DISBROW-L Archives

From: "Stephen T. Squires" <>
Subject: [DISBROW] The Other Show Drops...Partly!
Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2002 15:36:29 -0500

RE: My "other shoe" now drops...partly!

TENTATIVELY (absent further info from my 2nd trip to England), I
substantially agree with the two "James Disbrowes theory"' of the division
of the early 17th c. Eltisley Disbrow children, including that Thomas (bp
1625) is son to James "the Elder" just as stated in the Eltisley Bishop's
Transcripts I have, while the famous Major General is the son of the
"Elder's" contemporary: that mysterious James "junior" (yet, with obviously
important questions/"equivocations" still unresolved). This requires that we
consider the long established historical birth-date of the famous Major
General John Disbrowe to be entirely mistaken (as a"historian," such is
naturally difficult for me to go along with casually & without knowing
better ALL the historical sources for that date----has it been only just
Rev. Mark Noble in 18th c.?). Therefore, the Major General had to have been
alternatively baptised on 8 Oct 1609 as that "other" mysterious John (to
father James "junior") and NOT on the baptismal date of 13 Dec 1608 so long
believed by the DNB and other sources. While there were yet OTHER "John
Disbrows" of his generation, or just after, floating around in the area (as
you will see below), I believe we can "tentatively" account for the TWO of
these that we have seen in the Eltisley record recently argued over.
Furthermore, I have in fact "sympathized" with the above position
from the very beginning of our debate, just as indicated by several of my
postings during it (see esp. "Hang In There, Carl", etc, where I reference
this fact & another "shoe to drop"!). IT was always NECESSARY to test this
"hunch"/hypothesis as rigorously as possible, given all that was at stake (&
I do NOT mean for my book-project alone, which in many ways can argue either
side easily, while actually finding the above "hypothesis" far more easy to
swallow as "plausible" for MANY important reasons). The reason for my own
long-standing "sympathy" above will now become obvious below, via that other
"shoe" previously noted during the debate, and which very provocative "new
fact" I have had in my possession since my first trip to England last
December (but which still needs confirmation/resolution during my 2nd
planned trip, due to serious unresolved questions about it!).
Before our debate, I was in the midst of reviewing the maiden-name
issue related to this "fact" (namely the Elizabeth Hatley/Marshall
conundrum) and was generally unprepared to conclude anything about this
matter until after my up-coming trip to England! This maiden-name issue is
the obverse of the two James theory/"hunch." I did NOT always understand or
recognize the significance of the "fact" ("shoe") in my possession despite
it being a part of my "bible" of closely consulted documents on the Eltisley
Disbrowes. I have had many questions about it. Therefore, I'd have much
preferred that our "debate" occur AFTER my up-coming 2nd trip to England,
planned in part because of my many questions about this issue, questions I
already had at the ready during our debate as you've seen since I had been
asking them of myself. I had NOT yet resolved some of these by then. I still
have not for many others as raised in our debate, etc...
Meanwhile, this particular "shoe" flatly contradicts one particularly
cherished "proven fact" advanced as obvious by my opposite in our recent
debate. Namely, the issue of just WHO may be buried in that 1634 Eltisley
grave...THIS is not as obvious as he presumed just from his one source of
the Bishop's Transcripts for Eltisley alone, re: the two James "JUNIORS" we
know about from that source in early Eltisley. This question is
necessarily/inextricably bound-up with the far MORE important question of
just WHEN the Major General succeeded to proprietorship of the lands at
Eltisley manor under primogeniture, ...not to mention his own more accurate
birthdate, despite established "history" now in need of revision. All of
which interrelated issues raise vitally important new "history" concerning
the Major General's extremely "famous" career, as so long recounted in
history books... So bear with me, if you don't mind!
WHY then has this issue of the two-family division above been so
difficult for some "old Disbrowe hands" to accept (including the 1986
authors Johnson & Disbrowe??), esp. after some of us have consulted more
than just the Eltisley VR records alone? Partly because in order to accept
this new line-up ("hunch") of the two contemporary James Disbrow families
from that one VR source at very early 17th c. Eltisley, we must also accept
a very odd fact (now all too un-"equivocal"), one which is expressly
'counter-intuitive.' Namely: that there existed, side-by-side, two James
Disbrow families at tiny Eltisley village (obviously related by blood, but
now even THAT can a bit less certain) who also each had IDENTICALLY named
first & second sons: both w/ given-names of "James" & "John," while
ADDITIONALLY having identically named wives too: "Elizabeth!" This is
carrying "witchy" coincidence to the level of the absurd, of course... But
such is the case, unless I'm somehow now mistaken about this odd complex of
facts (which I cannot seem to get past by way of explanation other than as
fascinating "COINCIDENCE," which even to me seems a bit unusual). This is
now "proven" by that 1614 will of James Disbrow the Elder I keep
mentioning.... And isn't HE still the guy who fathered "Thomas" according to
all Eltisley VR material yet available (....obviously, all usual "good
sense" about such VR records says we cannot reassign Thomas simply due to
some "equivocations" from these limited VR records only)?
