Good point, Merry. I would not rule out anything until I saw positive proof (or superb negative proof) based on original documentation, with appropriate corroboration. Another thing to consider - though I cannot say that it absolutely proves anything - is this: if Ruth Whitney (my 10-G grandmother, b. 1643-1742) lived to until the ripe old age of 99, then she also lived to become the great-grandmother or aunt of many Adams, Bloods, Chamberlains, Longleys, Nuttings, Parkers, Shattucks, etc, and those families have documented their genealogies pretty well. All I am saying is this: the question of John and Mary (Bray) Whitney would have been settled a loooong time ago by these relatively well-educated families, don't you think?. Just my gut reaction .... but I will dig deeper when I have more time for genealogy .... and I hope that will be soon. -- Steven ----- Original Message ----- From: <MerryJWhit@aol.com> To: <WHITNEY-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Wednesday, February 28, 2001 6:44 AM Subject: Re: [WHITNEY-L] Elinor ARNOLD, question from Steven Wallace > In a message dated 02/28/01 4:18:45 AM Central Standard Time, > stevenwallace7@hotmail.com writes: >> >> Does anybody know of evidence to support this Arnold connection? > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > I have only John's second marriage, to Judith Clement in 1659 in Watertown, > Mass., with a notation that Judith died before 1673; but I have a silly > question: > > Has it been completely discounted that John (1) Whitney was a son of Thomas > and Mary Bray Whitney? Since that marriage was supposed to have taken place > at St. Margaret's Westminster on May 12, 1583, and Mary Bray's burial date > given as September 25, 1629, it would seem to be not too difficult to refute > or confirm, but I don't understand why that type of false information would > be supplied in the first place? > > Merry Whitney