Subject: Carpenter Corrections Date: Thu, 7 Jun 2001 19:25:01 EDT From: GeneZub@aol.com To: jrcrin001@home.com Dear John, As author of the 1995 TAG article about William Carpenter of Rehoboth and his family, I'm very familiar with the facts pertaining to some of the persons mentioned in your online Carpenter compilation, which I recently viewed for the first time. Knowing how deep can be one's personal investment in a project such as yours, I hope you won't be offended by the attached corrections (all with primary-source citations) and remarks. I should warn you that I find many items to correct and, in my "General Remarks" (at the end), am critical of certain patterns evident in your basic approach. If there were a "nicer" way to express the necessary criticisms, I hope I would have found it. I also hope this initiates a friendly and useful correspondence. Sincerely, Gene Zubrinsky Ojai, Calif. (805) 646-5468 --------------------------------------------------------------------- Name: CarpenterCorrections.doc CarpenterCorrections.doc Type: Microsoft Word Document (application/msword) Encoding: base64 SEE THE COMPLETE TEXT AT THE END OF THE E-MAILS BELOW FOR THE DOCUMENT. //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// ///////////////////////////////////////////////////// ****************************************************************** Subject: Re: Carpenter Corrections Date: Fri, 08 Jun 2001 14:01:59 -0700 From: "John R. Carpenter" Organization: @Home Network To: GeneZub@aol.com References: 1 Dear Gene, It will be in the mail today. When you do your review, please remember the limitations of the computer programming of genealogy programs. For example, most programs are very restrictive on non-standard date entry. 26 April 1671[2] is not allowed in any of them! Another example is cites and sources. There has been very few standards for this and varies greatly from program to program. I tried to be consistent with the various submitters in converting their data and source formats to a single simple format for all computer programs. This would also help in searches of the data and notes. Sources and cites were placed in the note fields and many of the details of such cites were only noted at the head of the family line. This unfortunately skews the citing process when only one record is looked at. I knew there would be errors and included conflicting information. Since I could not judge which information was more valued over another, all were noted. I tried to use various words to indicate "speculation" where there were little if any facts in the notes. One of the major sections in the CE CD book was how to make corrections and additions. The goals of the Carpenter CD were placed in the forward. The compilation of data for the CE CD, almost as is, from so many people would contribute to the error rate. There is very little new research in the CE CD. It is more compiling of various data into an aggarate research tool than anything else. This is one of the first family CDs that has come out. No doubt others will benefit from my mistakes. John R. Carpenter La Mesa, CA ****************************************************************** Subject: Re: Carpenter Corrections Date: Fri, 08 Jun 2001 01:28:48 -0700 From: "John R. Carpenter" Organization: @Home Network To: GeneZub@aol.com References: 1 Dear Gene, Depending on which web page you went to, the first one listed has old 1999 data which is about to be updated: http://members.home.net/jrcrin001/mypage.htm The above has the phrase, "Ancestors of John Robert Carpenter - A Brief Section of the Carpenter CD Project." A few of the comments you made were corrected in the CE CD. The second web page has more up to date data. http://familytreemaker.genealogy.com/users/c/a/r/John-R-Carpenter/index.html?Welcome=991988423 I would also like you to review the CE CD and the introduction and comments I put in it. Can you send me your address and I will send it free for your review. I appreciate your comments. I just wish you had made them before the CE CD was published a few months ago. John R. Carpenter La Mesa, CA ****************************************************************** Subject: Re: Carpenter Corrections Date: Fri, 8 Jun 2001 17:45:13 EDT From: GeneZub@aol.com To: jrcrin001@home.com John, Upon visiting your "Carpenter Collections" Website, I recognize it as the one that first led me to the other site ("Ancestors of John Robert Carpenter - A Brief Section of the Carpenter CD Project"). I don't find, though, that the more up-to-date information you say it contains has any bearing upon that presented at "Ancestors ... ." In clicking on some of the other links at the "Collections" site, I realized that I had also visited previously the one of yours devoted to "Descendants of William #1 Carpenter." Here, again, I find several troubling items: Assuming, for example, that a William Carpenter was baptized (English parish records contain no birth records) at Nettlecombe on 23 May 1611, it's highly unlikely he was the eventual William of Providence. The distance from Amesbury, Wiltshire (where William's father, Richard, owned a "dwelling house"), to Nettlecombe, Somersetshire, is about 75 air miles. Ilchester (where Richard is said to have died in 1625) is about 40 air miles from Amesbury, and Nettlecombe and Ilchester are about 35 miles from each other. It's not only dubious that Richard and William Carpenter of Nettlecombe were the same respective persons as those of Amesbury but questionable that Richard of Nettlecombe and Richard of Ilchester were the same. (Although the parentage of Richard of Amesbury hasn't been proved, it's worth noting that Amesbury and Marden are only about 10 miles apart. A Marden heritage seems a lot more likely than a Nettlecombe one.) It makes little sense that Richard of Amesbury would have died at Ilchester while in possession of a home at Amesbury. Owning property outside the diocese in which he died should have caused his estate to be probated by the Prerogative Court of Canterbury, yet no such record exists. Nor is it likely that William of Providence would have held his inherited Amesbury property from 1625 until 1671, when he gave it to his sister, Fridgswith/Fridizweed Vincent. Had he inherited it that early, he surely would have disposed of it sooner--most likely before emigrating, 10 or so years later. I'm very much inclined to think that the Somerset dates and places represent a clumsy effort to harmonize the Carpenter material with the fact that William's wife, Elizabeth Arnold, was baptized at Ilchester. I don't believe the Somerset events you and others present have anything to do with William of Providence or Richard of Amesbury. There's no chance that William of Providence and Elizabeth Arnold were married aboard ship on 1 November 1635. Although Daniel Hoogland Carpenter doubts the accuracy of William Arnold's son Benedict's memorandum providing his family's dates of departure from England (1 May 1635), arrival in Massachusetts (24 June 1635), and subsequent arrival at Providence (20 April 1636), the first two, at least, are confirmed by the Hingham Book of Possessions (p. 30): on 18 September 1635, there was "[given] to William Arnall by the Town of Hingham for a houselot two acres of land lying in the Town Street." William and Elizabeth (Arnold) Carpenter's year of marriage has been estimated as "by about 1635"; this is based on the fact that their apparent first child, Joseph, married probably in 1659. But given the distance between Ilchester and Amesbury, it's quite possible that William and Elizabeth didn't even know each other in England; they may well have met at Hingham. It's significant that, although Robert Charles Anderson's THE GREAT MIGRATION: IMMIGRANTS TO NEW ENGLAND 1634-1635, Vol. 1 (A-B [1999]), includes William Arnold and his family, Vol. 2 (C-F [2001]) does not include William Carpenter. There's no evidence that he was on the same ship as the Arnolds. The Arnold's purported descent from Welsh royalty was published in 1879 and thoroughly debunked in 1915 (see NEHG REGISTER 33:432-38, 69:64-69). Gene ************************************************ Subject: Re: Carpenter Corrections Date: Sat, 9 Jun 2001 19:20:58 EDT From: GeneZub@aol.com To: jrcrin001@home.com John, << ... please remember the limitations of the computer programming of genealogy programs. For example, most programs are very restrictive on non-standard date entry. 