Thomas Joslin's wife Rebecca

Many give the wife of Thomas Joslin, immigrant ancester to Massachusetts, as Rebecca Marlowe, there is no record or support for this. There has been proof given, however, for the maiden name Jude, as cited in an article in a BCG journal. The surname Marlowe is thought to have been one of the manufactured lineages of Anjou. Even though it was discredited years ago many still have placed it in their family trees.

Edward Perkins-New Haven 1648

There are so many birth places and dates for Edward that it's impossible right now to determine just exactly where he came from. Some have made him as an Edward from London who actually never left London and his history is trackable there into subsequent generations. His origins have been debated and some have even made the leap to presume that his name was actually Edmund in order to make him fit into a tree. It isn't uncommon to encounter difficulties in determining the origins of colonists who were not in the original group of immigrants to New Haven, their families generally having been more obscure and not as conscientious at preserving their lineage. It makes it hard for family historians. I have been presented with brick walls on most of the colonial families in my husband's trees and quite a few of mine though my colonial ancestors generally originate with more well documented lines. It would be better to begin this line with Edward for now until and unless some proof of his actual lineage is ascertained. So far the DNA typing doesn't go beyond Edward.

William Luddington of Massachusetts/ Connecticut-not Virginia

The William Luddington of Malden and Charlestown Massachusetts was never in Virginia. This is according to the memoir of Colonel Henry Luddington, a descendent of William. William removed to New Haven Connecticut and died there either in 1661 or 62. He had a daughter Mary and a son Mathew but no mention is made of a Hannah. His wife's name was Ellen.
William Luddington/Ludington of Virginia was a man of some esteem, it would seem, as he was in the assembly for Kent Island in 1642 and in the House of Burgesses 1646/47 for the town of Yorke. He signed an Oath of Allegiance to Cromwell.

Michael Todd of Connecticut not the one in Maryland

Michael Todd of New Haven Connecticut in the early 1700s was not the same one as in Maryland. He was a merchant in New Haven and lived there his entire life. The Maryland Michael's lineage has never been determined but supposed to have been from one of the Thomas Todds who were there at the same time. Or he may have come over independently but he is NOT from Connecticut.

George Brickhouse/Hannah Luddington

This couple was NOT from Massachusetts. They were married in 1661 in Hungar's Parish Virginia. The record was published many years ago in the William and Mary Quarterly, from the original. I believe George Briskhouse was a Quaker who gave land for a meeting house. He received a large land grant in 1672. This is not the only attempt to transplant a New England family to the Virginia Colonies. It's just as wrong.
William Luddington who arrived in Massachusetts Bay was there until he left for New Haven and died there in 1661. He was never in Virginia and no daughter named Hannah is mentioned.

Robert Royse, another Julian find

Charles Julian also found a record of a Robert b abt 1606 to a John Royse and makes a convincing argument for this connection due to the fact that Robert and Mary attempted to name several children John.

Robert Royce and Mary Sims--another false tree

I'm just going to paste this here from a genforum entry. It's too long to type it out. Where do people come up with some of the connections they make. What astounds me also is that this information is right there and available yet hardly anyone has made the corrections in their trees.

Robert Royce of Connecticut
Posted by: Charles Julian (ID *****7539)	Date: February 25, 2006 at 17:45:14
	of 1108

Robert Royce (Abt 1606-1676) of New London CT is probably the ancestor of most Royces in North America today, but his origins in England (specifically Martock, Somerset) have proven a headache for those attempting to take the record back further. Records of Robert Royce's birth in Somerset and of his early family there have never been found. This discrepancy has lead to a cycle of inference and speculation that has created, among other things, about 20 different birthdates for Royce in Somerset and about 20 different surnames for his wife Mary – most often "Sims", though this proposal has been disproven as noted below.

