Hello Listers, It's been quite some time that I have been away from the list, but I have been very busy in my absence. I'm sending along some of the data I have managed to put together over that time as I have been pulling together all of my research in an attempt to put this all together. I have made particular effort to cite my sources and I trust they will be found acceptable as they are those used within the academic community. If there are questions regarding them, or if I have failed to address them somewhere, I will be happy to dig it up and provide it. The formatting of the coming documents may not be great, as they are coming off of my web site at <http://papayne.rootsweb.com/>http://papayne.rootsweb.com and therefore the links and other html formatting will not come through on an e-mail post to the list. Therefore, if you'd prefer better formatting, I invite you to the web site to view the pages there- where you will also find much more. There is a lot of reading in what follows, and I will send them in several installments, but those interested will undoubtedly come away with a new perception of the PAYNE'S in early America. There can be no disputing that these PAYNE families who had arrived prior to 1650 shared many common bonds in both America and much earlier, in England. The notion that there was "No relationship whatsoever" between them must now be re-evaluated and I hope those of you on the list who are descendants of these branches will join me in the remaining research. We are largely uncoordinated in our research efforts which makes this all  the more difficult. We can only accomplish so much working alone- and at great expense (just ask my accountant!) I know that for some out there, even the thought of there being a relation between different branches is a sore spot. I would like to point out, however,  that this conclusion was largely based on research from over 60 years ago (PAYNES of Virginia)- if not over 100 (PAINE Genealogy- Ipwsich Branch, PAINE Family Records, etc.). Records are much more accessible these days. So, before condemning me and refuting my research, I urge you to at least study it a little bit before throwing it out the window. Your BOUND to learn something new, whether you believe my overall thesis or not :-} Having said that, here is the first installment, with others coming behind it. Take your time. Read them as you find the time, and please offer your comments if you'd like. I hope that through some of my effort's here we can come to some new conclusions and add a wealth of new information to what has been previously known. Patrick The period between the introduction of the MAGNA CHARTA in 1215 through about 1400 is a gray area in many respects as far as this research is concerned. The research after this period is much better established. To be sure to my point, many of the intermarriage's between the families of the network in which I write are well known to historians and genealogists alike. However those intermarriages stand out due to the prominence of the families involved. HOWARD, STAFFORD, RICH, BOURCHIER, BERKELEY, MONTAGU, BEAUCHAMP, BOHUN, MOWBRAY and PERCY, are a few examples. They are known to us as Peers of England, and thus their genealogies have been preserved over the centuries [see the Herald's Visitations of England or the "Complete Peerage"] In the background, however, intermarriage's within these families (or on their immediate periphery- their chaplains, servants, etc.), not so notable were also occurring. For some examples, click here; or here. Researchers have established many of these and they, too, are well documented. But we've somehow managed to miss the opportunity of connecting those single efforts of researchers into something more meaningful to history. When an effort is made to connect the relationships between them and how they interacted together, however, a story emerges that is both fascinating and of great significance to the history we now know of England- and as we move into the 16th and 17th century, to America as well. This research has, by neccessity, has focused mainly on the 17th century activities presented by a network of "merchants, mariners and clergymen" as established by professionals in the field- historians who have recognized and respected names within the academic community. Such eminent historians as Bernard Bailyn, Robert Brenner, James P. Horn and