26 April 1671[2] is not allowed in any of them! >> Having done my first big project on ROOTS III (about 10-12 years ago) and having purchased The Master Genealogist about 5 years ago, I'm well aware of the frustrating limitations of genealogy programs. That's why I transferred the ROOTS III material to my word processor (where I'm reformatting it) and will never use The Master Genealogist or any other genealogy program for anything other than printing out Family Group Sheets for my own research purposes. Anything I intend for publication is done exclusively with a word-processing program (presently Word 2000). You can and should do likewise. << Another example is cites and sources. There has been very few standards for this and varies greatly from program to program. I tried to be consistent with the various submitters in converting their data and source formats to a single simple format for all computer programs. This would also help in searches of the data and notes. Sources and cites were placed in the note fields and many of the details of such cites were only noted at the head of the family line. This unfortunately skews the citing process when only one record is looked at. >> That others can readily incorporate your format and data into their own programs is hardly positive when your error rate is so high. More important are such things as accuracy, precision, completeness, clarity, and consistency. Using one or more of the leading genealogical journals as your guide (see p. 18 of the corrections/remarks file) and/or a couple of style manuals (both genealogical and general), create a format template in your word processor. Using these same resources, decide on an acceptable style for citing sources and make liberal use of footnotes--for both source citations and explanations/elaborations. I highly recommend that you obtain copies of the following style manuals: Patricia Law Hatcher, PRODUCING A QUALITY FAMILY HISTORY (Salt Lake City: Ancestry, Inc., 1996); Elizabeth Shown Mills, EVIDENCE! CITATION & ANALYSIS FOR THE FAMILY HISTORIAN (Baltimore: Genealogical Publishing Co., 1997); and THE CHICAGO MANUAL OF STYLE, 14th ed. (Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press, 1993). << I knew there would be errors and included conflicting information. Since I could not judge which information was more valued over another, all were noted. I tried to use various words to indicate "speculation" where there were little if any facts in the notes. >> As author/editor, it's your responsibility to make precisely such judgments. The result of failing to do so is an incoherent hodgepodge that doesn't deserve to be published. (Sorry, John, I don't know how else to say it.) Up to now, you've apparently shirked your responsibility to acquire the skills, habits, knowledge, etc.--and do the primary research--necessary to make such judgments. You've exchanged quality for quantity. << The compilation of data for the CE CD, almost as is, from so many people would contribute to the error rate. >> Of course, but that simply confirms that the process itself was flawed. << There is very little new research in the CE CD. It is more compiling of various data into an aggarate research tool than anything else. >> What kind of "aggregate research tool" can it be if neither you nor most of those you feel you're serving will DO the research? In light of your own propensity to present "as is" what you've collected, you must realize that that same passive, uncritical attitude characterizes the majority of those who read it. All one has to do is read the grateful postings of those who have bought into the entire Carpenter ancestry you present. << This is one of the first family CDs that has come out. No doubt others will benefit from my mistakes. >> Only the media (the Internet and CDs) are new. Your mistakes are in the work (not a new problem), and their impact is magnified by the great reach of these media. NOBODY benefits from inaccurate, unreliable, and unevaluated data--particularly the many who will accept it as you have presented it: "as is." Sorry, John, but I don't think you have come to terms with the harm done by the poor quality of your data and of the processes by which they have been obtained and presented. Quoting the great Donald Lines Jacobus, "genealogical research does not mean copying something out of a book, whether right or wrong; anyone able to read can do that. It means the employment of special knowledge and training directed toward establishing a correct lineage, by the critical utilization of dependable printed sources and (when required) by study of unpublished records sources ("Book Reviews," NEW HAVEN GENEALOGICAL MAGAZINE [precursor of TAG] 6[1929-30]:1538-40). Of course, this admonition is lost on the majority of today's hobbyists, just as it was in 1930. Gene ********************************************************* Subject: Re: Carpenter Corrections Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2001 13:32:06 -0700 From: "John R. Carpenter" Organization: @Home Network To: GeneZub@aol.com References: 1 Dear Gene, I would have loved to have inserted an article by you into the CE CD. Also your comments and notes would have been invaluable with the individual records. As you review the CE CD, can you think of such an article? When, or if, I get enough material I would like to do an update to the CE CD. The CE CD is a research tool of what Carpenter material is out there. This is the good, the bad and the ugly. I believe there were enough warnings to most reasonable people to sort the fiction from the fact. While there will always be people who ignore such things, I believe the CE CD will be a springboard forward than backwards. As I mentioned before, the CE CD is one of the first of its kind in the compilation of such family material. The effort was a vast one with much input from many people. There is no doubt there will be errors to be corrected! I look forward to your constructive and instructive comments. John R. Carpenter La Mesa, CA ********************************************************** Subject: Re: Carpenter Corrections Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2001 15:36:50 EDT From: GeneZub@aol.com To: jrcrin001@home.com John, Your suggestion that I write an article for inclusion in a possible update of the CD is gratifying, but I'm afraid I must decline for several reasons: (1) I have other projects, genealogical and otherwise, that command my attention (it's been a real challenge just to set aside the time to write you as I have); (2) your request, albeit generous, seems to reflect the misguided belief that adding yet another angle on the Carpenters (perhaps analogous to the warning on a pack of cigarettes) will substitute for the thorough review, primary research and citations, evaluation of data and sources, and sweeping revision necessary to elevate the quality of your compilation; and (3) even if an article of mine could accomplish what you seem to expect of it (and assuming you would get around to updating the CD), an "antidote" is needed NOW for what you've already disseminated. (You must know that most people will incorporate what you presently offer them, go on to other family lines, and never look back.) << When, or if, I get enough material I would like to do an update to the CE CD. >> Given the present quality of your data, why wouldn't you regard an "update" (i.e., a major revision) as obligatory? I can't imagine your not having enough material; I've already given you a running start. Of course, part of your task will be to DELETE irrelevant and misleading notes, as you correct (not necessarily augment) the rest. You have enough material right now to warrant the following remedial action: inclusion of my corrections on your "Ancestors ... " Website; mailing a printout of them (or at least an alert that they're online) to those who have received your CD; insertion of a hard copy of them (or an alert) with each subsequent CD distributed; and posting on GenForum and RootsWeb an announcement of the corrections' availability. The easiest way to present them on your Website--while simultaneously assuring that nothing is misstated--would probably be to insert a note at the beginning that directs the reader to an appendix containing pp. 1-17 verbatim (can they be scanned in?). To simply sit on corrections as extensive as these would be dishonest and lazy, both intellectually and personally. << The CE CD is a research tool of what Carpenter material is out there. This is the good, the bad and the ugly. >> John, calling it a research tool doesn't make it one. The bad and the ugly outweigh and debase the good. A true research tool presents a coherent body of evidence that suggests promising avenues of research, which are made explicit. By putting everything but the kitchen sink in the notes, for example, you provide virtually no guidance whatsoever. Moreover, most if not all of what you present in the online text sections carries the implication that no further research is necessary. And in any case, why would you expect the consumers of your material to use it as a research tool (not that it qualifies as such) when you yourself have not done so? It's simply a collection of assertions--many erroneous, some contradictory. (In my "General Remarks," I failed to mention that your notes are not fact-specific. There's no way for the reader to know what the source is of any particular datum appearing in the text. In essence, you've left them uncited.) << I believe there were enough warnings to most reasonable people to sort the fiction from the fact. >> Not yet having seen the CD, I can't argue--yet:-). But somehow I doubt it. And in any case (as above), why would you expect it of them, when you've made precious little effort to do so yourself? I'm beginning to think you're a victim of naively low standards, John. Have you done much reading of genealogical journals? If so, you must know that the articles NEVER leave it to the reader to separate fact from fiction. It's a delusion to think that in abdicating your own responsibility to be an active "sorter" of fact and fiction, you can still perform a service. << While there will always be people who ignore such things, I believe the CE CD will be a springboard forward than backwards. >> Again, I don't want to be premature, but unless there's a stark contrast between the CD and your "Ancestors ... " Website, I won't be able to agree. << As I mentioned before, the CE CD is one of the first of its kind in the compilation of such family material. The effort was a vast one with much input from many people. There is no doubt there will be errors to be corrected! >> And as I mentioned before, it's only the media that are new. The broad, inexpensive dissemination of information over the Internet and on CD simply takes to a new and disturbing level the same old problem: the proliferation of inaccurate data. With your last two statements (" ... much input from many people" and " ... no doubt there will be errors ... "), you have been damned by your own words. You