"The often claimed marriage to Mary Sims on Jun 04, 1634 cannot be substantiated. Extensive research in the Long Sutton, Martok and Lubenham, Somerset, England parish churches failed to show any marriage in 1634 between a Robert Royce by any spelling and a Mary Sims (Syms). The closest that could be found was between a Robert Rayce and a Mary Sims on Jun 04, 1624 in Long Sutton. Clarence Leslie Hewitt, Jr. in an article originally published in the NEGHS Register and later in "English Origins of New England Families", Series 2, Volume 3 pp 42-45 titled "Some Light on the Marriage of Robert and Mary Royce of Connecticut" concludes this could not be the correct date because the earliest recorded birth of a child, Sarah, was 1633-34 and they had seven children total." (http://familytreemaker.genealogy.com/users/d/o/b/Michael-E-Dobson )

This gives just some idea of the problem. In researching my own Royce history (I am not a descendant of Robert Royce) I may inadvertantly have found the answer.

On hearing vague mention of Somerset England as a possible point of origin for the Royses of Ireland (my line), I started in on the Royces of Somerset. Initially I thought that sorting out this family would take a long time since there are over 1250 entries for Royces in Somerset on the IGI alone. On closer inspection, however, I found that at least 1200 of these entries are in fact entries for Robert Royce himself and for various members of his family as contributed anonymously by over a thousand people. Of these records, not one is from a genuine parish roster.

If you rake these 1200 + records, the total number of genuine birth record entries from County Somerset parishes is: eleven. And a fairly random eleven at that. There are twenty or thirty Royce marriages on record in the county but virtually all of these appear to have been fly by night, with few Royces having had more than one child christened there.

At the time of the 1881 census, stray births aside, there is only one Royce family (arguably two) in all of Somerset.

Factor in official records from all four of the counties that surround Somerset (Devon, Dorset Wiltshire, Gloucester), and there is still nothing.

All this makes clear that there is not – and evidently there never has been – a viable Royce presence in Somerset or in any county of Southwestern England. Far from being a Royce epicentre some 1200 people strong, County Somerset and surroundings are a veritable No-Man's-Land when it comes to people with the surname Royce.

This begs the question, "Was Robert Royce really from Somerset?" Records of his birth, of his marriage, of the christenings of his known children, have never been found there, even though records from every conceivable parish at which he and his wife Mary {Unknown} might have been parishioners have records preserved and available for the time that he and his family are believed to have resided there. In short – and in spite of folk legend, whether primary or secondary – there is really no evidence for Robert Royce's (b. Abt 1606) family having been from Martock, or from anywhere in Somerset. And, even on the off-chance that Royce did live at Somerset for a time and his records have simply gone missing, there is still no evidence to indicate a substantial Royce presence in Somerset. Robert Royce's family, if not Royce himself, almost certainly came from somewhere else before making passage to the New World.

Anyway once the above suspicion was adopted as a hypothesis, answers came swiftly. Locations in England aside, here is what is known about Robert Royce's family, with dates postulated on the basis of death records etc as found at Connecticut.


1 Robert Royce
. . . + Mary
. . . . . . 2 Jonathan Royce, b. Bet. 1631-1635 England, d. JUL 1690 New London, CT.
. . . . . . 2 Sarah Royce b. Bet. 1633-1634 England, d. 01 MAY 1711 New London, CT.
. . . . . . 2 Nehemiah Royce b. Abt 1636 England, d. 01 NOV 1706 New Haven, CT.
. . . . . . 2 Samuel Royce b. 01 NOV 1644 New London, CT, d. Bef. 24 DEC 1711 New Haven, CT.
. . . . . . 2 Ruth Royce b. 07 DEC 1645 New Haven, CT, d. MAY 1695 New Haven, CT.
. . . . . . 2 Nathaniel Royce b. 24 APR 1647 New Haven, CT, d. 08 FEB 1726/1727 New Haven, CT.
. . . . . . 2 Isaac Royce b. Abt 1648 New Haven, CT, d. Abt 1681 New Haven, CT.