All of which (above) I have been at great, & increasingly distressing,
pains to point out during our debate. Here's how curious it can get: the
1614 "will" of the Elder James only further deepens this mystery when it
refers to "my NOW eldest son James"(---my upper-case emphasis is added!). So
then, what son could have come before that "NOW" eldest son James,
...especially recalling that this father, the "Elder," supposedly had
married one "Elizabeth Marshall" only by 1 August 1605 (according to the
limited Eltisley VR material alone; ... & was it even a "first" marriage?),
and that same VR material only records just ONE "James son" anywhere to any
Disbrow line then, that one as baptized only one year later (&, bafflingly,
this son can "only" be the son to that OTHER contemporary of the Elder
James: that so mysterious "James junior")! Where do we fit in TWO sons for
James the ELDER within just a year after his marriage to Eliz. Marshall
then??!
MY POINT IS THIS: where is that OTHER "James" offspring of James the
ELDER to be found on any record (anywhere??), and if, in fact, the Elder was
ALSO just married barely one year before the first known Eltisley bp record
of 17 Aug 1606, recording one "James as son of James JUNIOR" (when these VR
begin altogether)....Such are obviously important questions, never posed
just to be confusing (if my opposite once may have suspected )! I have found
nothing else on this problem in the Over vital records I have, or from my
own far more limited Burrough Green, Elsworth, Haddenham, etc, VR material
so far....PLEASE RECALL THAT THIS DEBATE CAME JUST AT A TIME WHEN I WAS
REVIEWING ALL THIS MATERIAL INCLUSIVELY, AND HAD ALREADY DECIDED TO GO TO
ENGLAND AGAIN TO AUTHENTICATE SEVERAL RECORDS.
WELL, so now perhaps you see my dillemma....
Further, my review over the past week (after our debate) of ALL my
own available evidence has been helpful in demonstrating that no "William"
(from James Elder's 1614 will naming him "3rd son"), as I once thought I'd
seen however, was ever born ELSEWHERE "additionally" for our witchy
pairings. Nor did he ever die early enough to subsequently be entirely
ignored by the other source materials I have for Samuel Disbrowe, for
example, which mentions no "William" in his pedigree or will as thereby
possibly being his "brother" too. See Samuel's 1680 will & 1684 pedigree,
which latter item is actually very surprisingly inadequate, in several
respects...such as failing to note also his own sister Rebecca Green!! I
have already, in our debate, indicated one possible reason for this
pedigree's inadequacy, via the separately indicated feeble health of Samuel
by then. His incapacities were already being spoken about by his own
brother-in-law, London Lord Mayor Sir Patience Ward, on the record from a
decade earlier (when Ward was Alderman) concerning Samuels attempt to be
named CAmbridgeshire Sheriff then & oppositon by Ward due to Samuel's health
issues by 1674, including deafness & being "moped"or listless, 10 years
before his 1684 pedigree was taken in a "visitation"---se my following post
on this matter specifically).
The same as above for William, in my subsequent research the past week
after debate, is also true for "Nathaniel," who is himself acutally listed
by the 1684 pedigree (though NOT by Samuel's 1680 will significantly!),
thereby being identified as a "brother" unlike the William above (while a
"Nathaniel" is also noted as "brother" in the 1654 Wm. Leete letter, printed
by Henry Waters in his Gen Gleanings, THIS Nathaniel is confusingly only one
Nath'l WHITFIELD, and not a Disbrowe by blood---see Waters footnotes on this
also!). Concerning which given-name of "Nathaniel," there are still MANY
confusions/questions from the early 17th c. OVER vital records with respect
to various Nath'l DISBROWS indicated there and even preceding the Eltisley
bp one from 13 Sept 1612, however.
I particularly wanted to note William Disbrowe above expressly because
he demonstrates that the three known brothers as fathered by the Elder James
(by 1614 will) were EACH born long prior to two BRUNO Disbrow Eltisley
baptisms (followed soon after by "their" obvious burial listings) from that
very same Elder's line (by the VR record alone). Therefore, it is not
INEVITABLY obvious that this line is simply naming these later "Bruno" sons
for a mysterious progenitor of this line who is also named "Bruno," &
thereby in order to inevitably tie this line expressly to that still
mysterious, earlier generation which did include a "Bruno." I do not say ALL
this just in order to be confusing, OK!?
