Chuck, Norman, and others, Yes, there are two sides to the story. You can certainly believe whatever you wish. Rev. James Davenport did a fine job digging through Worcester County records uncovering baptisms, marriages, wills, and etc. He may have even uncovered some uncited records that led him to believe that the Bengeworth Washburns were descended from those of Wichenford, but by today's genealogical standards, he did not prove the connection. That is one of the reasons why I chose to undertake the difficult task of searching for myself through the 16th century records of Worcestershire in hopes of uncovering some evidence that has not yet been presented. I would love to be able to find the proof to link the two branches, and be able to say that we have a proven royal line, but so far I have barely scratched the surface of what is available, and up to this point the linking records have not been found. That is the reason why Frederick Lewis Weis eliminated this line from his "Ancestral Roots" in the fifth and later editions of his book, which Walter Lee Sheppard, another recognized scholar on English research, helped edit. Gary Boyd Roberts, with whom I briefly discussed the matter 2 years ago, chose not to include it in his 1993 "Royal Descents of 500 Immigrants to the American Colonies," because he considered it unproven. I'm sorry if my skeptical attitude offends any of you, but my choice is not to believe it unless there is substantial and documented proof. Chuck Washburn and I have disagreed on this point for several months, and I hope we can keep this a "friendly disagreement" in the interests of better genealogy. John A. Maltby Redwood City, CA [email protected]