GEN-MEDIEVAL-L ArchivesArchiver > GEN-MEDIEVAL > 2008-07 > 1215391572
From: Nathaniel Taylor <>
Subject: Re: Confusion in previous discussions of Thomasine (Ward) (Thompson)Buffum of Salem, Massachusetts
Date: Sun, 06 Jul 2008 20:46:12 -0400
John Brandon <> wrote:
> I have reproduced everything Davis wrote about George Ward; he did not
> mention seeing the Visitation, only Walter Rye's book.
He did say "an attempt has been made to place Tobias Ward, the
scrivener [and alleged father of George] in the visitation family of
Ward of Postwick, co. Norfolk, but the evidence is weak..." I wondered
whether he might have had some specific reason to doubt the visitation
pedigree itself. Indexes in print before Davis was born would have
pointed him right to this pedigree; but maybe he did miss it altogether.
> I mean, I shouldn't think there's much doubt Tobias Ward was son of
> Henry of Postwick, as this is plainly stated in a contemporary
Admittedly it would be pretty bold to make a false claim to filiation in
> Also would think there's not much doubt George _wasn't_ son of Tobias,
> as (1) he's not in the Visitation pedigree; and (2) his parentage is
> not stated in the Yarmouth freeman's roll, whereas Thomas' parentage
I'm not sure (2) is significant, given that such records are often
inconsistent in the amount of information they contain; (1) only is if
the chronology shows that George cannot have been a youngest son of this
couple and the pedigree postdated George's presumed birth year.
> What I was trying to imply was that George might have been a cousin of
> Tobias, due to common names they used for their children. George
> might even still have the royal line, which came in with the Capel
> marriage a good many years previous.
a genealogist's sketchbook: