Hey Folks, Since my first posting of this subject seems to have disappeared into the ether, I will try again. I’m not one who likes unanswered questions. It’s a serious liability for a genealogist. I’d like to have some objective opinions on whether or not you think my ancestors were Huguenots. Here’s what I know: My last name is found among “strangers” living around London. However, my name was also established in England with the Normans. Two women, each mentioned as a kinswoman, appear in an ancestor’s will with the un-English names of CACER and BOUCHER. My oldest known ancestors were involved in typical Huguenot professions from the late 1600s to mid 1700s–a merchant (innkeeper) and upholsterer. In both cases their occupations were outside the city of London. By 1739 the upholsterer had become the master for the guild. So obviously he was not restricted from joining. Records show that a son must have inherited the inn property. According to my understanding of the law, this would mean the father must have been born in England, or naturalized. I know this is all pretty flimsy evidence, but it’s all I’ve got. Any and all opinions greatly appreciated. Shane Tarry

Hi Shane Ok, here's the way that I see it - apologies if this seems harsh but you have asked for people to be honest with you: "My last name is found among "strangers" living around London. However, my name was also established in England with the Normans." If your patronym is found among strangers, it's likely that the place that they came from would be given also. However, many strangers were just that, not Protestants solely, just specially imported economic immigrants, especially those before 1550. Where do you get the information from about the name coming with the Normans? There is so much false information concerning that period sloshing about - William the Conqueror would have to have had a bigger army than the allies on D Day - for everybody who says they are descended from the Normans to BE descended from the Normans. "Two women, each mentioned as a kinswoman, appear in an ancestor's will with the un-English names of CACER and BOUCHER." Kinswomen of who? "My oldest known ancestors were involved in typical Huguenot professions from the late 1600s to mid 1700s-a merchant (innkeeper) and upholsterer. In both cases their occupations were outside the city of London. By 1739 the upholsterer had become the master for the guild. So obviously he was not restricted from joining." You have missed the point completely here. Neither of these occupations were 'typically' Huguenot, in fact being an innkeeper would have been UNTYPICAL especially in the time period you have cited. Where were these businesses located, that may help give a more rounded response, was the upholsterer living in London, a member of the London Guild? "Records show that a son must have inherited the inn property. According to my understanding of the law, this would mean the father must have been born in England, or naturalized." Only true up to a point, the inheritance seems very late to have anything to do with naturalization and why 'must have'. To be honest Shane, knowing how long you've been trying to research this part of your family, I think I'd be thinking of giving it up. You have some clear evidence of French people called TARRY (or close) being in England but do they link directly to your family? Are they 'just' people with a similar name? There is no proof from what you have said in your message that the family was either Huguenot or Walloon, not even Protestante, so I'm not sure where your research will take you. You have a bit of purely circumstantial evidence into which you have added your own views - sort of three and three makes five - without any firm evidence. Regards Tony Fuller Huguenot Trails