GEN-MEDIEVAL-L ArchivesArchiver > GEN-MEDIEVAL > 2008-01 > 1200435192
From: John Brandon <>
Subject: Re: A few additions and corrections to the _Great Migration_ volumes
Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2008 14:13:12 -0800 (PST)
References: <email@example.com><firstname.lastname@example.org> <email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> I dont know if youve seen the original article (by Moriarty) which
> connected the wife of Roger Williams to the family of Rev. Richard
> His reasoning was like this:
> A family living in Hatfield Broadoak, Essex was familiar with the
> Barnard family living in Lincolnshire. Therefore, he concluded that
> Roger's wife was from that same Barnard family.
> As far as I can tell, Moriarty provided NO REAL EVIDENCE that the wife
> of Roger Williams was from that family.
> He presented a 'plausible scenario' and in the next paragraph, stated
> that it was a fact.
> The surname Barnard is fairly common in Essex, and its just as likely
> that Mary Barnard, wife of Roger Williams, came from another family.
> You'll have to review his presentation, and make your own conclusions.
RCA seems to accept Moriarty's placement in the sketch of Musachiell
Bernard in the 1634 series, citing some statement from the 1650s about
"Mr. Barnard [in London], Mr. Williams' brother." But note that Mr.
Barnard's first name isn't given, and as you note the surname is
One further addition ... the sketch of John Humphreys in the 1634
doesn't mention his "son" [i.e., son-in-law] Adam Otley, husband of
his daughter Elizabeth. See EQC 2:394-95 which mentions that "when ye
sd [John] Humfrey went for England [he] Left his son in Law otly Att
|Re: A few additions and corrections to the _Great Migration_ volumes by John Brandon <>|