David Hackett Fischer, (see the research bibliography) are among those few who have written about this network of families in the 17th century. Where history has failed in this regard, however, is to delve deeper into the origin's of this network of families to discover the inter-colony kinship's which spread, quite literally, from the Caribbean to Newfoundland, encompassing all of the colonies. This would seem of importance enough, yet there is a much richer history here than is now known, for this network was not a product of the 17th century colonization as historians have implied. It sprang from MUCH earlier times. As I do not have the recognition that the historians mentioned above enjoy, my task of establishing even the inter-colony kinships between the men in which they write about- the 17th century Merchant Networks of New England and Virginia primarily- is made difficult, if not impossible. Although I have received encouraging letters from some of those historians (and others) and have a steadily growing list of support from several hundred fellow genealogists, the research I present has not yet been reviewed by any academic organization. It has been a long wish of mine to get their support to confirm my research. My approach has been to use the works produced by those historians as the foundation for my research, knowing that those works are accepted historical accounts in which I could build upon. I then extracted the names from those historical accounts and have worked dilligently to delve into their genealogies to establish the inter-colony relationships of the network. It seemed a reasonable approach to me at the time. Bailyn writes of the New England Network; Horn and Fisher of the Virginia network; and Brenner (God-bless him) stands out among them all for giving us the only work I have found to date that makes any attempt to write about them both to any large degree. As a result, my thesis is largely in unchartered waters, receiving no support-from any academic organization- founded, ironically, for the purpose of advancing our knowledge of history. It has been, to this point, a labor of love on my part. My hope and desire is to produce something that will raise the curiousity of those professionals or at least bring it to the attention of others who will expand upon my efforts. The existence of the network in America is known. What I have attempted to do is simply connect them- bringing the colonies of New England and Virginia (among many others) together- that history has left divided with little or no mention of the significant inter-colony kinships that are evident in this research. It would be impossible to imagine that the English efforts of colonization in America would have succeeded at all without them. Many genealogists are already finding answers to questions that have eluded them for centuries as a result of my effort. What could therefore be accomplished with the support of academics? A better question still, what has been lost without it? The implications of even these inter-colony kinships are quite profound as history, as now taught to us, places an barrier between the Roanoke, Newfoundland, Virginia, New England, Maryland, Bermuda, Caribbean, and other early colonies. It leaves us believing that these ventures were undertaken by different groups of men for entirely separate reasons, having little or nothing to do with each other. When, in fact, underlying it all was a merchant network that Bernard Bailyn, in his 1955, "The New England Merchants in the Seventeenth Century," relates was, "after three generations, in effect, one large family"- that "family" extended well beyond the bounds of any one isolated colony and England. Their dependence on one another was much greater than history has given them credit for to date. No such work, to my knowledge, has properly addressed this fact. While I have concentrated on establishing those inter-colony relationships in an effort to garner support for the research, I have managed to trace some of them to much earlier origins in England. I'll relate some of what I have found here and hope you find it as interesting and significant as I do. For PAYNE researchers, you will find this of most interest because I tell the story following their history as best I know it at this point. Afterward, I will devote the remaining portion of my thesis to the 17th century merchant network of