The first three children of Robert and Mary are known to have been born in England during the dates given above. "Nehemiah" is the oddest name out. A search for Nehemiah Royce b. England, any year, leads to only a single official batch record (plus about forty "extras" from Martock):


1 Robert Royce
. . . + Mary
. . . . . . 2 Nehemiah Royce chr. 30 MAY 1637 Saint Michael, Stamford, Lincoln.


Only one Nehemiah Royce in all of England, coincidentally christened 1637, whose parents coincidentally are named Robert and Mary. What are the odds? Next let's check the Saint Michael, Stamford batch (1560-1949) for all occurrences of the name Royce.


1 Richard Royce
. . . + Unknown
. . . . . . 2 Rebeckah Royce chr. 13 JAN 1626 Saint Michael, Stamford, Lincoln.
. . . . . . 2 John Royce chr. 15 FEB 1628 Saint Michael, Stamford, Lincoln.

1 Robert Royce
. . . + Mary
. . . . . . 2 John Royce chr. 21 APR 1633 Saint Michael, Stamford, Lincoln.
. . . . . . 2 Sarah Royce chr. 08 FEB 1634 Saint Michael, Stamford, Lincoln.
. . . . . . 2 Nehemiah Royce chr. 30 MAY 1637 Saint Michael, Stamford, Lincoln.

1 John Royse
. . . + Anne
. . . . . . 2 Elisabeth Royse chr. 10 MAY 1638 Saint Michael, Stamford Linclon.

1 William Royce
. . . + Susanna
. . . . . . 2 George Royce chr. 27 APR 1772 Saint Michael, Stamford, Lincoln.
. . . . . . 2 Thomas Royce chr. 28 MAR 1774 Saint Michael, Stamford, Lincoln.


That's strange. Not only do Nehemiah's birthdate and the names of Nehemiah's parents match Nehemiah Royce of CT exactly, he has two siblings with exactly the same names that Robert and Mary's children have, born during exactly the times that those children were born. Again, what are the odds. Did a Robert Royce ever marry a Mary in County Lincolnshire.


1 Robert Royse
. . . + Mary Jugkson 08 APR 1627 Saint Michael, Stamford, Lincoln.


One match, and coincidentally just a few years before John Royce was born. Still, six years between a marriage and the first child is something of a stretch – did a Robert and Mary Royce have any other children christened at any other Lincolnshire churches in the 1600s.


1 Robert Royce
. . . + Mary
. . . . . . 2 John Royce chr. 20 DEC 1627 All Saints, Stamford, Lincoln, d. 29 MAY 1628.
. . . . . . 2 John Royce chr. 29 JUN 1629 All Saints, Stamford, Lincoln.
. . . . . . 2 Mary Royce chr. 10 JUL 1631 All Saints, Stamford, Lincoln.
. . . . . . 2 John Royce chr. 21 APR 1633 Saint Michael, Stamford, Lincoln.
. . . . . . 2 Sarah Royce chr. 08 FEB 1634 Saint Michael, Stamford, Lincoln.
. . . . . . 2 Nehemiah Royce chr. 30 MAY 1637 Saint Michael Stamford, Lincoln.


From the records it would appear so – a John Royce who died, followed by another John Royce who presumably also died before a third John Royce was born in 1633, and a daughter Mary, who – if we take this to be Robert Royce of CT and his wife Mary, and I do – it would appear also died. There are no children of a Robert and Mary Royce on record in Lincolnshire after Nehemiah Royce. Can we clear up the "John and Anne" who also christened their children at the same church in Stamford at about this time.


1 John Royce
. . . + Anne Jackson 02 NOV 1636 Saint Michael, Stamford, Lincoln.
. . . . . . 2 Elizabeth Royce chr. 10 MAY 1638 Saint Michael, Stamford, Lincoln, d. 05 MAY 1638.


"Anne Jackson" – which would seem to indicate that the bizarre surname of what is probably John Royce's sister-in-law, "Jugkson", is somebody's odd rendering of the surname Jackson. Robert Royce married Mary Jackson on 08 APR 1627 in Stamford, Lincolnshire; John Royce married Anne Jackson on 02 NOV 1636 in Stamford, Lincolnshire.

