Dear Sue, Monday 9 February 1998 First of all....I have to say that when someone places doubt whether or not William the Conqueror was part of the Washburn ancestry is something you "yourself" will have to believe. I disagree entirely in the approach of throwing doubt on an issue (expecially when it involves geneology) of whether or not there was a connection relating to the "esteemed English researcher E.A.B. Barnard in his "Some Notes on the Evesham Branch of the Washbourne Family," in 1914." Please note that Barnard's 1914 publication was only about 60 pages in length and there is another side of this important research that has to be recognized. Now....there is another "esteemed Engish researcher" (that some people forget exists..or don't want to acknowledge) by the name of Canon James Davenport, M.A. (England) He published a work titled" "The Washburn Family of Little Washbourne and Wichkenford" in 1910. His publication is over 200 pages. Unfortunately this publication no longer exists (as I do have a copy). Davenport, in his book, had utilized the valued resource of a man name Habingdon. Habingdon was a historical researcher and a personal friend of the Washburn's in England (intermarried in the early Washburn family) during this early period. Davenport took Habingdon's actual family notes and brought them into his pubication. Since then there was also another researcher named Nash (1800's) who brought these important notes into his published works. Davenport refer's to both Habingdon and Nash in his book. This is to tell you, Sue, there is "another" line of thought here as to going back to William the Conqueror "has not at all been proven" maybe correct. But, for someone to say: "his (Barnard's) arguement that John Washburn of Bengeworth was probably not a son of John Washburn of Wickenford, although the families may have been more distantly related" is "clearly" NOT the right approach in answering someone who is learning about their family ancestry! I know Brenton Washburne personally....and he does have Bernard's publication as well as Canon James Davenport's publication. So...you see, Sue, you have to have "both" sides of the story before you can make a "accurate" judgement. I wholeheartly disagree with people who base their opinion on one source and telling the world that their source is the "only" source available. Davenport's book is very thorough and detailed with family references. You have to remember, those early records that have been so carefully recorded, are not so easily found anymore. Those idividuals who had published those earlier works had those "orginal" documents in their hand showing the proof of family linage, now seems to be always challenged somehow...because those documents no longer exist...But...their publication's.. still do exist..i.e. "The Washburn Family" by Canon Danvenport. So, what I am saying to you Sue, keep your enthusiasum!! Stay in there with your convictions...For someone to abruptly tell you that a portion of "your" family history is "incorrect" ..to me is showing no respect to the individual! ..Brenton, I am sure, knows his resources "very" well. If John A. Maltby want's to know the basis for Brenton's Washburn historical account, then, John Maltby should contact Brenton personally and not "splash" his "personal" opinion to others on this Washburn-List to those who are just "beginning" to learn of their family hearitage. If John has a problem with Brenton's book...he should have one in his possession (that is if he does) and discuss his differences of opinion with Brenton Washburne. I have posted Brenton's address many times here on this Washburn-List so he knows how to contact him. I hope this is some help to you Sue. I appologize for any discomfort you have had and "stay excited" Sue...I am excited...it is wonderful...Don't take discuragement from anyone!! If you want to know more about Brenton Washburn's books...just reply..I'll give you the information. Take care.....Cousin Chuck ============================================================================== Sue Apito, et al At 11:26 PM 2/4/98 EST, you wrote: >In a message dated 98-02-04 18:42:11 EST, [email protected] writes: > >> I just received my 2 vol. set of Brenton's books. > >I am new to this mail list - I've already received a few VERY helpful >"forwarded" posts ( thanks "mw" - you know who you are! ) - but I'm also >wondering if there is a digest available of old mail. I have a few questions >I'm sure you "regulars" are probably very tired of hearing! I'd love info on >books - my library only has a fifth edition of Weis's Ancestral Roots - and >that's it! What are Brenton's books? ALL my other research is from online >geneaology sites and some notes a relative sent me made from Ada Haight's book >( and I can hardly read their handwriting! ) My name is Susan Sawhill Apito. >My "Washburn" is Helen Emily Washburn, daughter of Benjamin and Mary Ann >Secor. I haven't been able to verify them yet ( I started this whole project >as a "home school" project for my 11 year old.......got obsessed......now it's >MY project! ) I feel pretty proud of how far I've gotten in only about three >weeks though! ( My family thinks I'm nuts for being so excited we're related >to William the Conqueor - they ask me when my Tiara is coming in the mail!! ) > >Sue > Before you get too excited, the Washburn ancestry going back to William the Conqueror has not at all been proven. In fact, the purported ancestry shown in several Washburn lineages at the turn of this century through William Mytton, Esq., has been almost disproven by the esteemed English researcher E.A.B. Barnard in his "Some Notes on the Evesham Branch of the Washbourne Family," in 1914. If you'll note on p.71 of Weis' "Ancestral Roots of Sixty Colonists," Fifth Edition, he states: "There is no proof that John Washburn No. 37 was the son of John Washburn and Joan Mitton," giving reference to an article in "The American Genealogist," Vol. 36, p. 63, which in turn uses the work of Barnard as the basis for his arguement that John Washburn of Bengeworth was probably not a son of John Washburn of Wickenford, although the families may have been more distantly related. John A. Maltby Redwood City, CA [email protected] ============================================================================== @