families. However, I am very eager to continue the research into the earlier origin of the network in England- which appears to date back, quite possibly, to the Norman Conquest of England in 1066 by William the Conqueror. In any event, as early as 1400 England, the network was thriving. Sir Thomas PAYNE "of Market Bosworth, Leicester" was probably born around the middle of the 15th century, ca. 1460. He must have been a man of some importance in Leicester as he and his family members appear from the outset to have had strong connections at Court. Sir Thomas married Margaret, daughter of Thomas PULTENEY and they were the ancestors of the later William PULTNEY, Earl of BATH and Viscount PULTENEY during the years 1742-1764. The connection of the family to the Lords BATH, BUCKINGHAM, MONTAGU, and other peers becomes evident shortly- and I believe these relationships are critical to understanding the network I have spoken of. Sir Thomas and Margaret (nee PULTENEY) PAYNE had a least three children: (in no particular order) William, Edmund and Robert. By the beginning of the 16th century, the family removed to county SUFFOLK, with the exception of son Robert who is not found in either the visitations of Leicester or of Suffolk. Family traditions maintain that this son Robert instead removed to county HUNTINGDONSHIRE where he settled and established a family. As you will soon see, this seems now to be a certainty. Of son William, little is known. It is assummed that he was born in Leicester. Of son Edmund, more is known. He was born about 1484 and is said to have been "of Market Bosworth" like his father. Edmund married about 1498 Elizabeth, born about 1488, daughter of Robert WALTON "of county Leicester." Edmund and Elizabeth (nee WALTON) PAYNE had son William born in Leicester before 1510. He, along with his father and mother, removed to Suffolk where he became Bailiff of Manor HENGRAVE to Edward STAFFORD, Duke of BUCKINGHAM, who was executed in 1521. Upon the execution of STAFFORD, William lost his position as bailiff. William married, Margery, daughter of Thomas ASH and together they had twelve children: George PAYNE, b. 1532 of Newton (or Manor Nowton) Suffolk. Nicholas PAYNE, b. 1534 who married Anne BOWLES "of Baldock, Hertz" and had issue. Edward PAYNE, b. Newton, Suffolk 1535 "of Manor of CLEES in Alphamston, ESSEX" who married and had issue. Anthony PAYNE, b. 1537 "of Bury St. Edmunds and Manor of Nowton, Suffolk", who married about 1564 Martha, CASTELL (or CASTLE) who died 28 June 1603. Anthony died 3 March 1606 and they had issue. Thomas PAYNE, b. 1539 "of Cookley, Suffolk," christened 25 Jan. 1539 Lavenham, Suffolk, died 14 Apr. 1631 "at 90/91 years" who married 20 July 1578 Katheren, d. 18 May 1620, daughter of Thomas HARASANT DE CRANSFORD and had issue. Henry PAYNE, b. 1540 "of Bury St. Edmunds and of York", d. 15 July 1568 and was buried at Manor NOWTON. Henry was appointed to the position formerly held by his father by Sir Thomas KYTSON, the successor of Edward STAFFORD. Henry was also the Attorney and "well beloved ffriend" of the Earl and Countess of BATH (BOURCHIER), who both left bequests to Henry in their wills. John PAYNE, b. 1542 Newton, Suffolk, d. before 14 June 1568; he married and had issue. Agatha PAYNE, b. 1542 Newton, Suffolk, married John PRATT Elizabeth PAYNE, b. 1545 Newton, Suffolk, married Oliver SPARROW Agnes PAYNE, b. 1546 Newton, Suffolk Anna PAYNE, b. 1548 Newton, Suffolk Frances PAYNE, b. 1550 Newton, Suffolk Below you will find more detailed information on these descendants of Sir Thomas PAYNE and his wife Margaret PULTENEY. But here needs to be inserted an item which I believe may provide some answers as to why the family decided to remove from Leicester to Suffolk. At about the time the family made their move from Leicester, there was an friar preaching at HADLEIGH, SUFFOLK by the name of Hugh PAYNE. Hugh would have been about the same age as Sir Thomas PAYNE'S children. The following information regarding Hugh PAYNE is extracted from Diarmaid MACCULLOCH'S, "Thomas CRANMER," Yale University Press, 1996- winner of the 1996 Whitbread Biography Award. MacCulloch begins his notes on Hugh at p. 112 of his book where he is describing men associated with Lord L' ISLE (Arthur PLANTAGENET, 6th Viscount LISLE, an illegitimate son of Edward IV, whose wife was Honor GRENVILLE) and "two former "Observant" friars, Bernardine or