Thank you Orin. I have no problem being told when someone else is wrong, or that I have it wrong because of them! I note that the NEH&G Register as early as April 1897 had a query from Elliot Stone of Riverside, NY City about the NORTONs of Guilford, CT. [Vol. 51, p. 221]. In it is a statement that Thomas Norton's wife was named Grace WELLS and that they were m. in Shelton parish (Bedfordshire) on May 5, 1631, and that Grace was the daughter of Thomas WELLS and was baptized Feb. 15, 1632 in the adjoining parish of Deane. Elliot Stone was then seeking proof that the wife of Thomas NORTON who was named Grace, was indeed a WELLS! As far as I can tell he never got his proof. The Descendants of Thomas NORTON are compiled in the NEH&G Register in 1900 on pp. 269-276 by Hon. R.D. Smith and communicated by Dr. Bernard G. Steiner. They cite the previous query and compound the problem with more info, with Mr. Smith's statement," No explanation of his tangle can as yet be given." It would seem that in all of these years someone interested in the WELLS and/or NORTON family history would have devoted time and effort to resolve the issue of who, when, and where the Thomas NORTON who immigrant to Guilford, Conn. with Rev. Mr. Whitfield in 1639 married. Is the Evesham you refer to the one in Northants and Hunts in the extremity of Beds? If so, it is famous as the site of the Battle of Evesham in 1265 during the Baron's War when King Henry III finally beat Simon de Montford! Alas poor Simon, he was killed fighting on foot after his horse was killed under him. His body was mutilated with ritualistic savagery as there were no fair military commissions or tribunals to worry about then! He was buried by the Benedictine Monks in the north transept under the High Alter in The Abbey near the battlefield. At 06:29 PM 3/23/2002 -0800, you wrote: >At 07:38 PM 3/23/02 -0500, George W. Page wrote: > > >I am descended from Grace WELLS who m. Thomas NORTON in Bedfordshire, Eng. >about 1631. IGI files, not Ancestrial Files, of the LDS church indicate >that she was the daughter of Hugh & Frances (Belcher) WELLS.<< > >I hate it when we have to tell someone that their ancestor as documented in >such places may not be correct. You are in good company. Many if not all >of us, including myself, have had to "discard" an ancestor or two along the >way. At issue is a choice between sticking with the "first finding" or >seeking the facts. > >I know about Grace Wells who married Thomas Norton. But I don't have much >on the family. If you will check the IGI on Grace Wells with spouse Thomas >Norton you will find the following on the marriage alone: > >05 May 1631 Shelton, Bedfordshire >Abt. 1607 >1625 England >1625 Ockley, Surrey, England >1631 England >Abt. 1634 England >Abt 1635 Shelton, Bedfordshire >1645 England >August 1604 Shelton, Bedfordshire >05 May 1621 Shelton, Bedfordshire >Abt. 1626 England >9 May 1666 Souldrop, Bedford, England >Plus 6 different dates showing them married in either Connecticut or >Suffolk, England. > >The point is the IGI is just as parilous as the Ancestral file because much >of the information has been submitted by individuals who may or may not >have done a good job of researching their ancestors. Sometimes they simply >take what someone else has written or claimed and declared it to be fact. >If the information used comes from parish records it is pretty reliable. >The problem is most people can not tell the difference and the tendency is >to want to believe any information found in the IGI. If this is so, then >please tell me which marriage date and location above one should believe is >the correct one? > >As far as I know there is no documented evidence that would link Grace to >the family in question. There were only 4 children born to the family all >in England. The idea that they came from Essex and the husband was named >Hugh Welles who supposedly died in Wethersfield, Connecticut in 1645 and >his widow Frances Belcher Welles then married Thomas Coleman seems to have >first appeared in an early work done by "Prof" Albert Welles in 1846 and >then in a later expanded edition in 1876. Unfortunately, Albert Welles got >a lot of things wrong in his books. > >There were many who accepted this until it was challenged several years ago >by a noted genealogist in an article in, I believe, the American >Genealogist where he suggested that Hugh had not existed as no proof could >be found. They suggested research in Evesham might yield some information >as Thomas Coleman left a house there to his "son-in-law" (step son) Thomas >Welles and it was clear this belonged to the Welles family. A number of >researchers, including myself and I am not even from this family, >independantly had the area around Evesham researched and came up with the >same answer. > >Hugh Welles and Frances Belcher were actually Thomas Welles and Frances >Albright. All the Welles children save the eldest son Thomas were found in >the parish records of Evesham. This included a daughter others had no >information on previously because she had died about the same time her >father died in Evesham in Feb. 1636/7. It was then clear that Thomas >Coleman and Frances Welles had married in England and not in Connecticut. > >The clincher came when a document was found by researcher Douglas >Richardson in 1992 in the Boston archives among "Aspinwall's Notarial >Records" which was a power of attorney dated 03 Oct 1646 that showed Thomas >Coleman held responsiblity over the property in Evesham and that one John >Albright was occupying the property and not paying the rent. John Albright >was a brother of Frances Albright who married Thomas Welles in 1625 as >documented in the Evesham parish records. > >There is no record of a daughter Grace or a son Hugh (another person >present in Wethersfield at the same time and allegedly linked to the family >without proof). But the other children were found and circumstantially >confirmed when the eldest son, Thomas Welles who married Mary Beardsley, >named his first four children in the exact same birth order as his siblings >including the deceased Sarah. > >For more information, check the following URL and read the research notes. > >http://www.rootsweb.com/~wellsfam/genealgy/fam00002/fam00002.html > >Now, there is an interesting reference in the power of attorney exectued by >Thomas Coleman in which it refers to "the Remainder of a Legacie in the >hands of John Norton of Cotherstock Esq. granted by the will of John >Coleman of Cotherstock." > >I don't know of anyone who has ever followed up on this to figure out what >was in the will of John Coleman (father of brother of Thomas?) and the >relationship to John Norton. But this may have nothing to do with the >Welles and likely nothing to do with your Thomas Norton. > >Since Thomas Norton and Grace Wells were married in Bedfordshire, my >inclination is to believe that it is more likely she was born near that >location and that is where one should research for an identify of her family. > > > > > >You state that more recent research indicates the info about Hugh WELLS and > >Frances Belcher is wrong! > >Please provide more specific information about the recent research that you > >refer to: > >We are always asking for proof that an event happened. > >In this case I am asking for proof that it didn't happen! > > > >My previous posting about her ancestry on this list, has gone unanswered. > > > >GWP > > > > >Orin R. Wells >Wells Family Research Association >P. O. Box 5427 >Kent, Washington 98064-5427 ><OrinWells@wells.org> >http://www.rootsweb.com/~wellsfam/wfrahome.html >Subscribe to the "Wells-L" list on RootsWeb > > >==== WELLS Mailing List ==== >Wells Surname List Home Page >http://www.zekes.com/~dwells/windex.html