The Walne article has been mentioned time and time again, but no one will actually post what the Walne article actually concludes.  The conclusions may be briefly summarized as follows:   1) William Ball "of Millenbeck" who died Nov. 1680 cannot be of the Ball family of Berkshire because there was another contemporaneous William Ball living in Berkshire.  It gets a bit more complicated, but this is essentially the gist of the article.   2) According to birth records of Burgh, Suffolk, England, Thomas Atherold who married Mary Harvey did not have a daughter named Hannah.  They had three children born between 1628 and 1635 and none of them were named Hannah.   Here are my thoughts:    On the first conclusion, I have NEVER subscribed to the Berkshire theory anyway.  I think the Ball family is from a different region of England, but I dare not speculate on this point since, as we all know, genealogists never speculate on anything.   Regarding the Atherold conclusion, I would imagine there were other Atherold families in the Burgh, Suffolk neighborhood.  To conclude Hannah is not an Atherold based on the fact that this one couple (Thomas Atherold & Mary Harvey) did not have a daughter Hannah is, for lack of a better word, fantastic to me.  It seems to me that more research is needed before we just toss the Atherold connection out the window.