Dear Marion, you are a gem, thank you so much, although I knew some of the information, what you have sent is adding a great deal more. Funnily enough the ancestors we have traced also have triplets although this time girls born in 1607. It seems strange that there has not been found a Palmer connection to this well documented family when there is a Southcote connection. The Palmers and Southcotes seem to have been close as they went to Europe together during the religious upheavals of the time. The family of James Palmer, brother of the Earl of Castlemaine and our Palmers, share a common Southcote ancestor but by different wives. Our branch inherited Blyborough from the family into which James married when there line died out. Strangely our line descends from a daughter who married a brother of Lord Boringdon which line later became the Earls of Morley. The last attachment sent was particularly interesting as it contained a new explanation, to me, of the inclusion of the greyhound, I had always though it to have been because the family went to the Crusades. I notice that there is a place called Compton in Sussex and some writings given me by a relative from America indicate our Palmer were Comptons before the Crusades. Dear Tim, thank you also for your continued interest and advice. Although one would hope otherwise I feel that the Visitation records are no more to be trusted than that of Debrett's or Burke's or even the Census. As all are submissions by interested parties. I have people say they will only give what they want on the census. When those people were interviewed for the Visitations it was a precarious time and no doubt people would be suspicious of giving out too much information. Because someone does not appear in these documents does not mean they didn't exist. In fact I have given a talk to the local Family History Society on ''Are official documents always correct, sometimes the family does know better'' which I have proved on numerous occasions. Happy hunting listers. Lefayre Palmer.