Ren -- it's me again I realize that when you raised all those problems about James Neville's genealogy, you were only trying to get as many of them on the table as possible, and were not necessarily endorsing any of them. I was pleased to find that the family group sheets you sent me did include John's son, James. You also listed James Children as John, James, Jacob and Richard -- just as JBN listed them in "370." I assume this represents your current best thinking while not ruling out the possibility for future change if new evidence warrants. In this we seem to be in full concurrence. Obiously, it is not unusual to add or delete children as more evidence becomes available. It was Hugh Floyd (The Neville Family of Bullock Co., GA) who called to JBN's attention that his ancestor, Jacob Neville, was also a son of James -- and apparently had the documentation to back it up. It is still possible that others will turn up, particularly a daughter or two. I had not heard of the problem about Jacob not being claimed by James for "passage" land. Since James was born in Maryland, he could hardly be claiming passage from England for any of his family or himself. Was this an incentive to get settlers to move to North Carolina from Virginia? I have no explanation for that, but i will still keep Jacob in my database, until there is more evidence that that incident for dumping him. Keep the contrary evidence though as a footnote. I do not have all of Boogher's pages, so could not find your reference to his statement that somebody (James's family?) gained passage to the US in 1697. In view of all the later evidence, this seems hardly likely, but would be a problem if verifiable. As far as myth that George Neville was the original immigrnt, brought here by kidnappers from England, and that General John and General Joe were his sons, was pretty well discredited by Blakemore, a descendant of George, on page 237 of his book "The Blakemore Family and Allied Lines." Again, no way would you base a Neville database on that report. In your response to my query you referred to all these little objections as trash, and I think you are right. We should relegate them all to footnotes and never worry about them again unless new evidence arises. I hope you agree. Jim Walker