acknowledge being essentially a conduit for others' work (the quality of which is demonstrably and inevitably poor) and seem to feel that the high error rate inherent in this approach is acceptable. Damn it, John, it isn't! You've been remarkably tolerant of my criticisms, and I regret having to continue making them. But I don't get the feeling that you have yet made an objective appraisal of your work and the impact of having published it in its present form. If your CD is beset by the same problems as your online material, I hope you'll seriously consider the measures I suggest above. (Of course my review of the CD will have no bearing on the desirability of appending my corrections to the online material and posting announcements of having done so.) Best regards, Gene ***************************************************** Subject: [CARPENTER] Re: Carpenters 1600 no 2 Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2001 03:22:56 EDT From: GeneZub@aol.com To: CARPENTER-L@rootsweb.com Bruce, << One matter that I could never accept was the listing of Wherwell as a temporary residence for the Carpenters. When people ask me where I am from I never give them one of my MANY temporary addresses. I tell them where I was born. >> If you had been asked, as the passengers of the BEVIS obviously were, to provide your most recent place of residence, you would have done as they did and indicated where you had last resided, whether it was your birthplace or not. All BEVIS passengers for whom a residence is given are listed as "of" a certain place. Richard Dummer, for example, who had already established himself in Massachusetts and was returning there with his family, is listed as "of New England." This, of course, was not his birthplace. While the Carpenters are listed as "of Horwell [SIC, Wherwell]," William2 of Rehoboth had been at Shalbourne (straddling the Wiltshire-Berkshire line, about 15 air miles NNW of Wherwell) from at least 28 April 1625, when he married Abigail Briant there, until at least 20 April 1637, when son Samuel (the first of two of that name) was buried there--and probably until at least 25 January 1637[/8], when an unidentified Alice Carpenter was buried there. Of the six Shalbourne records that name William2, only that of the aforementioned Samuel's baptism, on 1 March 1636[/7], refers to him as "Junior." This suggests that his father, William1 (of whom there is no record after his 2 May 1638 listing as a BEVIS passenger), may have lived elsewhere until sometime between 6 April 1634 (when William2's son Joseph was baptized at Shalbourne) and Samuel's 1 March 1636[/7] baptismal date. (For the primary sources of the data in this and the previous paragraph, see TAG 70[1995]:193-204, at 193-94.) But as to either William's specific residence prior to Shalbourne, nothing is known. A record search of the parishes surrounding Shalbourne might turn up something. In light of the above, and in the absence of any evidence that these Carpenters had lived at Wherwell previous to 1637 or 1638, let alone been born there, it is pure speculation to think so. Gene Z. ********************************************************* Subject: Re: Carpenter Corrections Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2001 02:39:11 EDT From: GeneZub@aol.com To: jrcrin001@home.com John, I received the CDs yesterday (for which thanks) but almost wish you hadn't been so prompt in getting them to me:-). I'm preparing for a 3 1/2-week trip to Germany, Austria, and Italy, which begins in about 1 1/2 weeks. As a professional trumpet player, I also have several gigs to play between now and then. (I practice the horn almost daily, of course.) And then there's the gym, which I attend six days a week. I very much appreciate your desire to have me review the CDs and will try hard to do so in the next few days. Sorry I can't give you a faster turnaround. Gene ******************************************************* Subject: [CARPENTER] Re: CARPENTER-D Digest V01 #112 (messages #2 and #3) Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2001 15:00:47 EDT From: GeneZub@aol.com To: CARPENTER-L@rootsweb.com Reply to message #2 << In the the Bevis record below, Dummer's Bishopstoke origin (connection) is cited. At http://www.geocities.com/sunsetstrip/1339/littlefield/TheBevis1638.html "Dummer, Richard 40 ("gentleman, of New England") of Bishopstoke, county Hampshire ". >> If you'll notice, your online source puts quotation marks around only "gentleman, of New England." The rest was added by the compiler (as it happens, so was "gentleman"). My facsimile copy of the Bevis passenger list clearly says, "Richard Dumr [line over 'm,' superscript 'r'] of New England" (no "gentleman," let alone "Bishopstoke"). This is confirmed by Samuel G. Drake ("The Founders of New England," NEHGR 14[1860]:337) and Peter W. Coldham (THE COMPLETE BOOK OF EMIGRANTS, 1607-1660 [Baltimore, 1987], 196). << Another speculative point is that a William Carpenter, with a wife Alice and daughter Alice, went to Virginia in 1623 or about. >> It would be foolish not to investigate this to the extent possible. But given the extreme popularity in England during this period of the names William and Alice and that the Carpenter surname was hardly distinctive, I can't get too excited about it. If this were "our" William, one wonders why he wasn't accompanied by his namesake son, then aged about 18. Reply to message #3 << The following is from the Oxford English Dictionary tertiary "of" citation. ... "III. Of origin or source. Indicating the thing or person whence anything originates, comes, is acquired or sought. 9. a. Expressing racial or local origin, descent, etc.: after the vbs. arise, be, come, descend, spring, be born, bred, propagated, and the like." >> A partial dictionary definition of the word "of" is irrelevant, as is how one might answer the question, "Where are you from?" The BEVIS passengers gave their respective residences as they were prior to embarkation. (See, above, actual wording of the Richard Dummer entry in the BEVIS passenger list.) The duration thereof can't be discerned from the passenger list. I object, not to entertaining the possibility that William Senior had lived at Wherwell previous to 1637 or 1638, but to the degree of certainty expressed in the absence of any corroboration whatsoever. Since Wherwell parish records don't begin until 1634, the best that can be done on that score is a record search of surrounding parishes. Of course, if it were to be confirmed that William Senior was born in Hampshire, it would virtually eliminate Robert of Marden from consideration as his possible father. << Dummer was certainly not born in "New England", but the important point his new home was there and he had not just stopped there. Likewise "Bishopstoke" was likely his English home. That Dummer's home was Bishopstoke is suggested in vol. 3 of A History of Hampshire, p. 310. Richard and family had various land based charities for the poor in Bishopstoke. >> I have no problem with Wherwell's being the "new home" of the Carpenters. Robert Charles Anderson, whose knowledge of early New England immigrants has no equal, fails to mention Bishopstoke in his eight-page account of Richard Dummer, his family, connections, etc. (THE GREAT MIGRATION BEGINS: IMMIGRANTS TO NEW ENGLAND 1620-1633, 3 vols. [Boston, 1995], 1:588-95). On 24 April 1638 Richard Dummer's father, John Dummer, was living at "Swathling," and his brothers Thomas and Stephen at "Chickenwell" and "Townehill," respectively (ibid., 1:592). Richard's first wife, Jane Mason, was the daughter of Rev. Thomas Mason of "Oldiham," Hampshire (ibid., 1:590). Richard appears to have been connected with the Pyldren alias Dummer family of South and North Stoneham, Hampshire (ibid., 1:591-92). Gene Z. *************************************************** Subject: Re: Carpenter Corrections Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2001 09:01:46 -0700 From: "John R. Carpenter" Organization: @Home Network To: GeneZub@aol.com References: 1 Dear Gene, I wish you safety, fun and profit on your trip. May your notes be sharp and crisp! May the fluid always drain clear! The CE CD has a lot of material, take your time. John R. Carpenter La Mesa, CA *************************************************** Subject: Carpenter Genealogy Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2001 15:06:43 EDT From: GeneZub@aol.com To: jrcrin001@home.com John, You may recall that among my corrections to your online statements were those pertaining to the location of Shalbourne Parish. You had said it was in Wiltshire in the early 17th century but is now part of Berkshire. I had responded by saying that now, as then, the parish straddles the Berkshire-Wiltshire line. That's not altogether true: it was the case during the period in which the Carpenters and Briants appear in the Bishop's Transcripts of the parish records. (Of the photocopies I have of Bishop's Transcript pages with annual headings, most locate Shalbourne Parish in Berkshire [whose archdeaconry was then in the diocese of Salisbury]. A couple, however, say it's in the "Countyes of Wilts and Berks," and the Phillimore Atlas and Index of Parish Registers has it in both counties.) Today, however, Shalbourne (the village, at least) is in Wiltshire, not Berkshire. The attached file contains my revised corrections on that matter and is meant to supersede the copy I had sent previously (see pp. 5, 6, 12). I've also added a particularly appropriate source pertaining to the Elizabeth-Isabel issue at the end of the discussion of Elinor ______ (not Carpenter), wife of Robert of Marden, and Isabell Stockham (not Storke), Robert's stepmother (not his wife's mother) (see p. 13). "The names [Elizabeth and