Dear List Members, Please stop referring to the 1903 Paxton book as authorative. There are no footnotes within the book. There is no research to prove any of the assumptions regarding the Paxtons prior to their arrival in the then colonies. Perhaps we can someday find evidence of the earlier members of our far-flung family, but the statements in the book regarding them are unproven. It is definitely an incorrect assumption to claim a Paxton was in any way responsible for the regicide of Charles I. Those persons involved are known and published in the historical literature. Any new material will be gratefully accepted by all of us if there is substaining evidence. J. Paxton Fisher > [Original Message] > From: <jhemst3732@aol.com> > To: <PAXTON-L@rootsweb.com> > Date: 06/23/2004 10:18:24 PM > Subject: [PAXTON-L] Re: Andrew Paxton son of NATHANIEL PAXTON Sr. > > This is a Message Board Post that is gatewayed to this mailing list. > > Classification: Query > > Message Board URL: > > http://boards.ancestry.com/mbexec/msg/an/YZ5.2ACIB/930.1.1.1.1.1.1.1 > > Message Board Post: > > Joanne, > I know nothing more than you seem to know about James, the father of Nathaniel b.1680 and I know nothing about Andrew. I can help with Nathaniel and Hannah's family right down to mine.Will send it directly to you. > Lesta > > > > ==== PAXTON Mailing List ==== > Submit queries, wills, obits, deeds, etc. at http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~wanda/paxtonmain.html