An interesting development in having apparently located Robert Royce of CT in Stamford, Lincolnshire, is that this district (South Kesteven) borders on Rutland, Bedford and Leicester Counties; and in contrast to Somerset and the counties of southwestern England, Royces abound in this region. In fact, this part of England's Eastern Midlands is the only clear epicentre of Royces that I have found that predates a later arrival of Huguenot Royces (Le Roy, De Roy > Royse / Royce) in County Kent and Greater London, and the surname Royce in this part of the Midlands is as old as the hills. Are there any batch record occurrences of a Robert Royce b. late 1500s or early 1600s in this area.


1 William Royce
. . . + Unknown
. . . . . . 2 Robert Royce chr. 03 NOV 1605 Ketton Cum Tixover, Rutland.
. . . . . . 2 George Royce chr. 18 JUN 1608 Ketton Cum Tixover, Rutland.


Only one, geographically a perfect fit. Does this Robert Royce have a brother John lying around anywhere in another parish – John Royce with a father William who was b. early 1600s.


1 William Royce
. . . + Unknown
. . . . . . 2 Joan Royce chr. 31 MAY 1600 Kingston Bagpuize, Berkshire, d. 02 JUN 1600.
. . . . . . 2 David Royce chr. 09 AUG 1601 Kingston Bagpuize, Berkshire.
. . . . . . 2 Matthew Royce chr. 18 SEP 1604 Kingston Bagpuize, Berkshire.
. . . . . . 2 Robert Royce chr. 03 NOV 1605 Ketton Cum Tixover, Rutland.
. . . . . . 2 Elizabeth Royce chr. 21 JUN 1607 Kingston Bagpuize, Berkshire.
. . . . . . 2 George Royce chr. 18 JUN 1608 Ketton Cum Tixover, Rutland.
. . . . . . 2 John Royce chr. 13 NOV 1609 Kingston Bagpuize, Berkshire.
. . . . . . 2 Richard Royce chr. 21 MAR 1612 Kingston Bagpuize, Berkshire.
. . . . . . 2 Hester Royce chr. 21 MAY 1616 Kingston Bagpuize, Berkshire.


Here has been incorporated the family of the only John Royce born to a father William Royce in the 1600s. Now: Berkshire is more than a few counties removed from Rutland, but the dates of christenings at the two parishes fit well. "William Royce" is also the only Royce on record at either of these parishes. Are there any William Royce marriages dating from this period.


1 William Royce
. . . + Joan Casebird 01 OCT 1598 Kingston Bagpuize, Berkshire.


Bullseye. "William Royce" is far vaguer a name at this time in history than was "Robert Royce", so while I could speculate further on William Royce's parentage at this point I won't. Research would best first be carried out in order to confirm that the William Royce of Berkshire is indeed contiguous with William Royce of Ketton Cum Tixover Rutland. There's a reasonable chance he is, or that the family is at least mobile, as there are no records for a Matthew Royce, Richard Royce, George Royce, etc line in Berkshire after this point.

So now we're left the task of explaining why Robert Royce of CT is actually from Rutland-Lincolnshire rather than Somerset. For this I have no answer apart from that there are no Royces situated in Somerset and therefore, pending actual Somerset documentation, there is no real reason to believe that Robert Royce's family came from Martock. Perhaps he was "from" Somerset in the sense that this is the point from which he embarked for the New World (Somerset is located on England's southwest coast). I have not seen reference to the document that contains the original Martock mention, only references to Royce's supposed origin there being repeated again and again. Without such reference I would not have been inclined to assume that this is where Robert Royce's family came from in the first place.

In any event, the best way to confirm or refute the hypothesis that Robert Royce of Ketton Cum Tixover Rutland and Stamford Lincolnshire is Robert Royce of CT is to obtain Y-DNA from Lincolnshire Royces who descend from Robert Royce's brother John and to compare this with the Robert Royce Y-DNA profile already on file at the Edmund Rice Association ( http://www.edmund-rice.org/ ). Of course, these things are always easier said than done. Since the Ketton Cum Tixover Royces are the earliest branch of Royces on record in Rutland and William's family may ultimately have given rise to the Rutland Royces (situated primarily in Oakham), even a comparison of Robert Royce's Y-DNA with Rutland Royce DNA in general might yield interesting results.

