 0.02% > chance that John and > > William were brothers. Not very likely. In fact, > there is less than > > a 0.2% > > chance that they were close cousins. They may > share a common Hayden > > male > > ancestor but there is only a 16% probability that > that common > > ancestor lived > > since the time of Thomas de Heydon or ca. 1200. > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: hayden-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:hayden- > > bounces@rootsweb.com] On > > Behalf Of Ernie Jones > > Sent: Wednesday, June 13, 2007 2:37 PM > > To: hayden@rootsweb.com > > Subject: Re: [HAYDEN] John of 1630 > > > > I do not have a solid source for this, only a note > from a deceased > > Hayden relative whom I've never met or talked to. > She did do some > > pretty heavy research though. Her note says that > John's brother > > William was an "English Baronet". IMPORTANT to > note here that I have > > not seen any real evidence to verify this. > However, if it were true > > that would make John the younger brother not > William. The Baronet > > title would be inherited by the oldest male child > born in wedlock. > > When looking at the A, B, & C passenger lists for > the Mary & John it > > could look like John is the younger, but it's not > real clear. Anyone > > have input??? > > > > > http://www.maryandjohn1630.com/passengerlist_c.html > shows William as > > 18 and John as 17. Another source > http://www.pennlaird.com/eggleston/ > > MnJ.html shows William born in 1616 making him > 13/14 years old when > > coming to America. I suspect this source was in > error so I didn't > > pay much attention to it beyond noting this. > > > > It is not clear, as I think we know, if John > and/or William were on > > the Mary & John. However, this ship was only one > of many during > > 1630/31 bringing Puritans to the new world. > (Someone please correct > > me if I'm wrong.) My conclusion is that if they > were not on the Mary > > & John herself then they would have been on one of > the sister ships. > > Right??? > > > > There is a possibility that John's father may have > been Gideon, but > > not the Gideon of Cadhay Ottery St. Mary. > HOWEVER, I want to be > > clear that I only throw this out for thought and > consideration and > > that I don't have even a slight shred of evidence > to support this. > > It's just something to ponder - after all John had > to have had a > > father and Gideon is a possible name, but then so > is Fred, William, > > or Henry. His father being Gideon COULD explain > the confusion. > > Again I'm only offering this for thought and I > don't want to confuse > > things. > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email > to HAYDEN-request@rootsweb.com with the word > 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and > the body of the message >