Isabel] were still interchangeable in the 16th C; for instance a Berkshire yeoman in his will, 1542, names his wife ISABEL, but in her own will, two years later, she is named ELIZABETH (E. G. Withycombe, THE OXFORD DICTIONARY OF ENGLISH CHRISTIAN NAMES, 3d ed. [Oxford, 1977], p. 164). Well, John, here goes: I spent a couple of hours viewing CD-1; it was extremely upsetting to me, and even collecting my thoughts to write about it brings back some of the same unpleasant sensations in my chest and stomach. I regret to say that I found it subject to all the criticisms contained in my "General Remarks." While I did recognize a couple of corrections of online errors, I also noticed further fictional elaborations upon online items that were already distorted (concerning, for example, the Alice Carpenter who was buried at Shalbourne, 25 Jan. 1637[/8]). For the most part, though, I found the online and CD versions indistinguishable in terms of accuracy, methodology, style, etc. Actually, it's my impression that the CD version's format is even more disorganized than the online one. Your introductory remarks about the mixture of fact and speculation are far from adequate. Were they followed up by item-specific warnings, it would be another matter. Instead, you explicitly say that it will be up to the reader to sift fact from fiction. As I've said before, this is totally unacceptable--particularly since the fiction predominates. Far from inserting item-specific warnings that something is unproved or speculative (sometimes wildly so), you often say just the opposite: "[so-and-so is/are] considered to be [the father/parents/etc.]" (considered by whom you don't say--certainly no one who has done the least bit of primary research--but the impression is given of authoritative unanimity when there is neither authority nor unanimity; "[such-and-such] has been proved" (when it most certainly has not); "several records [say this or that]" (when not one record [i.e., formal document] says anything of the kind; "several" is inexcusably vague, and "records" is an extremely misleading substitution for "secondary source"). How is the typical reader supposed to recognize these as misrepresentations? It is disingenuous to call this material a research tool when you don't use it as such yourself. You've collected an endless number of pronouncements from mostly unreliable, secondary sources and, so far as I can tell, made no effort to do what you say you expect the reader to do--separate fact from fiction. And that, of course, can only be done through primary research. But by introducing so much that's demonstrably (to me) erroneous, you lead even the reader willing to do the leg work on so many wild-goose chases that his/her progress is more likely to be impeded than facilitated. Despite your warnings' lack of specificity, they might have some impact if they were much stronger and more carefully worded. As it is, they seem pro forma, perfunctory, incidental. And when you then begin the presentation of your extensive, ancient Carpenter "ancestry"--on the minutiae of which you, Bruce Carpenter, and a few other online "Fantasy Islanders" continue to focus--it's clear you haven't heeded your own warnings. Only the most knowledgeable and discerning reader will recognize that the parents of neither so-called William of Wherwell nor Richard of Amesbury have been established and that until they are, the elaborate, 11th-to-16th-century Carpenter ancestry you've concocted (and presented without specific caveats) is irrelevant. The sheer size of it says to the reader, "If the later generations weren't accurate, the compiler wouldn't have bothered to develop the earlier ones so extensively." I wish you would explain to me why you and Bruce (in particular, as the major purveyors) continue to waste your time and energy violating one of the first principles of genealogical research, which is to be guided by what you KNOW and by plausible hypotheses based upon what you KNOW. You guys blithely skip over 250 years of dubious Carpenter ancestry in your fascination with even earlier, MORE dubious ancestry. With so little linking so-called William of Wherwell or Richard of Amesbury to specific parents--to say nothing of the lack of proof for many of the earlier English connections claimed--your preoccupation with the de Meluns is but an elaborate exercise in intellectual escapism. Bruce's veneer of scholasticism and his substitution of a London merchant class for your de Meluns doesn't absolve him of complicity with you in setting a terrible example. He has simply "escaped" in a different direction. What concerns me most, though, is that in the process, uncounted others are being led astray. Only through self-deception can you doubt this. While it's important for me to convey that my comments have no malicious intent, I hesitate to soften the previous paragraphs' blows such that I fail to reach you. This is rough, I know, but I'm appalled, angry, offended, frustrated, and deeply troubled over the dissemination of your work in its present form. Its effect in promoting a "conventional wisdom" of inaccuracies, distortions, and bad methodology is incalculable. You shouldn't let expressions of gratitude from credulous CD recipients obscure the great disservice you do them, the truth, and the fundamental principles aimed at securing it. I understand your reluctance to accept my criticisms. They lead inevitably to the conclusion that years of work have been misspent. But of course the expenditure of time and effort is, in itself, no guarantee of a high-quality result. Your methods were destined to produce the colossal proportions of errors, distortions, and ambiguities they have. Since this is a bitter pill to swallow, perhaps you'd like a second opinion. Why don't you send the CDs to David L. Greene, FASG, editor of THE AMERICAN GENEALOGIST; or Henry B. Hoff, FASG, who just took over from Jane Fiske as editor of THE NEW ENGLAND HISTORICAL AND GENEALOGICAL REGISTER; or David Kendall Martin, FASG, who is a Carpenter descendant and has done some English Carpenter research himself? David Greene's postal address is P.O. Box 398, Demorest, GA 30535-0398; his e-mail address is . Henry's postal address is 4327 Ravensworth Road #823, Annandale, VA 22003; his e-mail address is . David Martin's postal address is Mouse Hill, West Chazy, NY 12992. (You'll notice that all three are Fellows of the American Society of Genealogists. This honorary status is held by no more than 50 people at a time, worldwide. They are thus among the absolute best in the field.) I'll be away for almost a month, beginning Sunday evening. Between now and then, perhaps you can give me some idea of your intentions. Although I'm willing to perform direct "damage control" myself if necessary, I think it would be more appropriate (and less damaging to you) if you were the one to do so (see the measures I've proposed previously). If you prefer first to obtain the aforementioned second opinion, that's fine. But I do hope you agree that, if my appraisal is correct, leaving this matter unattended is not an option. Incidentally, the next time I booted my computer after viewing the CE CD, my anti-virus program alerted me to a virus in the following file (which I then quarantined): C:\Windows\Start Menu\Programs\StartUp\sb.hta. Do you know anything about this? Best regards (honest), Gene --------------------------------------------------------------------- Name: CarpenterCorrections.doc CarpenterCorrections.doc Type: Microsoft Word Document (application/msword) Encoding: base64 *********************************************************** Subject: Re: Carpenter Genealogy Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2001 17:55:48 -0700 From: "John R. Carpenter" Organization: @Home Network To: GeneZub@aol.com References: 1 Dear Gene, After briefly reviewing your last I saw ... "Incidentally, the next time I booted my computer after viewing the CE CD, my anti-virus program alerted me to a virus in the following file (which I then quarantined): C:\Windows\Start Menu\Programs\StartUp\sb.hta. Do you know anything about this?" The answer is no. The data on the CD was scanned by me using a current McAfee then scanned by the publisher. It was one of the legal requirements. No one else has mentioned anything either. I did a file search on my machine (all drives) and one CE CD set and found no file named "sb.hta." I am also scanning for viruses all files on one set of the CDs (chosen at random) to play it safe. If I find anything I will let you now immediately. By and by, I have asked a some people to review the CE CD. I will also consider those that you mentioned. Regards! John R. Carpenter La Mesa, CA *********************************************************** Subject: [CARPENTER] Re: CARPENTER-D Digest V01 #112 (messages #2 and #3) Date: Sun, 24 Jun 2001 16:28:16 EDT From: GeneZub@aol.com To: CARPENTER-L@rootsweb.com Subj: Re: [CARPENTER] Re: CARPENTER-D Digest V01 #112 (messages #2 and #3) Date: 6/23/01 6:04:32 PM Pacific Daylight Time From: diluvius@yahoo.com (Terry Carpenter) To: GeneZub@aol.com CC: jrcrin001@home.com Dear Gene, An abstract of a recent post from you to the CARPENTER-L list was forwarded to me since I have done some research on southern Carpenters. The significant part of the post is quoted below: Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2001 15:00:47 EDT From: To: CARPENTER-L@rootsweb.com Subject: [CARPENTER] Re: CARPENTER-D Digest V01 #112 (messages #2 and #3) <--deleted--> << a William Carpenter, with a wife Alice and daughter Alice, went to Virginia in 1623 or about. >> <--deleted--> The <> information is not factual. The muster of inhabitants at Jamestown VA from which the data has been altered shows that the