To all interested WOOLSEY researchers: Because of the similarity of names, I subscribe to the WOOSLEY-List. A researcher suggested the premise that their WOOSELY emmigrant was George "Joris" WOOLSEY of Long Island, New York, and suggested that "the information of 'Joris' WOOLSEY of Long Island" could be posted. For your information, I posted the following to the WOOSLEY-List: >In regard to the WOOSLEY - WOOLSEY families, it may be of some interest for you to know that I have spent over two years, full-time, trying to 'document' the "well-documented" WOOLSEY family of New York, using the facilities of the Family History Library, in Salt Lake City, which is about 30 minutes drive from my home. > >I have done original research in the Eastern states and in the Southern states, as well as in the Mid-west and Western states, finding our New York WOOLSEY families in all these areas. > >Also, I have done (and hired)Research in Holland and in Norfolk and Suffolk counties, in England, tracing our George WOOLSEY (WOLSEY) back across the ocean. > >Therefore, I believe I am in a position to make a few conclusions about these families. > >The name WOLSEY (WOLCY, WULCEY, WULCI, etc) can be found in Suffolk and Norfolk counties, in England, before the Norman Conquest (William the Conqueror, 1066), so it is not of "Norman" or French extraction, but preceeds that. > >I can't say for sure for the WOOSLEY name, but am of the opinion that it is a post-conquest name, (i.e. after 1066) in English records. There is some evidence to connect the name WOOSLEY with the better known family of WOSELEY, which has its own coat-of-arms and has been fairly well traced. > >(A few researchers here in America attempted to connect the WOOLSEY family with the WOSELEY family, but were unable to sustain that theory. It is more tenable to connect your WOOSLEY family with the WOSELEYS.) > >My conclusion is that there is NO connection between WOOSLEY and WOOLSEY, even here in the United States. My WOOLSEY family begins with the immigrant GEORGE WOLSEY (chr. 1616 in Great Yarmouth, Norfolk, England), and came to New Amsterdam about 1643 (other dates used for years not-withstanding) and married in New Amsterdam in 1647 to Rebecca Cornell. They lived in Jamaica (Queens County, Long Island) and are buried there. George and Rebecca had eight children and it is the descendants of four of these children we are trying to "document". He is found in both Dutch and English records. > >George WOOLSEY (I use the spelling "WOLSEY" in England and "WOOLSEY" in America, just to standardize the spelling.) was an apprentice of Isaac Allerton, the MAYFLOWER passenger and PLYMOUTH agent, who later became the agent of the Dutch at New Amsterdam. George went on to become either a clerk or a partner of Isaac Allerton as he "kept the books" for Allerton. > >(It was from this alliance that some early WOOLSEY researchers attempted to put George WOOLSEY with the PLYMOUTH adventurers. That theory cannot be proved from available records.) > >George WOOLSEY was the first WOOLSEY in America, but he wasn't the only immigrant by that name. I have found WOOLSEYs in Maryland in the middle 1600's and in New Jersey who were shipped over on "prison ships" in the middle and late 1600's but no relation to George and few descendants I have found. Descendants of George WOOLSEY do appear in New Jersey, Maryland and Connecticut from the late 1600's, however, and so care must be taken to keep them all separate. !! > >There are at least two examples of WOOLSEYS who were "transported" to Virginia in the middle 1600's and they left descendants but appear to have thinned out by the middle 1700's. They seemed to remain in the tide-water area. > >The WOOSLEY family seems to be in the Norfolk, Amelia, Halifax, Counties, of Virginia. > >Then my ancestor, the Baptist preacher, Reverend Thomas (Richard, Thomas, 'Joris' George) WOOLSEY (b 1719, Bedford, Westchester, New York) came to what would become Washington County, Virginia, abt 1771, settling on the South Fork of the Holsten River, near St. Clair's (Sinclair's) Bottoms. > >With the Reverend Thomas WOOLSEY came brothers, cousins, nephews, and some of his children, with friends and neighbors and in-laws (and "out-laws", see Francis Hopkins, of Washington County, Virginia, notoriety). From Washington County, Virginia, they spread out to Greene County, Tennessee, and to several counties in Kentucky, and from thence continued to spread "West". > >I don't know where the WOOSLEY family originated in Virginia, but they came from different counties, also heading "West" into Kentucky, mostly. > >It is here in Kentucky that we begin to see a "cross-over" between the names WOOSLEY and WOOLSEY, and I have had to identify each individual I found as belonging to one family or the other. > >The families themselves seemed to keep the spellings fairly intact, (meaning they kept their pronunciations correctly), but the scribes and clerks made many mistakes in recording their names, even within the same document. > >So, my considered opinion is that there is NO connection between the families WOOSLEY and WOOLSEY, except incidentally as names were mis-spelled in the old records. > >So, Becky Gregg, Greenville, SC, your enthusiasm and interest is greatly appreciated, but I would suggest that you do NOT post 'Joris' Woolsey of Long Island on the WOOSLEY list. One reason I suggest you NOT do this is that there are so many mistakes in the early postings and PAF and IGI and Ancestral Files. I have been working 8-10-16 hours a day, full-time, on the WOOLSEY problems and would be dismayed to see those mistakes compounded again and again. > >And, Oh, Becky, I do not know who Thomas WOOSLEY, 'mariner', is. He states that he is of New York "at present", so I don't think he is of there originally. He doesn't fit into any of our WOOLSEY families of New York, but of course, that is always subject to change as we obtain new and better data. > >Some researchers have 8 or 10 generations for ancestors of our ancestor 'Joris' George Woolsey of Long Island, trying to connect him to Thomas, Cardinal Wolsey, of Suffolk and King Henry VIII's 'spiritual advisor'. Please, please, don't post anything prior to George Woolsey, the immigrant. NONE of those lines are correct. > >There is a list for the WOOLSEY family that anyone interested should check out < Woolsey-L@rootsweb.com >. > >And to Dale Woosley, Salem, Illinois: I agree with your excellent summation. And it is true the New York WOOLSEYs were 'highly educated and prominent people', but as they moved West, the realities of the frontier tended to dilute and minimize educational opportunities. Although I find many of the WOOLSEY "signed" their names while their spouses "made their marks", and as it was the frontier mother who 'educated' their children, the educational level dropped significantly. > >The information in the LDS Ancestral Files, unfortunately, will not be corrected, unless someone makes the effort to do so. Regrettably (sp?) the information submitted there is now written 'in stone' and has become 'indisputable', and more's the pity for it. Once something has appeared in print, some careless researchers seem to think it is 'tried and true' and people unthinkingly pass this 'tainted' data blithely back and forth, marvelling all the while, on the great lengths of their 'proven' pedigrees. > >I, on the other hand, am just trying to find and 'prove' who the wife of the Rev. Thomas WOOLSEY was, notwithstanding what the Ancestral Files and IGI files claim!! > >I, too, make the above statements in good faith and hopefully, good nature. Please forgive me if I ruffle some feathers. My interest is in "documenting" our family tree. > Thank you for putting up with me this far. Sincerely, Wilford W. Whitaker, Murray, Utah