Further, there are several other confusing William Disbrowe references
on the record elsewhere, including via Gary Boyd Roberts will abstract for a
Cambridge baker who died 1648. Without giving too much away, I will say that
THIS William is especially interesting to me since, while Robert's will
abstract mentions NO familiar surnames relating to the Eltisley Disbrowes,
it does mention one surname at least which is somewhat provocative of my
major thesis about Thomas of Fairfield, CT: ....namely, the surname
"Bassett."
While I originally intended to post some OVER VR analysis to this
List I now NO longer intend doing so since all this "mess" has tended to be
"over-reacted" to while simply raising endless rounds of further
time-consuming explanation. However, I will say this much about the OVER VR
here: There are a great MANY "provocative" surname convergences in that
material: "name magic" (among other provocative connecting links), far too
many for "coincidence" alone in my estimation. Such links as between the
many Disbrows there & familiar surnames also closely associating with our
Disbrows at early southern New England, and also at Eltisley more naturally!
These surnames include GREENE, Webb, Jackson, HATLEY (there are TWO Hatley's
on record at very early southern New England, inclding on ship HOPEWELL I
believe it was and certainly at Milford, CT one "Philip," who returned to
England 1649, within a year of Samuel Disrowe's return too), BULL (this at
Hartford with Nicholas Disbrowe, etc), CROUTCH (a "Crowtch" spelling appears
early 17th c. Eltisley VR too, this surname is similarly spelled as "Crouch"
by Schenk in her "History of Fairfield," but usually appears as "Couch" at
Fairfield, CT, Compo>> they are next-door neighbors to my own Thomas Disbrow
there & figure prominently into my book-project; "Cooch" is also a variant
spelling which apears in 18th c. Eltisley VR!!), Palmer, Mills (see Rose
Hobson Disbrow's will & Samuel's too), HOBSON, Bond, Barnes, Peck/Pecke (one
"Paul Peck of Ell-tisley" is listed as ship paasenger by one of Banks books,
probably the guy at Htfd!), Coopar/COOPER, Gunton, Burrowes (this one is
very provocative in many ways), Harvie, Frost, Finch, FARRINGTON (very many
here, & shows up w/ Isaac Disbrow's ship passenge to NE, fascinating to my
thesis!), Ward, Hull (another very early CT surname of my own ancestry who
marreid a later Disbrow of mine), Willigo (from will abstract we tried
deciphering recently), Woodward, Hawkins, Kirbye, Ellis, Clarke, GRAY,
MARSHALL, Spenser, many MANSFIELD references (surname at New Haven & the
current name of my own hometown in CT!), BENTON, STOCKER, COE, Bodger,
Jones, Holland, Gates, Burton, RICHARDSON (at NE & maiden name of wife to
goldsmith John Disbrow; recall "banker DESBOE" which I discoverd at Bank
England Museum >>there are several surnames of "DESBROW" on Over records
too), Barons, Smith (ha, ha), Fransum (in a barely deciphered Disbrow will I
have), Hall, Thompson, etc....
Finally, there is my own "SQUIRE" surname which shows up several times
at Over and at Eltisley VR BOTH. While more commonplace than Disbrow, this
surname is not only connected to my own Mercy Disbrow's witch trial in 1692
in several ways, it is also associated closely with her own stepfather: the
Rev. John Jones of early Fairfield, CT. Rev. Jones was "ordained deacon" at
Peterborough in 1613 (per F.C. Hart, TAG, 1996) after which time he
certainly associated there with his close family friend, Sgt George Squire
of that same place in England, who accompanied him to Fairfield by 1644. I
note with interest from my Cambridge University ALumni CD (which
unaccountably includes more Essex/Cambridgeshire 17th c. DISBROWs as alumni
than has so far been posted to the D-List recently, or which may appear in
Alumni Cantabrigensis book reference alone too!): one BRUNO DISBOROUGH also
was "ordained deacon"and "priest" at this very same Peterborough, Eng. in
1630, & at a time when our Rev. John Jones was "probably rector" at Abbot's
Ripton, HUNTS... So then, it is NOT particularly in my interest to neglect
any possible association of any Bruno Disborowe of Eltisley as a possible
progenitor for Thomas Disbrow's Eltisley line of James the ELDER, of course!
This "Squire" surname also appears as a fellow passenger with one Thomas
Desbororw on the ship CROWN MALLIGOE in 1677 as one "Elizabeth Squire,"
among other obvious Fairfield, CT surnames aboard with him then.