correct surname of William with wife Alice and daughter Alice was Spencer. The person who sent this to you obviously did not check his facts. I hope this is helpful to you in your research. Regards, Terry Carpenter *********************************************************** Subject: Re: Carpenter Genealogy Date: Sat, 23 Jun 2001 16:19:08 EDT From: GeneZub@aol.com To: jrcrin001@home.com In a message dated 6/22/01 5:53:16 PM Pacific Daylight Time, jrcrin001@home.com writes: << "Incidentally, the next time I booted my computer after viewing the CE CD, my anti-virus program alerted me to a virus in the following file (which I then quarantined): C:\Windows\Start Menu\Programs\StartUp\sb.hta. Do you know anything about this?" The answer is no. The data on the CD was scanned by me using a current McAfee then scanned by the publisher. It was one of the legal requirements. No one else has mentioned anything either. I did a file search on my machine (all drives) and one CE CD set and found no file named "sb.hta." I am also scanning for viruses all files on one set of the CDs (chosen at random) to play it safe. If I find anything I will let you now immediately. >> Thanks, John. Gene ************************************************************* Subject: Re: Carpenter Genealogy Date: Sat, 23 Jun 2001 22:34:57 -0700 From: "John R. Carpenter" Organization: @Home Network To: GeneZub@aol.com References: 1 Dear Gene, As a follow up ... a complete scan of all files on all hard drives revealed no viruses and no warnings. John R. Carpenter La Mesa, CA *************************************************************** Subject: Re: Carpenter Genealogy Date: Sun, 24 Jun 2001 16:30:47 EDT From: GeneZub@aol.com To: jrcrin001@home.com In a message dated 6/23/01 10:32:28 PM Pacific Daylight Time, jrcrin001@home.com writes: << As a follow up ... a complete scan of all files on all hard drives revealed no viruses and no warnings. >> Many thanks, John. I'm leaving today for Europe (return July 19) but would still like to know your plans for "damage control." Regards, Gene **************************************************************** Subject: Re: Carpenter Genealogy Date: Sat, 27 Jun 2001 1121:30:23 -0700 From: "John R. Carpenter" Organization: @Home Network To: GeneZub@aol.com References: 1 Dear Gene, As I mentioned before, I am following your suggestion for a second opinions. The throwing away and recalling the CDs as you have suggested costing several thousands of dollars is not something I can do lightly. Even a measured response to "damage control," as you wrote will take careful consideration after I get the feedback from the requested opinions. Enjoy your trip. May your notes flow accurtely and well. John R. Carpenter La Mesa, CA ******************************************************************* Subject: Re: Carpenter Genealogy Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2001 03:39:23 EDT From: GeneZub@aol.com To: John, I don't think I ever suggested throwing your CDs away. My recall suggestion (which I suppose might imply throwing them away, although I hadn't thought in those terms), was made early in our correspondence, and upon reflection, doesn't strike me as realistic. But a mailing (to those already in possession of the CD) or insert (with subsequent CD distributions) containing corrections and a very strong statement as to the speculative nature of much of the CD's contents--along with a comparable revision of the online material and an announcement posted online--seems reasonable, don't you think? I'll split with you the cost of the mailing to present CD holders, as long as we can collaborate on its contents. Thanks for your good wishes. We're presently staying with friends in the Bavarian Alps and tomorrow will go to Venice, followed by Florence, Pisa, Cinque Terre, Vienna, and Salzburg, before returning to our present location. This isn't a genealogy trip, just visiting and sight-seeing. Regards, Gene ******************************************************************* Subject: Re: Carpenter Genealogy Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2001 10:45:04 -0700 From: "John R. Carpenter" Organization: @Home Network To: GeneZub@aol.com, jrcrin001@home.com CC: "CARPENTER-L@rootsweb.com" References: 1 Dear Gene, An article mailed, inserted and on line would be one way to update the material. Mail notification to go to an online site for the article or for those not online, a hard copy address, is another option. I also appreciate the offer to split the mailing costs. Please remember genealogy is my hobby, not my business. I work an average 45 hours a week and am away from home several nights a week. I have a wife, two teenagers at home, and two married step daughters with a total of four grandchildren with another one to come. I have put off more than a few family needs to finish the CE CD 2001. I need to catch up on "honey dos" and such. As a compiler of data, I try to let others tell the story of what they know. Your excellent TAG article in 1995 was very professional. If you were able to participate more during the years I was asking for input (online and in various journals) that would have been invaluable. However, that is now water under the bridge. Now is the time to look forward. An article as I mentioned before would be the best way to provide an update. I suggest using the format as in the CE CD 2001 "How to make Corrections and Updates." Another slightly modified way would be to rewrite the notes on each person in a format that is comfortable to you. Copy and paste would be the easiest to compile. This way you would get full credit for your corrections and additions. And it would help many many researchers! The Bavarian Alps are beautiful in the spring. In the early to mid 1960s my family vacationed there and into Switzerland several times. I now know that this was partly in preparation in case the Soviets attacked (a BIG fear then) and it was a way of knowing the escape routes. Alas, the last time I was in Germany in the mid 1970s was a troubled time. As an American soldier I tangled with a Beider Meinhof Gang operation. The group I associated with killed seven of them after they hijacked two tactical nuclear bombs. I received my third "injury" and was mustered out as was the policy at that time. Even today the incident is not well known but still is recorded officially as the Sarin Nerve Gas but really CS (Riot) Gas story. After I retire, I hope to travel Europe again. There is so much history and beautiful sights to see. Again, enjoy your trip and be safe! John R. Carpenter La Mesa, CA ******************************************************************* Subject: Re: Carpenter Genealogy Date: Fri, 06 Jul 2001 08:46:35 -0700 From: "John R. Carpenter" Organization: @Home Network To: GeneZub@aol.com CC: jrcrin001@home.com, "CARPENTER-L@rootsweb.com" References: 1 Dear Gene, A little here and there will make a big difference! Thank You! Jhn R. Carpenter GeneZub@aol.com wrote: > > John, > > Thanks for the note. Glad to see you're interested in an update. I won't have time for a substative response until I get home (we're presently in Cinque Terre, Italy). I'll keep your message as new and give you a proper reply in a little under three weeks. > > Best regards, > > Gene ******************************************************************* /////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// ////////////////////////////////////////////// Corrections and Remarks Pertaining to Selected Sections of Ancestors of John Robert Carpenter - A Brief Section of the Carpenter CD Project To distinguish my comments more clearly from the passages to which they pertain, I have used a blue font for the former and, in case you don't have a color printer, have set off the latter with double carets. << 512. Samuel Carpenter was born about 1638/1639 in Weymouth, Norfolk, MA. He died 20 Feb 1682/1683 in Rehoboth, Bristol, MA and was buried 22 Feb 1682/1683 in Rehoboth, Bristol, MA. Samuel married Sarah Readaway on 25 May 1660 in Rehoboth, Bristol, MA. >> Samuel's birthplace was probably Weymouth, but there is no record to prove it. Double dates, reflecting both Julian and Gregorian calendars (the former's year began on 25 March), were/are typically written with only the last digit repeated (e.g., 1682/3). Repeating the first two or three digits (except in cases such as "1689/90" or "1699/1700") is to be avoided because it risks leaving the impression that the year is one or the other, rather than both. In the case of Samuel, however, his burial (not death) record gives the date as 20 February 1682—not 1682/3, which would be the correct form only if it had been recorded as such (see Rehoboth VR [orig.], 1:56 [FHL film #562559]). If independent evidence (e.g., surrounding entries or another dated document) indicates that it represents Old Style (Julian calendar) dating, then 1682[/3] is appropriate; if you have only a plausible suspicion that this is so, you may express it as 1682[/3?]