Catherine Cook, wife of Sir William Locke 1500s

Catherine Cook was the sister of Sir Thomas Cook, not wife. Their father was William Cook, according to family tree of William locke in peerage sources.

Yet more on John Browne

Here is more on the line of John from sources found on Google Books
Browne
Of these the most considerable, that of the viscounts of Montague was an offset of the famous house of La Ferte who held the barony of Le Ferte near Evreaux in Normandy. Richard de le Ferte, accompanied Robert of Normandy to Palestine in 1096 and youngest son Gamel, surnamed le Brun, settled in Cumberland where he had baronial grants from Waldeve FitzGospatric and his descendants long flourished, the name gradually changing to Broyne, Broun, and Browne. Anthony, youngest son of Robert le Broun, knight of the shire of Cumberland 1317-1339, settled in London, became a rich merchant and was created Knight of the Bath at the coronation of Richard II as reward for having lent him a very large sum of money, then generously cancelling the bond. He left two sons, Sir Robert and Sir Stephen. Sir Stephen would become Lord Mayor of London
Sir Robert Browne
Sir Thomas Browne of Beechworth, Surrey, knight, treasurer of the houshold to Henry VI and married Ellen Fitz Allan, daughter of Thomas, 3rd son of Lord Matrevere
William m mary Mallet, dau. of Sir William Mallet
This William had the son who reportedly went to Tavistock.
I haven't yet included this in my tree.
Another interesting note is that William and John had an uncle, called Brute(nickname, Christian name unknown) Brown, a master on Sir Francis Drake's who died off the coast of Porto Rico in a battle with the Spanish. He would have been a brother to their father Thomas, a seaman. John and the Samuel who were in New England were associated with shipping.

John Browne origins

John Browne, in his daughter's biography, mentioned being imprisoned a couple of times. A John Browne was imprisoned at Marshalsea in the early 1600s after having attempted to escape England, under an alias. Since he was a nonconformist and did eventually manage to make it to Holland, this could be one of his incarcerations. There is another mention of an imprisonment in 1617 of a John Browne of a felony who was supposed to have been turned over for transport to the east Indies, he was pardoned from being executed as his felony was not due to burglary, theft or murder. Not sure which one this is or if this John was transported anywhere. Another John Browne reference was to a John Browne sent to a Dutch ship fishing off the English coast to speak to the captain and notice that he was wanted for arrest in Holland.

John Browne of Rehobeth origins according to his daughter

In the biography of Mary Browne she states that her father was the brother of the writer William of Tavistock. A Brydges pedigree, uncovered, places his pedigree as such:
William Browne, second son of Sir William of Beachworth Surrey
John Browne who went to Tavistock and married daughter of Grills of Devonshire
Thomas Browne who married daughter of Carlslake of Devonshire
John Browne, second son, married Mary Amidas
Thomas Browne who married Joane Healen
John, the second son (immigrant ancestor)

Horatio Gates Somerby

If you have a family line attributed to this man, such as those of the Brownes of Watertown, the Blakes, Whitneys or Hookers, remove them from your tree. The Blakes, Whitneys and Brownes have been completely discredited and the Hooker line doesn't agree with extant records in the area of Thomas Hooker's family. It's too bad that the Somerby genealogies are still circulating and still offered for sale.

Reverend Thomas Hooker

There are two lines presented here. One which was introduced by Edward Hooker at a family reunion in the 19th century was created by the legendary and discredited Somerby, a genealogist whose creations seem to have been as suspect as Anjou. He reported that no records of Hookers existed in Leicester, and that John of Marfield died in London and connected him to Roger of Exeter. While he may have been related to the celebrated ecclesiastical family of Richard Hooker, and there have been hints of that, what Somerby didn't apparently reveal was that the parish records for the parish of Tilton went missing for the years prior to 1610, records of the death of his parents and his brother John who mentions his NEPHEWS Samuel and John (not cousins as Somerby had stated) died and was buried at marsfield. Haven't been able to confirm the connection to Kenelm but since Cotton was a close friend of Hooker and espouses this connection, he could only have obtained that information from Thomas, one would think.
There doesn't appear to be any basis to Somerby's presentation of the line of Hooker. Like Anjou, he was known to have created prestigious lines for generous clients.