Roger COVERT and Thomas ROCHE. "COVERT had been among the Observants who had ministered to CATHERINE of ARAGON'S circle, and ROCHE had been on the edge of the Maid of Kent's coterie" in the year 1534. [Lisle Letters 2, p. 183; Neame, Maid of Kent, p. 280]. MacCulloch states, "Nevertheless, later in the decade, COVERT'S Essex gentry family and ex-friar ROCHE would come into CRANMER'S sights in collaboration with another notorious ex-Observant called Hugh PAYNE, and COVERT ended up in the 1540s not only chaplain to the increasingly conservative Bishop BONNER of London, but acused of sedition before the Privy Council. CRANMER'S deep suspicion of Observants eventually ripened into outright hatred, as the cases of PAYNE and friar John FOREST later revealed." Beginning on p. 143, the "preaching of the charismatic iconclast Thomas ROSE," is mentioned and continues with, "In 1536 trouble flared up again in HADLEIGH [Suffolk]; what is particularly intriguing is that the priest at the centre of the row was linked to earlier troubles in CALAIS. His name was Hugh PAYNE, and he was an ex-Observant friar, who had been in deep trouble as one of the Observant clique agitating for Catherine of Aragon's cause in 1533-4 [Elton, Policy and Police, p. 19n.]. We have, of course, already met two of these Observants, Bernardine COVERT and Thomas ROCHE, as preaching proteges of Lord LISLE in 1534. 'In my opinion he ought to give place to none of them in dissimulation, hypocrisy, flattery, and all other qualities of the wolfish Pharisees', CRANMER commented uncharitably on PAYNE when rounding up a report of the HADLEIGH business to [Thomas] CROMWELL [details unless otherwise stated are from this letter of 28 Jan. 1537, PRO, S.P. I/115 f. 89, Cox 2, pp. 333-4 (L.P. 12 i no. 256)]. As CURATE of HADLEIGH, PAYNE had preached to such obnoxious effect during 1536 that CRANMER had summoned him, together with his distinctly more reliable rector, Dr. William REVET, and had personally ordered PAYNE to silence. However, the ex-Observant persisted in preaching, not just in HADLEIGH but also in CRANMER'S peculiar parishes in LONDON. It is likely that there he enjoyed the patronage of the surviving members of the WARHAM set, clinging on to various of the benefices which the old Archbishop had given them. Such defiance could not be tolerated; it had wider implications for CRANMER'S authority than simply the right of instruction of the clothiers of HADLEIGH." "CRANMER gave CROMWELL one specimen of PAYNE'S objectionably 'erroneous' preaching, and the example is of the highest interest: PAYNE 'taught openly in the pulpit there, that one paternoster, said by the injunction of a priest, was worth a thousand paternosters said of a man's mere voluntary mind: by this you may soon savour what judgement this man is of, and how sincerely he would instruct the people.' [Cox, and hence many other commentators, has misread the common abbreviation for 'a thousand' as 'a million', a word in any case not common in Tudor England.]. Dr. Ashley NULL first noticed that (as CRANMER must have been perfectly aware) PAYNE was saying nothing shocking at all in conservative terms; he was merely quoting from a well known fourteenth-century textbook of pastoral care, Guido de MONTE ROCHERII'S MANIPULUS CURATORUM. Indeed, he was being much more moderate than Guido, who had made the ratio of lay and clerically ordered paternosters one hundred thousand to one. [I am very grateful to Dr. NULL for alerting me to his find. The reference is to the MANIPULUS, Tract 2, Pars 3 cap. 10; see also NULL Ph. D., 'Cranmer's Doctrine of Repentance', pp. 55, 96]. On this occasion PAYNE had clearly been preaching at HADLEIGH about penance and confession, which was the context of Guido's extravagant remark; by his contemptuous rejection of PAYNE'S message, CRANMER reveals to us that he had already by 1536 rejected medieval views of the value of auricular confession to a priest. PAYNE'S theology was certainly much more acceptable to another power in East Anglia of different outlook to the Archbishop, for from HADLEIGH the troublesome ex-friar escaped to a benefice at nearby STOKE by NAYLAND, a living in the gift of the DUKE of NORFOLK [HOWARD]. Yet CRANMER was not thwarted; in alliance with the evangelical Suffolk magnate Thomas Lord WENTWORTH, he hunted PAYNE down, having excommunicated him when he failed to turn up on a citation. CROMWELL in