. In all other cases (including this one), present the date as recorded. For a more detailed discussion of pre-1752 dates and their form of expression, see Donald Lines Jacobus's little classic, Genealogy as Pastime and Profession, 2d ed. (Baltimore, 1968), 109-13, and/or Robert Charles Anderson, The Great Migration Begins: Immigrants to New England 1620-1633, Vol. 1 (Boston, 1995), 1:xxiv. The date of Samuel's death is not recorded. Notes for 512. Samuel Carpenter << BIRTH: This was the second Samuel born in the family. He was probably born in late 1638 or very early in 1639 (probably the former). He was of age when listed in his father's will (proved April 1659) and could not have been born in 1644. >> This comes from my TAG article (which should be cited) but is not what the article says. My estimate of Samuel's birth date ("say [less precise than 'circa'] 1638") is based on three factors: (1) Sarah Redway was about 18 when Samuel married her, in 1660 (if born in 1644, he would have been no more than 16); (2) if Samuel had been as far from adulthood in Dec. 1658—the latest his father's will could have been written (it is dated with only the day and month) —as the 1644 birth year claimed for him by Amos B. Carpenter would have made him, his receipt of the property his father left him would almost certainly have been conditioned upon his coming of age (this is not the same as saying he had come of age when his father's will was made [the will's probate date is irrelevant to this issue]); and (3) it is reasonable to assume that he was the next son born after the death of the first Samuel, at Shalbourne in 1637 (see TAG 70[1995]: 195-97). << 513. Sarah Readaway was born 1642 in Rehoboth, Bristol, MA. She died 29 Apr 1712 in Rehoboth, Bristol, MA and was buried in Rehoboth, Bristol, MA. >> Sarah, eldest child of James1 Redway, was born about 1642, probably at Hingham, where her father had served a three-year term of indenture, beginning in mid-1637. Rehoboth was not established and settled until 1643 and 1644, respectively. The birth year is an estimate based on the probable year her father's term of indenture ended (above), the assumption that he did not marry until the following year, and the recorded date of his second child's birth (10 Dec. 1644). Sarah died on 15 July 1717 (Rehoboth VR [orig.], 2:230). (Having long ago found a number of transcrip-tion and page-reference errors in Arnold's Vital Record of Rehoboth, I have since used nothing but the original records [FHL film #562558 and #562559 (primarily the latter)]. In the case of Sarah [Redway] [Carpenter] Brooks, Arnold (p. 804) inadvertently combines her name with the date entered in the record immediately below hers, which says, "[blank] White dyed Jany 8th[,] a strainger – 1717/8." Your date of 29 April 1712 is, of course, even further off the mark.) Notes for 513. Sarah Readaway << SARAH HAD 9 SONS AND 1 DAUGHTER BY SAMUEL. AFTER HIS DEATH IN 1683 SHE MARRIED GILBERT BROOKS. See page 102 of New England Marriages Prior to 1700. NUMBER 2 MARRIAGE LISTED AS 18 JAN 1687. GILBERT IS LISTED 1621-1695. SARAH IS LISTED AS REDAWAY ON PAGE 136, READWAY ON PAGE 102, AND PARENTS LAST NAMES AS REDWAY/REDEWAY ON 617. ONE RECORD INDICATES SHE DIED BEF 1705. >> Sarah's marriage to Gilbert Brooks is recorded as 18 Jan. 1687/8 (Rehoboth VR [orig.], 1:48). << 514. Nicholas Ide Jr. was born 1620 in Ide, Devonshire, England and was christened 1624 in Ide, Devonshire, England. He died 18 Oct 1690 in Rehoboth, Bristol, MA and was buried 18 Oct 1690 in Rehoboth, Bristol, MA. Nicholas married Martha Bliss on 1647 in Springfield, Hampden, MA. >> The more respectable secondary literature pertaining to the Ide family (none is first-rate) indicates that Nicholas Jr.'s birth year is an approximation and his birthplace a presumption. There is no record to substantiate either. Qualifiers such as say, about, and/or perhaps would therefore be appropriate. The baptismal date's lack of precision makes me skeptical of it and the place associated with it. In the absence of a day and month to accompany the year, the likelihood that a record of his baptism has been found is nil. I would therefore be reluctant to present anything concerning a baptism, particularly without citing a source Nicholas Jr. was buried on 18 Oct. 1690 (Rehoboth VR, 1:87 [not 1:89, as Arnold (p. 840) has it]); there is no death record. That Nicholas Ide and Martha Bliss married at Springfield in 1647 is a fabrication and a confused one at that. There were two, contemporary Thomas Blisses, one of Rehoboth (d. there between 7 Oct. 1647 [will] and 21 Oct. 1647 [inventory]), the other of Hartford (d. there shortly before 14 Feb. 1650/1; his wife was Margaret Hulins [TAG 52[1976]: 193-97, 60[1984]: 202]). At least one of the latter Thomas's children was living at Springfield by 1646, and others followed. Thomas of Rehoboth and his children, on the other hand, never resided at Springfield. No daughter Martha is recorded for either man. (Two of the more reliable secondary sources pertaining to these men and their families are Donald L. Jacobus and Edgar R. Waterman, Hale, House and Related Families [1952], pp. 476-80, and Aaron T. Bliss, Genealogy of the Bliss Family in America, 3 vols. [1982] [hereinafter Bliss Family], 1:27-37.) Notes for 514. Nicholas Ide Jr. INFO PER NEW ENGLAND MARRIAGES PRIOR TO 1700 (974.0 V25t) 1985. PAGE 409. IYDE, NICHOLAS ( -1690) & MARTHA [BLISS?] ( -NOV 1676); B 1647; REHOBOTH. IYDE = IDE. Torrey's New England Marriages Prior to 1700 is essentially an index of the genealogical literature and is no more accurate than the secondary sources he consulted. You will note the question mark after Martha's surname, indicating uncertainty—with good reason (see below). The brackets mean that the surname was not derived from a marriage record. "B 1647" refers to the birth year of their first known child. << SEE: Daggett and Allied Familes, page 121: He was broought to america by his step father, Thomas Bliss and his mother. Children listed in that record. SEE: Also: Rehoboth, MA Vital Records, Page 649. >> That Thomas Bliss was Nicholas's stepfather is correct. It is this fact that provides the basis for concluding that Nicholas's wife Martha was not Thomas Bliss's daughter (see below). << 515. Martha Bliss was christened 8 Dec 1622 in Daventry, Northamptonshire, England. She died 3 Nov 1676 in Rehoboth, Bristol, MA and was buried 3 Nov 1676 in Rehoboth, Bristol, MA. >> The reference in Thomas Bliss's will to "my sonninlaw Nicolas Ide," seems to indicate that Ide had married Bliss's daughter. This, however, is not the case. With his first wife, Dorothy Wheatlie, Bliss had seven known children (baptized 1615-1626) of whom none was named Martha (Bliss Family, 1:36). Of these seven, Bliss's will, dated "the seventh day of the eighth month [October] 1647," names only three; it never-theless mentions "my fouer Children" (Plymouth Colony Wills, 1:67 [will], 68 [inventory, dated "the 21 of the eighth month [Oct.] 1647"]). The will refers to Bliss's surviving daughters' husbands in association with their respective wives: "my eldest Daughter [Elizabeth] and her husband Thomas Willmore [i.e., Wilmarth]" and "my Daughter Mary and her husband Nathaneell harmon." "[S]onninlaw" Nicholas Ide, by contrast, is men-tioned only in relation to Ide's son "Nathaneell." While these facts are significant in their own right, they become all the more so when it is understood that the term son-in-law was commonly used at this time to mean stepson. Taken as a whole, the evidence is clear: Nicholas Ide was Thomas Bliss's stepson (the fourth of his "fouer Children"), not the husband of a nonex-istent Bliss daughter Martha. This interpretation is confirmed by the petition of "Nicolas Hyde" to the Plymouth Colony General Court, 7 June 1648, "for a childs portion of the estat[e] of Thomas Blisse, desseased" (Nathaniel B. Shurtleff and David Pulsifer, eds., Records of the Colony of New Plymouth in New England [1620-1691], 12 vols. in 10 [Boston, 1855-61], 2:126 [micro-fiche 2/2, FHL set #6046866]). Nicholas's mother and Thomas Bliss were each other's second spouses. Die-hards who might argue that Nicholas married his stepsister should recall that there is no record of Thomas Bliss's having had a daugh-ter Martha; New England colonists, moreover, would have considered such a marriage as bordering on incest. (If you incorporate this material into your work, I would appreciate your crediting me at least with having introduced you to it. Aaron T. Bliss [Bliss Family, 1:36] reaches the same conclusion, but I have modified [for the better, I think] the supporting argument and have supplied primary-source citations.) Based on the above, the only appropriate reference to Thomas Bliss in this Carpenter genealogy is as the second husband of Nicholas Ide's mother (no. 1029). Numbered entries for Thomas Bliss and his entire ancestry are inappropriate and should be removed. Nicholas Jr.'s wife Martha's maiden name is unknown. The child of Thomas Bliss baptized at Daventry on 8 Dec. 1622 was his son Nathaniel (Bliss Family, 1:36). Martha (_____) Ide was buried at Rehoboth on 3 Nov. 1676 (Rehoboth VR [orig.], 1:53a); there is no death record. << 1024. William Carpenter Capt. was born 23 May 1605 in of, Wiltshire, England. He died after 21 Apr 1659 in W.P., Rehoboth, Bristol, MA and was buried before 7 Feb 1659 in Newman Cem., East Providence, Providence, RI. William married Abigail Briant on 28 Apr 1625 in ShalbourneParish, Wiltshire, England. >> So far as I know, there is no documentary basis for the day and month you present for William Carpenter's birth. The only record permitting even an approximation of the year (ca. 1605) is the Bevis passenger list, dated 2 May 1638 and giving his age as 33. William's death is recorded as 7 February 1658 (Rehoboth VR [orig.], 1:50). Although the surrounding entries do not permit a definite conclusion that this represents Old Style (Julian calendar) dating, the like-lihood of it makes it proper for the year to be presented as 1658[/9?]