This is a Message Board Post that is gatewayed to this mailing list. Surnames: Knowlton Classification: Query Message Board URL: http://boards.ancestry.com/mbexec/msg/rw/5Mn.2ACEB/61.78.121.123.187.190 Message Board Post: Unless there's been a recent breakthrough, there is no evidence linking the Knowltons of Ipswich with Richard Knowlton ("Knowlden") and Elizabeth Cantize in England. Stocking (and others) made the connection because of the similarity in names, with none of the evidence which a serious genealogist would require to make the linkage. I think our current Elizabeth described it the best when she wrote: =========================== Many of us have happily accepted Stocking's account of our origins in England, that is that William Knowlton (1) was the son of Richard and Elizabeth Cantize Knowlton of Kent. In 1977-1979 William A. Knowlton (Bill) hired Debrett Ancestry Research in England to check on the sources of this line. He found them to be probably false because no real connection could be proved and, in fact, Richard and Elizabeth had another son born at the time William was supposed to have been born. Bill has shared his research with me, and I will repeat most of his one-page letter from Jan. 30, 1996. Additions by me are in brackets. ========== Quoting Bill Knowlton ============== Richard and Elizabeth had children, one of whom might have been named William, but Stocking never cited his baptism. The original immigrants to Ipswich, MA, had a mother probably named Ann [or Ann Elizabeth] and a father who might have been named William. A grave was found in Canada that matches the story that William (1) died coming over or after landing, before the mother and four sons migrated to Ipswich, MA. Stocking assumed that the William in #1 above was the same as the one in #2. George H. Knowlton published an Errata because of the many obvious errors in Stocking's original History. George then was working on a definitive history to replace Stocking's but died in the middle of it. His papers are in the New York State Library in Albany, NY [in the Research Libraries Information Network bibliographic database as NYSR88-A311]. Stocking also knew that his joining the two Williams was thin gruel and about 100 years ago sought a small sum from each member of the Knowlton Association [active at the time] to finance another trip to Kent. If he took it, I have never seen the results. Stocking lists four sons for Richard, William being the fourth. But when one looks at the Canterbury records, only the first two [George and Stephen] are listed in records [baptisms]. In fact, the records list another child [John] being born to Richard at the time when William was supposedly born [1584]. The two Williams cannot be the same. William may well have come from the Chiswick area [near London], but Cromwell's men burned those records. We are at a dead end. If anyone has any research to add to this, please chime in; but the LDS Knowlton information has repeated this Stocking research for many decades, so we must not use others' charts and stories. What we need are the original English records or copies thereof. =========================== To add my two-cents: I always thought it strange that the names Richard, George, and Stephen did not repeat in the next Ipswich generation; it is more likely that William's father was named John (or William, Samuel, or Thomas). Also, the St. Dunstan, Canterbury, Kent register that Stocking used, is for a family named Knowlden. Now, I have found Knowlton spelled many ways (Knoulton, Nolton, Nowlton, Nowton, Knowlten, etc.), and the defining letters seem to be *No*t*n. Almost anything else can be different or missing. When the T is missing, I have personally never found that person to be related to our family. In all of Canterbury, Debrett's only once found such a name, Agnes Nolton of Hollingbourne, widow, 1505/06. They also found reference to a Ralph Knowlton, who lived in Herts. and Middlesex, servant of the countess of Bedford, whose 1595 will mentioned other Knowltons named Isabel and William. Bill did not choose to give Debrett's $600 to continue their search. Perhaps someone else would like to sleuth on his/her own. The field is open.