turn acted on the Archbishop's plea to punish the priest, and by 1537 PAYNE was sending pathetic pleas to the DUKE of NORFOLK from strict confinement in the MARSHALSEA Prison. [PRO, S.P. I/115 f. 91 (L.P. 12 i no. 257)]. He never left his prison; he died there two years later, as CRANMER noted with righteous relish in another letter to CROMWELL. That letter obliquely completes the circuit back to CALAIS and the LISLES. PAYNE had got himself another benefice, GREAT SUTTON in remote south-east ESSEX; the patron presenting him had been one George COVERT. Whatever COVERT'S exact relation to the ex-Observant Father Bernardine COVERT, there is no doubt about the remaining link to COVERT and ROCHE, those two CALAIS preachers of 1534: CRANMER, primed by an evangelical gentlewoman who had other plans for the SUTTON benefice, now feared lest PAYNE should be succeeded at SUTTON by 'one ROCHE, late Observant'. [PRO, S.P. I/143 ff. 30-31, Cox 2, p. 361 (redated to 1539 by L.P. 14 i no. 244)]. For more on the relationship's between Rev. Hugh PAYNE, The PAINE'S of Leicester/Suffolk, The PAYNE'S of St. Neot's, Huntingdonshire, and some interesting connections click this link regarding Sir PAYNE de ROET, Geoffrey CHAUCER, Peers & Royalty. Those with a good grasp of English Medieval History will recognize the importance of CALAIS and the connections many of the families mentioned here had there. I believe those early connections to France had a lot of significance to this research, for which, I am now attempting to better understand. Following the death of Hugh PAYNE, Robert PAYNE, b. 1601, married Ann, daughter of John WHITING "of HADLEIGH, Suffolk"- where our story about Hugh began. There is another association here in that there was a John WHITING, "Gentleman Usher of the King's Chamber," and a Master Richard PAYNE, "Queen's Almoner and Palfreyman" [found in the "Privy Purse Expenses of Elizabeth of York: Wardrobe Accounts of Edward IV"]. This Richard PAYNE may be the same as that (or of the same family) associated with the CULPEPER'S of Sussex, and a member of the Kent, England branch of the PAYNE Family. Robert and Ann PAYNE'S son, Robert, was the later Foreman of the Grand Jury at the Salem Witch Trials in 1692. He was a graduate of Harvard in 1652 and was obviously trained as a minister. Of note is that there was a quaker by the name of John WHITING whose Truth and Innocency Defended Against Falsehood and Envy (1702) includes a stinging attack on the 1692 witchcraft trials. There is also an interesting letter written to Judge CORWIN of the trials, signed "R.P.," with the name "Robert PAYNE" written under the initials. Some historians have ascribed this letter to one Robert PIKE, a military man, who although he had an interest in the trials, I believe there is very strong evidence that it was in fact, Robert PAYNE who authored that letter. I am now attempting to obtain examples of both men's signatures to put the question to rest. [see PAINE Family Record, vol. II for details on this letter.] Robert PAYNE (b. 1601) was the son of William PAYNE, chr. St. Mary's Church 2 Dec. 1565, buried 21 Nov. 1648. He puchased the Manor of NOWTON in Suffolk from his nephew, Anthony PAYNE. Robert's brother, William, b. Bury St. EDMUNDS 1598/9, died 10 Oct. 1660 Boston, Massachusetts, became the proprietor of the Iron Works on the Saugus River in the 1640s- America's first Technological Industry. Robert's sister, Dorothy PAYNE, d. 11 Aug. 1650 Boston, arrived at New England aboard the ship INCREASE, Robert LEA (LEE), Master. The PAYNE'S of Virginia had close associations with the LEE family there and Robert is thought to have been a member of that family. Dorothy married Dr. Simon EYRE (AYRE). Sister Phebe PAYNE, died 25 Sep. 1677 at age 87 in Watertown, Mass. She arrived in 1630 with Gov. WINTHROP whose son, John, Jr., initiated the Iron Works project at Saugus. He solicited support from several wealthy merchants, including Gov. BERKELEY of Virginia who also had close relations to the PAYNES of Virignia. BERKELEY, and other investors of the N.E. iron works also invested in an iron works in Virginia at MARTINS HUNDRED, whose proprietor was Capt. John MARTIN, who transported Stephen PAINE and his family to New England in 1638 aboard the ship DILLIGENT. MARTIN also had close associations with the PAYNES in Virginia. Daughter Phebe married John PAGE, Constable of Watertown in 1630.