. His will was probated on 21 April 1659 (Plymouth Colony Wills, 2:1:80, 83). What does "W.P." stand for? Notes for 1024. William Carpenter Capt. << NOTE: A farmer by trade. A Freeman of Weymouth 13 May 1640 and of Rehoboth 28 Mar 1645. >> Amos B. Carpenter (p. 38) gives 28 March 1645 as the date on which William Carpenter was admitted an inhabitant of Rehoboth and the following June as when he became a Plymouth Colony freeman. Rehoboth townsmen did meet on "The 28th of the 3 month [May, not March] 1645," but William Carpenter's name does not appear in the record of that meeting nor does the matter of admitting inhabitants (Rehoboth Town Meetings, 1:40). (This is not surprising: William was among the 58 original Rehoboth proprietors desig-nated in 1643; there is no reason for him to have been admitted an inhabitant in 1645.) But concerning the second, more important event, author Carpenter is correct: William (previously a Massachusetts Bay Colony freeman from Weymouth) was indeed admitted a Plymouth Colony freeman from Rehoboth on 4 June 1645 (Shurtleff and Pulsifer, eds., Records of the Colony of New Plymouth in New England, 2:84). << BIRTH: Probably in Wiltshire. He spent time in Wherwell (Whirlwell or Horwell). Born 23 or 25 (in some records) May 1605. CHR: 1611 in Somerset per one record. This is about 150 miles away, however and may have belonged to another. >> He was only briefly at Wherwell (probably less than three months) prior to emigrating, in 1638 (TAG 70:195). Again, I know of no record (an unreferenced secondary-source item is insufficient) to support the day(s) and month you present. What, please, is (are) your source(s)? The Somersetshire data (from Nettlecombe and Ilchester) circulating primarily in connection with so-called Richard of Amesbury (father of William Carpenter of Providence/Pawtuxet and perhaps uncle of William of Rehoboth) almost certainly do not apply to him. Until I see supporting evidence, I regard all the Somer-set data as irrelevant to the Marden/Amesbury/Shalbourne/Wherwell Carpenters. I find no numbered items pertaining to Richard of Amesbury or his son, William of Providence/Pawtuxet, in your online material. May I assume they appear on the CD? If so, I'd like to know what you attribute to them as to dates, places, ancestry of the latter's wife, etc. << DEATH: 7 Feb 1658/59 in Rehoboth per some records. However this was the date his will was proven. See book note below. >> It is William's Rehoboth death record, not his Plymouth Colony probate record, which says 7 Feb. 1658 (i.e., 1658[/9?]) (Rehoboth VR, 1:50). << Some records given Abigail Sales (Searles) as wife and others Abigail Bennett, Ralph his step-brother is also listed as a spouse to Abigail Bennett. It is likely that this Williiam was married at least twice. Abigail Bennett died in 1687 in Rehoboth. If this is true the first three kids are AS and others to AB. In at least one record, Abigail Briant (Bryant) is listed as spouse. If she was a spouse, she would have been number one or one of the Abigails above under a married name? FOUND!!! >> Since most of this has been thoroughly refuted and the remainder clarified, why not delete this entire paragraph? << MARRIAGE: Marriage record in the Bishops' Transcripts at Shalbourne (administered by Wiltshire then but actually in Berkshire today) indicates he and Abigail "Briante" were married there on 28 April 1625. Per American Genealogist, whole number 280, Vol. 70, No. 4 October 1995. >> The Bishop's Transcripts were/are not at Shalbourne but of Shalbourne parish records and were sent from the Shalbourne Parish Church to the Bishop of the Sarum diocese, at Sarum (Salisbury), Wiltshire. (They are presently held at the Wiltshire Record Office, Trowbridge.) The church, however, was in the Berkshire part of Shalbourne Parish, which straddled the Wiltshire-Berkshire line even then (see TAG 70:194, note 5). << CHILDREN: Many researchers try to put a Ephraim (b. 25 April 1651) in this family but this is in error. See the grandchild of this William, through his son named William, for the Ephraim(s) born 25 April 16XX. Many researchers say that Abraham (b. 9 Feb 1643) is in this family in error also. Yet no other individual comes close to birth or baptisim date. In the children sequence he fits and most likely died young. >> There was no Abraham. William and Abigail's son Abiah was the only Carpenter child born on 9 April (not Feb.) 1643 (see TAG 70:200-203). The original Weymouth record of his birth says "2m"—i.e., second month of the Julian calendar, which was April, not February (see ibid., 204). << Per "GENEALOGICAL & FAMILY HISTORY OF WESTERN NEW YORK," LEWIS 1912, Page 1253 Much detail given: Will dated 21 Apr 1659, Proved 7 Feb 1659, and yes they appear backwards. Will done in 1658? He married in England, Abigail ? who died 22 Feb, 1687. *On page 1318: His birth is listed as 25 May 1605. Records show he was a fine writer, a man of affairs, possessed of much ability. >> The death and probate records, as you present them, do not simply appear backwards; they are backwards (see above). Why retain information so clearly mistaken? It can only serve to confuse. Abigail's burial (not death) date is recorded as 22 Feb. 1686/7 (Rehoboth VR [orig.], 1:57). Again, I know of no documentary basis for the day and month given above for William's birth. << OTHER INFORMATION INCLUDES BUT NOT LIMITED TO: DEPUTY TO THE GENERAL COURT FROM WEYMOUTH IN 1641-43 AND FROM REHOBOTH IN IN 1645, CONSTABLE IN 1641. HE WAS A CLOSE FRIEND TO GOVERNOR WILLIAM BRADFORD, WHO MARRIED HIS COUSIN ALICE CARPENTER. HE BOUGHT THE AREA NOW CALLED REHOBOTH (8 MILES SQUARE) FROM THE INDIANS. PROPRIETORS' CLERK FROM 1643-1649. CONTRIBUTED TOWARD THE EXPENSES OF KING PHILLIPS WAR. IN 1647, A SELECTMAN FROM REHOBOTH. HE WAS A CAPTAIN OF MILITA. >> That William Bradford's second wife, Alice (Carpenter) Southworth, was the cousin of William2 of Reho-both is far from established and is probably wrong. William was by no means the sole purchaser of the area now called Rehoboth. In fact, that area (originally called by its Indian name, Seekonk) was not where Carpenter and the other 57 original proprietors settled. The original settlement (the "Ring of the Town") was located in what is now Rumford (East Providence), Rhode Island. The eight-square-mile tract was first sold about 1638 by Sachem Metacomet (King Philip) to a group from Charlestown, whose Seekonk settlement had failed by 1640. The original 58 Rehoboth proprietors (of 1643) acquired title from them and/or Metacomet (Richard LeBaron Bowen, Early Reho-both, 4 vols. [Rehoboth, 1945-50], 4:3). The land was held in common by the proprietors, who initially distributed home lots, woodland, upland, and meadows to themselves and held the remaining common lands for grazing cattle and future divisions. In Amos B. Carpenter's words, "[i]n 1647 he was chosen as one of the directors of the Town" (p. 39). This was a town office; if equivalent to selectman, it would be appropriate to say he was a selectman at or of (not from) Rehoboth. He was in 1645 a Deputy to the General Court at Plymouth (the Colony's legislature) from Rehoboth. << NOTE: See also San Diego Family History Center book 929.273 C226c. This orignal typed copy contains descendants not in the the 1898 book. AFN LSD9-5L is apparently the same person with Baptisim date as birth date. >> Parish records, the only source of English vital statistics during this period, include baptismal records—never birth records. But since no specific parish name is associated with your 23/25 May 1605 birth/bap-tismal dates, how can either be trusted? << BOOK:- GENEALOGY: Amos B. Carpenter, A GENEALOGICAL HISTORY OF THE REHOBOTH BRANCH OF THE CARPENTER FAMILY IN AMERICA. Also known as the CARPENTER MEMORIAL. Published 1898 By: Press of Carpenter & Morehouse, Amherst, MA WILLIAM is listed as # 16. Pages 38 to 50. >> Perhaps a reiteration of the book's unreliability would be appropriate here. << 1025. Abigail Briant was born 27 May 1604 in Shalbourne, Wiltshire, England. She died 22 Feb 1686/1687 in W.P., Rehoboth, Bristol, MA and was buried Feb 1687 in W.P., Rehoboth, Bristol, MA. >> Abigail was buried on 22 Feb. 1686/7 (Rehoboth VR [orig.], 1:57); there is no death record. Again, what does "W.P." stand for? Notes for 1025. Abigail Briant << Per Bishop's Transcripts from Shalbourne Parish, Wiltshire (now Berkshire) shows that William Carpenter was married there on 28 April 1625 to Abigail "Briante," who was was baptised at Shalbourne on 27 May 1604, the daughter of John and Alice Briant. >> Since I assume you obtained this information from the TAG article and have not viewed the original records yourself, the proper citation should include at least an abbreviated reference to the article: for example, "TAG 70[1995]: 194, citing Shalbourne Parish Records (Bishop's Transcripts), Bundle 1 (FHL film #1279426, item 11)." This is not only the honest thing to do, but it also protects you from being blamed for any mistakes made in the secondary source's presentation of the primary-source data. More-over, it gives the reader the opportunity to consult the article (more accessible than the original records) for the above items and for all the other data and analyses contained therein. "[N]ow Berkshire" is incorrect. As indicated above, part of the parish was/is in Wiltshire, and part was/is in Berkshire. << Per THE SECOND BOAT research notes dated May 1980 (vol.1 No. 1) page 15 by Harry Rogers "suggests" that Abigail was the daughter of WILLIAM BENNETT of Sway, whose will made in 1630 and proven in 1638 (he was buried 20 Aug 1638) names sons-in-law RALPH CARPENTER and WILLIAM CARPENTER, but only RALPH served as an excutor, making some researchers believe the missing Carpenter was the William who sailed on the BEVIS in 1638. (IE the father William b. 1576). >> Since this has been thoroughly refuted, why not delete it? Retaining information known to be invalid is at best a distraction and at worst confusing. << See REF: B.B. TOPP, Carpenter Chronicles #24, Nov 1995: Abigail, brn aft 1606, and died 22 Feb. 1686. Upon the death of her husband William Carpenter she received his Bible and other books. Two hundred pounds of sugar, the room the testator lodges inn with the chamber over it; and "libertie to come to the fier to do her occations." She got a meadow near the house, a way to the swamp, a supply of corn and the cloth in the house "toward clothing herself and children". With her herd of swine that she hath to serve towards housekeeping. Abigail was named sole executric of the will, with Richard Bowin, John Allin and "my brother Carpenter" to help her. Each year date and the inventory was taken 21 Feb 1658 or 1659. >> If you retain the first sentence, inserting "(sic)" after 1606 would be appropriate. We know she was bap-tized in 1604. Your last sentence is unclear ("Each year date"?). The date on which William's estate inventory was taken is written at the beginning of the record of it as 21 February 1658 (Plymouth Colony Wills, 2:1:84). Since this probably represents Old Style (Julian calendar) dating, the year can properly be stated with a tentative double date of 1658[/9?]