Jim asked: > Is there any evidence that Jonathan SOULE who m. Christian B0SWORTH 29 > Feb 1735/6 in Rehoboth and m. 2nd Elizabeth ROUNDS 31 Dec 1745 in > Rehoboth is the son of Sylvanus^3(Nathaniel^2, George^1) & Mary (SLADE) > SOULE? > > I've checked the Roser books and MD but found nothing on any children > for Sylvanus & Mary. I also looked at Rounds' abstracts of Bristol Co. > wills and found that Mary's mother left a will that named her & husband > Sylvanus, but nothing regarding their children. > ______________________________ Jim, According to the new research in the updated Soule MFIPs, Jonathan Soule4 (Sylvanus3, Nathaniel2, George1) (who married as above) is listed of one of 5 children of Sylvanus Soule (#21) & Sarah Slead with the caveat: "While there is no absolute proof they are the children of Sylvanus, their close association in Tiverton makes it very likely they are." The children listed (under #21) are: #108, Nathaniel, b. c1710, m. Lydia Gifford #109, William, b. c1711, m. Jemima Baker, Keziah Gifford #110, Jonathan, b. c1712/3 (married as you have above) #111, Sarah, b. c1718, m. Remembrance Davis Sylvanus, m. int. Ruth Davis (n.f.r.) The source for the above is "Mayflower Families In Progress, George Soule of the Mayflower..." 3rd Ed., 1999, family #s as given above. I get uneasy when the MF or MFIP books say children are "likely" or when they state there is no proof. Does this mean the line is accepted or not? I have had cases with applicants where the lines have and have not been accepted. In this case, there is no note saying that the line needs more proof before being accepted, so I'm assuming that the Soule researcher is satisfied with the line. However - note that TG 1 [1980]: 229, ["Mayflower Families To Date: A Critical Examination", by Neil D. Thompson, F.A.S.G.] - in response to the Soule, vol. 3, MF silver book published in 1980 - stated that "At least two purported children of Sylvanus3 Soule #21, Jonathan and Sarah, are so identified by elimination only." The only thing that seems to have changed since the 1980 MF book came out, is the inclusion of various deeds whereby Nathaniel, William, Jonathan and Sylvanus witnessed each other's deeds or were involved in the same deeds. The researcher has also shown that there was only one other Soule family in Tiverton at this time and all of his children appear to be accounted for. So, if this is your line Jim, looks like it's a Mayflower line. Susan E. Roser, Historian Canadian Society (PS - it's nice to be back, after a nasty computer virus and health problems, all of which have had me down for some time. Nice to see the list so active!) www.rootsweb.com/~canms/canada.html

> I get uneasy when the MF or MFIP books say children are "likely" or when > they state there is no proof. Does this mean the line is accepted or not? > I have had cases with applicants where the lines have and have not been > accepted. In this case, there is no note saying that the line needs more > proof before being accepted, so I'm assuming that the Soule researcher is > satisfied with the line. Is there a rule of thumb about the Society's acceptance of lines through "question mark children" in the silver books? I'm wondering particularly about Obadiah Chase, 6th generation (probably) from Stephen Hopkins (Stephen1 > Giles2 > Stephen3 > Mary4 > Thankful5 Maker > ?Obadiah6 Chase). He and 5 siblings are listed (MF: Stephen Hopkins, 2nd ed, p.406) with question marks and a reference to the Chase genealogy in the New England historical & genealogical register. Their oldest brother is not questioned, as his birth was recorded at Yarmouth. Anybody have any insight here? Dianne Kenny

Many thanks, Susan, for the MFIP info! I don't have a Soule line but, as some are aware, I am working on documenting the early settlers of Rehoboth & Swansea, MA, and their relatives in neighboring MA & RI towns. I have some ties to Jonathan^4 Soules' wives' Bosworth & Rounds families. Also, Jonathan's aunt Phebe Slade married Stephen Bowen, my 2nd cousin 8 x removed. So they aren't close relatives of mine but are important to my Rehoboth research. Chilton, Cooke, Howland, and Tilley are my direct lines and I have close relationships to Winslow & Billington. Jim Bullock Littleton, CO P.S. I certainly hope you & your computer stay healthy now. -----Original Message----- From: Susan E. Roser [mailto:roser@iprimus.ca] Sent: Tuesday, June 25, 2002 10:51 AM To: MAYFLOWER-L@rootsweb.com Subject: Fw: [MFLR] Jonathan4 Soule Jim, According to the new research in the updated Soule MFIPs, Jonathan Soule4 (Sylvanus3, Nathaniel2, George1) (who married as above) is listed of one of 5 children of Sylvanus Soule (#21) & Sarah Slead with the caveat: "While there is no absolute proof they are the children of Sylvanus, their close association in Tiverton makes it very likely they are." The children listed (under #21) are: #108, Nathaniel, b. c1710, m. Lydia Gifford #109, William, b. c1711, m. Jemima Baker, Keziah Gifford #110, Jonathan, b. c1712/3 (married as you have above) #111, Sarah, b. c1718, m. Remembrance Davis Sylvanus, m. int. Ruth Davis (n.f.r.) The source for the above is "Mayflower Families In Progress, George Soule of the Mayflower..." 3rd Ed., 1999, family #s as given above. I get uneasy when the MF or MFIP books say children are "likely" or when they state there is no proof. Does this mean the line is accepted or not? I have had cases with applicants where the lines have and have not been accepted. In this case, there is no note saying that the line needs more proof before being accepted, so I'm assuming that the Soule researcher is satisfied with the line. However - note that TG 1 [1980]: 229, ["Mayflower Families To Date: A Critical Examination", by Neil D. Thompson, F.A.S.G.] - in response to the Soule, vol. 3, MF silver book published in 1980 - stated that "At least two purported children of Sylvanus3 Soule #21, Jonathan and Sarah, are so identified by elimination only." The only thing that seems to have changed since the 1980 MF book came out, is the inclusion of various deeds whereby Nathaniel, William, Jonathan and Sylvanus witnessed each other's deeds or were involved in the same deeds. The researcher has also shown that there was only one other Soule family in Tiverton at this time and all of his children appear to be accounted for. So, if this is your line Jim, looks like it's a Mayflower line. Susan E. Roser, Historian Canadian Society (PS - it's nice to be back, after a nasty computer virus and health problems, all of which have had me down for some time. Nice to see the list so active!) www.rootsweb.com/~canms/canada.html