Hannah Luddington m George Brickhouse

Okay, so explain to me how Hannah Luddington in Massachusetts would marry George Brickhouse in Virginia??? HMMM???
Hannah's father, in Virginia, so far as is known is William married to Gartraude/Gertrude. NOT the Massachusetts Luddington

John Hoyt, immigrant, Amesbury; m Frances

I've found John, on one site, connected to Simon Hoyte who arrived with his family from Upway Dorset. England. But it would appear that John, son of Simon went with his father to Connecticut as he is recorded there in town records. So unless he was an early bigamist riding back and forth between Amesbury and Connecticut, as it stands at this point, he isn't the same John. So, we keep looking for Amesbury John's origins in England.

Edward Kempe/Kemp of Chelmsford Mass.

I've seen a number of trees making Edward Kemp of Chelmsford the Edward Kemp of Gissing who went to Barbados. That Edward went to Virginia as other Gissing Kempes did. In the many years that I have been researching families, I can't, off the top of my head, think of anyone who settled in Massachusetts from Barbados, except perhaps for pirates. Most of the Barbados colonists were, like the Virginia colonist royalist, both colonies were founded by persons loyal to Charles I. In any case, Edward of Gissing couldn't live in two places at once. I have found a record in the Norfolk/Suffolk area of England for an Edward Kempe who married an Ann Buchenham in Apr 1628, she being born in 1606 to Henry Buchenham. I don't find her mentioned in that source after that.
Now don't go putting that in your tree. There's no verification that this is the same person.

Wreaking havoc by guesswork

Don't guess. Sometimes luck may be on your side, or the preponderence of evidence leads you to the most likely prospect, but finding someone in a record who matches the date and just plugging them into your tree? NOT!! It may seem harmless but if you publish that guess on the net and it's a wrong guess it can proliferate and pollute family lines all over the web. People who are equally as lax in checking their facts will copy your work, believing that your information is accurate. Make a file and note your guess for verification later before you add it to your tree. Just a little effort saves alot of whoa and helps contribute to the professionalism of family research.

John Lovejoy of Andover Mass.

I've found several trees on the web that links this John with Rowland of London. But it would seem that Rowland's son married Sarah Fox and lived and died in London.
John has been linked with one of the Lovejoys of Caversham because his married sister and her husband were aboard the same ship, whose names link them to the Caversham Lovejoys.
I'm not sure where the link to Rowland originated but this rotten branch needs to be snapped.

Three brothers in a boat/Hueguenot fable of Briddell/Breddel/Bridles

We who pursue the Briddell/Bridell/Breddell/Bredell/Bridle line that appears in Virginia have all heard the legend of the three French brothers who rowed a small boat across the channel to England to escape oppression in France.
The name doesn't appear in any French sources in Google books. It does appear as not only an ancient place name in Cardigan, Pembroke, Wales but of a surname also. It only seems to appear in that area of the British Isles. There is also mention of arms for Bredell. The earliest mention of the name that I've found so far was in the 1400s. Sir William Knighton's grandfather dispossessed his father for marrying Mistress Bredell, sister to a surgeon Bredell of Tavistock, in the mid 1700s. Geoffrey Bridell, on July 28 1489, was, with others ordered to pay a recognizance of L40 to make sure that another man would keep the peace in Wich-Walbank. There was a Walter Bridell, goldsmith and John Bredell, parson of Calais.
Unlike the northern colonies who wouldn't allow malcontents, criminals, and freeloaders to stay on their shores, the southern colonies were royal colonies and dumping grounds for people the crown felt were trouble makers, rabble rousers, papists and noncomformists, that included Catholics and Quakers, as well as dispossessed members of royal and noble Irish lines and daughters of poor tradesmen purchased by members of the Virginia Company to be transported to Virginia as servants and potential wives to male dominated colony there. At one point, one of the members of the company threatened to hang persons in charge of rounding up these poor young women if they didn't meet their quota and allowed anymore of them run away. But that's another story.
I think we can bury the legend of the three Huegenot brothers.

