Hello again to all, The James Davenport book traces John and Emma Washbourne of the Bengeworth branch of the family back to Sir Roger Washbourne is what I meant to convey in my last message. I would like to know what some of the rest of you think of the Davenport book. I have seen it quoted on this list, but have not had time, as of yet, of read it and check out its documentation. I will work on scanning the Washburn photos we took in England in the next couple of days and then try and send them. My computer skills very amateurish, but if I scan them into my computer in bitmap format it should work. I will ask my son and son-in-law about the possibility of putting them on a web site. Either a new one or one of yours. Diane (Washburn) Rice

Regarding the ancestry to Sir Roger Washbourne... At 09:23 AM 7/3/2000 EDT, you wrote: >Hello again to all, > >The James Davenport book traces John and Emma Washbourne of the Bengeworth >branch of the family back to Sir Roger Washbourne is what I meant to convey >in my last message. I would like to know what some of the rest of you think >of the Davenport book. I have seen it quoted on this list, but have not had >time, as of yet, of read it and check out its documentation. > >Diane (Washburn) Rice > The book that Chuck Washburn has made reference to is called "Some Notes on the Evesham Branch of the Washbourne Family," by E.A.B. Barnard, F.S.A., published in Evesham, England, in 1914. Mr. Barnard was a highly respected English genealogist in the early part of this century. It is a very good study of the Washborne family from Bengeworth, and is highly recommended to all. It is available as a reprint from Higginson Books: http://www.higginsonbooks.com/ The 3 May 1517 will of John Washborne of Wichenford in transcribed in full in Davenport's book on pages 32-33, and the Latin Inquisition Post Mortem is on page 33. If you read them carefully, you'll see that he does not mention a son named John in his will, although he does mention other sons. His heir was his grandson John Washborne, son of his deceased eldest son Robert Washborne, who inherited the estate and raised a family there. I'd love to find the connection to prove that John Washborne of Bengeworth was a son of John Washborne of Wichenford, but Davenport does not prove it in his book, and the will leads me to believe that John of Bengeworth was not a son of John of Wichenford. Also note on a map of Worcester county that Wichenford is on the other side of the county from Evesham and Bengeworth. Barnard notes that there are earlier records of the name Washborne living as a tenant under the Abbot of Evesham in the time of Edward I or Henry III, at least 200 years before our John and Emme Washborne of Bengeworth, and it appears most likely that our Washbornes were descended from these earlier families. Unless we can prove that John Washborne of Bengeworth was a son of John Washborne and Joan Mitton of Wichenford, we cannot claim that ancestry, including Joan Mitton's royal ancestry. Gary Boyd Roberts does not accept the Washburns as royal descendants, and the original Washburn line published in earlier editions of Frederick Lewis Weis' "Ancestral Roots of Sixty Colonists" was dropped in later editions because it had not been proven and was not accepted by our better genealogists. Barnard's study of the Evesham-Bengeworth family was the main reason the royal line was dropped by Weis. Davenport's book is very good, but he does not prove the connection between the two branches, nor does he cite his source for that connection. Barnard's discussion is also very good, and researchers should read both. The line from John Washborne and Margery More back to John and Emme Washborne of Bengeworth has been proven by a chain of baptismal records, marriages and wills that can all be accessed through microfilmed records. Beyond that it has not been proven. John A. Maltby Redwood City, CA jamaltby@creative.net