Why have respected past Disbrow researchers never caught on to the
TWO James Disbrows at early Eltisley?? In preparation for my last trip Dec.
2001, I was sent much important reference material, including material I
noted several times in our debate, by Harold B. Disbrow & Eddis Johnson.
These two collaborated on a 1986, 60-page "English Antecedents & Their
Kinsfolk" publication which flatly ignored (entirely!) the existence of the
now so famous "other" James Disbrow (called "junior" at Eltisley VR), as did
Johnson in his earlier/identical report called: "Disbrow Families of
England" from 1976. Meanwhile, these authors (absurdly to me now!) lumped
all the children, some 15 or so, of the two James Disbrows into that one
family of James "Elder/senior" (called "the Elder" by them); and which issue
would not have seemed too unusual since large families were
expected/required then. Oddly enough, these authors also cited the very same
Bernice Disbrow vital records material (collected from one Margaret Bone of
England in 1975) which was also the basis for the flawed Hutchings posting
to our own Disbrow Archive in 2000, and as used by my opposite in our debate
far more successfully than the above authors apparently.
Why did these past authors do this? I can only come up with one
suggestion, after looking at all the sources I have now and before I "peek"
at any original 17th c. records on my trip (which was planned, in fact, well
before this debate in order to resolve some of these very same "confusions,"
recall that I began my examination of the Hatley/Marshall conundrum just
before this debate, and was in the midst of this review expressly for my
trip, when the "hostile" debate ensued!). I can only now speculate these
authors entirely overlooked that other James Disbrow (called "junior" and
who is certrainly all too obviously in those vital records as contemporary
to the ELder) perhaps because the lines of the TWO James seem so identicall
in such curiously "witchy" fashion as I outlined in part ONE. I am also sad
to report that I believe from my index of Disbrow wills at the Shire Hall
(to follow) that there is now NO available will for the contemporary James
"junior" in question here. Sorry gang!
These authors based each chapter of their reports on the will
abstracts for each significant generational progenitor (I therefore have
early Disbrow will abstracts for the following from this material: John
Disborowe/Elder, John Disborowe Younger, James Disbrowe/Elder, Isaac
Disbrowe/Senior, Major Gen. John, Samuel Disbrowe, etc.). The absence of the
James "junior" will seems to have been their fatal flaw perhaps.
So, what is my so-called "Other Shoe to drop?" I was verbally given
information in England which states unequivocally that the James who is
buried at Over, dated 20 Jan 1633, is the actual father of Major General
John, brother to Samuel Disbrowe (he is also very curiously buried just days
before one "Robert Hatley" there too). Though it was not then excluded that
Thomas also could have been their brother. While this verbal information
must be closely checked against available actual documents I know about
which exist in duplicate from the 17th c., I was not able to see the
pertinent item listing on my last trip. While these documents themselves
clearly also have multiple "equivocations" about them, it is NOT possible
for Thomas to have been listed as he is in the Eltisley Disbrow VR under
James "the Elder" and still be the son of this other James who is clearly
buried at OVER in 1633! James "the Elder" is clearly only that James who is
buried at Eltisley on 23 Oct 1638. Although his "Elder" status is not
indicated in the Eltisley Bishop's Transcripts, we do have his 1614 will as
proved also at that very same time of 1638. So, failing an arbitrary
re-assignment of the VR listing for Thomas as being fathered by a "junior"
instead of the "senior" (recall that even the Village historian Mike Sawyer
mistakenly left out a couple of such designations in his copy for me of this
VR, obviously also derived from the Cambridge Central Library material I
also collected!), then I must conclude that Thomas is NOT the son of the
same father as the famous two Disbrowe brothers of early 17th c. Eltisley.
Get it??
I do NOT intend to reveal to you just what this VERBAL information
is at this time, how I came by it or how I intend to verify it on my
up-coming trip to England. I had once every intention of doing so, but given
the ugly tenor of our debate, the ungrateful attitude of many of you, my
concerns over some of your own over-reliance on this sometimes too lazy
medium...I intend that you should do your own homework now and figure it out
for yourselves. Call it your "class assignemnt.". OR, you may simply buy my
book when it comes out, as it most CERTAINLY will, for all the many fine new
angles I have uncovered, one tenth of which have been shared with this
sometimes oddly discourteous List (is it the anonymity of us all that makes
us so bold to treat one another so, or are we all just descendants of a
"witch"???). Enjoy the hunt....
(Happy Halloween!)
SSquires

This thread:

• [DISBROW] The Other Show Drops...Partly! by "Stephen T. Squires" <>