That's what I get for being half asleep when I threw that page together. Not only did I leave out a generation but I had an extra John thrown in the genetic stew pot. I have corrected that now. It is now clear to me what Jim was saying and I believe he is correct. This John who married Miss Pullan is not the son of Gideon of Cadhay Devon England. I think William Dowell at http:// www.stithvalley.com/ancestry/taylor/johnhayd.htm gives a compelling argument that Gideon was not the father of John that arrived in the new world 1630'ish. There is info on the Hayden.org site that does seem to make this tie - http://www.hayden.org/hayden/hayden1.htm. Mr Dowell gives evidence while the list on hayden.org is just that - a list. Thanks Ernie On Jun 13, 2007, at 9:47 AM, catoohey@aol.com wrote: > > Ernie, > > > > I hadn't really looked at your tree until just now. > > My info shows that the John that arrived in 1630 IS the John that > married Susannah Pullen. > > > > I have this from numerous sources: > http://www.dixfieldcitizennews.net/genealogy/5422.htm > > http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~haydenfamilyalbum/ > genealogy_report.htm > > http://worldconnect.rootsweb.com/cgi-bin/igm.cgi? > op=AHN&db=mercer&id=I3263 > > I also have an old genealogy book that says the same. > > The information that this John is the son of Gideon seems to be > wishful thinking. > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Ernie Jones <ernie_jones@comcast.net> > To: hayden@rootsweb.com > Sent: Wed, 13 Jun 2007 11:34 am > Subject: Re: [HAYDEN] Attn: Ernie re: Nehemiah Hayden > > > > I'll answer the different questions I received in this one message. > First I did make a mistake on my last update on that web page and > eft out one generation. Between John and Samuel I had left out a > ehemiah and Hannah (Neale). > Lauren - I think the Hannah Ames you are asking about married John > he brother of the Nehemiah/Hannah (Neale) that I had left out. That > s the second generation John that Catherine mentions. > h, and no you are not butting in at all. The reason I posted to > his list was for anyone to get involved that wanted to. > As for the the "fact" as to if the second generation John was married > o Sussan Pullan or not, I'll leave that debate up to others. > owever I do state on my page "...as I understand it to be". I think > hat disclaimer is pretty clear. > Ernie > On Jun 13, 2007, at 3:57 AM, Lauren Smith wrote: >> Ernie, > Do you have a Hannah Ames in your history? > Lauren > --- Ernie Jones <ernie_jones@comcast.net> wrote: > >> OK...I've put a little outline from John Hayden of >> Dorchester 1630/31 >> down thru Nehemiah that is documented in the files >> on the site. >> >> Let me know if there are any questions. >> >> ernie >> >> >> On Jun 12, 2007, at 5:06 AM, CEVaughan412@aol.com >> wrote: >> >>> >>> In a message dated 6/12/2007 3:26:26 A.M. Eastern >> Daylight Time, >>> hayden-request@rootsweb.com writes: >>> >>> http://www.ibejones.com/Hayden/photocpy.htm >>> >>> >>> >>> Could you tell me where these Haydens >> lived/originated from? >>> Thanks >>> carol >>> >> >> >> ------------------------------- >> 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 >> > > > ------------------------------- > 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 > > ------------------------------ > o unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to HAYDEN- > request@rootsweb.com > ith the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and > the body of > he message > > > ______________________________________________________________________ > __ > AOL now offers free email to everyone. Find out more about what's > free from AOL at AOL.com. > > ------------------------------- > 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