Crocker/Croker of Plymouth/Barnstaple/Maine

Another family which as been mixed up and confused. Neither Hugh who married Agnes Bonville or Hugh, the son, who married Elizabeth Colleton, ever set foot upon New England's soil. They both died in England. Hugh the second was born in 1598 and wasn't the brother of his sons, that was another Hugh who died aboard ship off Portugal. It's easy enough to see how confusion can reign as two families of Crockers, no doubt related, emigrated to the same area of Massachusetts Bay, with the names of John, William, Thomas, and Francis occurring in both. Hugh and Elizabeth Colleton had sons Hugh, William, Francis, Thomas. Hugh was captain of one of his father's ships. William, Francis and Thomas, emigrated to New England during the civil war, around 1642, legend states, to protect them from Cromwell. William relocated to Maine. He died in 1662 when preparing to return to England to settle his father's estate as Hugh had died also. Francis then returned to make his claim. Thomas removed to Connecticut and was party to the letters of grants from Charles II.
The other family of Crockers remained in the Barnstaple area and I think one removed to New Jersey. The Hugh connected with that family died aboard ship on the way over.
What a tangle!

John Wynn of Wales, ancestor to Thomas Yale/Elizabeth Mostyn

John Wynn, not Lloyd, (who was John ap David ap Ellis) who took the name Yale from Ial in Wales. was married to Elizabeth Mostyn, not Pigott, according to Burkes and other English sources. Supposedly Thomas Mostyn was married to Elizabeth Pigott.

Update on Pierrepont

It appears that John Pierrepont (married Thankful Stow) was son of James and Margaret of London, who was son of William and Elizabeth, who was son of George and Winifred Thwaits and thus back to William and Anne/Joan Empson. James of New Haven called Sir Henry Pierrepont's son Robert a second cousin.

William Peck of New Haven

There's no information regarding the ancestry of William or of the surname of Elizabeth his wife. I've seen her name given as Holt, but that was the married name of his second wife. His father's names are given as William, Stephen or Edward of London. I guess someone picked up on Edward's will and because he named a son William, made the leap. But that William married a Greene and never left London. Of William and Stephen. Don't know where they came from. So far as is known at present, no parents of William have been identified. Whether he even came from London isn't known for sure. The records of the London area that are available on Google books lists William or Jeremiah in birth or marriage records. It's good to know that no one associates him with the Wakefield branch anymore. Until proven, that's a wash.

Immigrant William Edwards of Hartford, son Richard of London

I, so far haven't found, recently repeated that William was the son of Rev. Richard Edwards of Queen Elizabeth fame, whose wife worked on the royal wardrobe. That Richard died in 1572, obviously too early to be William's father. William's father was a minister, married to Ann Munter of St. Botolphs, Aldate, as proven by the will of her mother, Julian Munter. And it looks like Abigail Cole was her daughter, not her step daughter.

Thomas Flint, Salem Village/Ann, his wife

Thomas Flint's wife's maiden name has not been identified. John Southwick was her second husband, not her father. And, by the way, he was not known as Sir Thomas Flint either. Thomas Flint of Concord who married an Oakes was not the father of Thomas of Salem Village. He was far too young. He had young children when he made his will in 1651, before sailing to England.

The bulky Bulkeley lineage

This family isn't really clear. Not sure where the purported line came from, it it's another fabrication of Anjou. Peter Bulkeley, married to Nicola Bird, was not the son of his brother Robert's line as is demonstrated in books of New England lineages. They take the line to Robert and Jane Butler and add three generations that lived after Peter in the line of Robert, his brother, as his ancestors. What a mess!! Thank God for Google Books and the English lineage books available there.

Oh, Wodin is me!!

Why do people still link their trees to a mythical Norse God??? Answers, anyone??