. But "1658 or 1659" implies that it was one or the other, rather than both (based on the overlapping of Julian and Gregorian calendars between 1 January and 24 March). << NAME: Some records list her as Abigail Briant (Bryant), this is correct. >> Only her baptismal and marriage records contain her full name, only the latter connects her to William Carpenter, and neither spells her surname Bryant. If by records you mean secondary sources, the 1995 TAG article, citing the Shalbourne records, was the first to present Abigail's true identity. Any others that do so are simply repeating that article. Not only do you seem to be using the word records when you mean secondary sources, but even if you were using it correctly, "some records" is vague and overly general. << 1026. James REDEWAY was born about 1615/1616 in Dublin, Dublin, Ireland. He died 28 Oct 1676 in Rehoboth, Bristol, MA and was buried in Rehoboth, Bristol, MA. James married Mary Whipple about 1642 in Rehoboth, Bristol, MA. >> An estimated birth year of "say [not 'about'] 1616"—based on the fact that the average colonial New Eng-land man married at about age 25—is appropriate. (The best estimate of James's year of marriage is 1641 [see pp. 1-2].) For the proper uses of circa/about and say, see Donald Lines Jacobus, Genealogy as Pastime and Profession, 2d ed. (Baltimore, 1968), p. 109, and/or Robert Charles Anderson, The Great Migration Begins: Immigrants to New England 1620-1633, Vol. 1 (Boston, 1995), pp. xx-xxi. Although Redway was the servant of a Dublin stationer when he arrived at Hingham in the summer of 1637, there is no evidence that he was born in Dublin (see Bowen, Early Rehoboth, 1:124-25). Not a single Redway (or its variants) is found in Dublin censuses or other contemporary records of the city. The obitu-ary of descendant George7 Redway (b. 1835) gives immigrant James's origin as Devonshire, England, where, as it happens, his original surname, Reddaway, and its variants are most highly concentrated (see Medina County [Ohio] Gazette, 7 Dec. 1923; IGI, Redway listings for United Kingdom). James1 Redway was buried at Rehoboth on 31 March 168[worn] (Rehoboth VR [orig.], 1:56a); his estate inventory, dated 14 May 1684, calls him "lately Deceased" (Plymouth Colony Wills, 4:2:72, will dated 26 July 1677, proved 4 June 1684). The death date you present was the burial date of his son James2 (see Rehoboth VR [orig.], 1:54a; Plymouth Colony Wills, 3:2:77, div. of James2's estate, 7 March 1676/7). Despite intensive efforts to establish the identity of James1 Redway's wife, it remains unknown. Mary Whipple was the second wife of Capt. James3 Redway, whom she married on 14 April 1748 (Rehoboth VR [orig.], 2:266). She was probably the widow of William Whipple of Cumberland, R.I. (see Bristol Co., Mass., Probates, 10:349-50; Vital Records of Attleborough, Massachusetts, to the End of the Year 1849 [Salem, 1934], 284-85; David Jillson, "Descendants of Capt. John Whipple of Providence, R.I.," NEHG Register 32[1878]: 406). Notes for 1026. James REDEWAY << JAMES LISTED AS REDWAY/REDEWAY IN NEW ENGLAND MARRIAGES PRIOR TO 1700, PG. 617 SPOUSE'S NAME NOT READABLE. >> There is nothing to read: either the marriage record is no longer extant, or (more likely) the event was never recorded. James was married probably at Hingham, whose vital records (as with those of other Massachu-setts Bay Colony towns), were first compiled retrospectively in 1644, for events occurring through 1643 (see Great Migration Newsletter 2[1991]: 17-18, 24). That was the year the Redways settled at Rehoboth, in Plymouth Colony, thus making them unavailable at Hingham to furnish the date of their marriage and that of their daughter Sarah's birth. << A JOHN REDWAY/REDEWAY (1644-1718) MARRIED A MARY (IDY) FULLER, W SAMUEL; 27 DEC 1677; REHOBOTH. THIS IN THE SAME RECORD AS ABOVE. MOST LIKELY HIS SON. >> Torrey's New England Marriages Prior to 1700 is not a record but a secondary source (references to which reputable journals regard as unacceptable—it is essentially an index of secondary sources). The term record should be reserved for appropriate primary sources. (The Torrey item does refer to James1's son.) << BIRTH: AF has MA and Roland L. Carpenter has it has Dublin, Ireland. >> It is certainly not Massachusetts and probably not Dublin (see above). Why not delete? << !DEATH: 28 Oct 1676 per Roland L. Carpenter and 1684 per AF. >> See burial and inventory data, above. << 1027. Mary Whipple was born about 1627/1630 in Bocking, Essex, England. She died about 1654 in Rehoboth, Bristol, MA and was buried about 1654 in Rehoboth, Bristol, MA. >> A date range should be expressed with a hyphen (e.g., 1627-1630), leaving the diagonal to be used for double dates. As above, the only Mary Whipple to marry a Redway was Capt. James3 Redway's second wife (m. 14 April 1748 [Rehoboth VR, 2:266]). Not even the first name of James1's wife is known. All references to Mary Whipple and her ancestry are inappropriate and should be removed. Notes for 1027. Mary Whipple << Name blurred to point of unlegibility on records. Name used found in AF. >> Having done extensive Redway research (three articles in the NEHG Register between 1992 and 2000 and a typescript of 80+ pages), I can assure you there is no record to call illegible. << 1028. Nicholas Ide Sr. was born about 1585 in Ide, Devonshire, England and was christened about 1594/1598. He died about 1620 in Ide, Devonshire, England. Nicholas married (IDE) about 1624 in Belstone, Devonshire, England. >> Virtually nothing is known about Nicholas Ide Sr., if in fact that was the name of so-called Nicholas Ide Jr.'s father. There is no documentary evidence to support any of these dates and places. And of course the death and marriage dates you present constitute a logical impossibility. As above, a date range (I assume that is what was intended by "1594/1598") should be expressed not with a diagonal but a hyphen. Save the diagonal for use with double dates. << 1029. (IDE) was born about 1598/1602 in Ide, Devonshire, England. She died Jun 1649 in Rehoboth, Bristol, MA. >> There is no documentary evidence to support even an approximation of this woman's birth date or a place of birth. Since neither her forename nor maiden name is known, she should be presented as "_____ _____," "name unknown," " _____ (_____) (Ide) Bliss," or the like. The date of death you present is a fabrication: neither her death nor burial is recorded. That she is not men-tioned in the will of her second husband, Thomas Bliss of Rehoboth (d. bet. 7 and 21 Oct. 1647), implies that she had predeceased him. << 2048. William Carpenter of Wherwell was born 1576 in Horwell, Hampshire, England and was christened in of Dilwyn, , , England. He died 1638 in at sea or near, Weymouth, Norfolk, MA. William married Alice about Aug 1604 in , Wiltshire, England. >> As with his son, William2 of Rehoboth, this man's birth year is approximate, based on his age, 62, as re-ported on the Bevis passenger list, dated 2 May 1638. To avert the impression that a 1676 birth year is certain, it should be preceded by ca. or about. If you insist on using the Bevis passenger list's spelling of his last English residence, you can avert confu-sion by rendering it thus: "Horwell [sic, Wherwell]." This is a moot point, however, since there is no evidence whatsoever that William or his family had ever lived at Wherwell until shortly before emigrating, in 1638. It appears that he had not been at Shalbourne as long as his son, who married there in 1625, but longer than at Wherwell (see TAG, 70:194). Previous to perhaps 1634, his whereabouts are unknown (ibid.). If he was in fact the son of Robert of Marden (which has not been proved), his birthplace may have been there. Since William's stay at Wherwell was so short, it might be more appropriate to refer to him as William of Shalbourne. What is the evidence of his being from Dilwyn? I am aware only of unsubstantiated secondary-source pronouncements. If christened there, what was the date and what identifies him as the correct William Carpenter? "In 1921, by a copy from the records of the Parish of Dilwyn, Hereford, of all the Carpenter entries back to 1559, it is conclusively proven that no William Carpenter was born there in 1576 … ." (Herbert F. Seversmith, Colonial Families of Long Island, New York, and Connecticut, 5 vols. [Washing-ton, D.C., 1939-58], 2:570, quoting J[oseph] Hatton Carpenter, "The Carpenter Family of England and the United States," Utah Genealogical and Historical Magazine, Vol. 16 [1925]). While there is no record of this man after his appearance on the 1638 Bevis passenger list, to say that he died that year is highly speculative. That he fails to appear in Weymouth or Mass. Bay Colony records—as does his son, as early as 1640—does not to constitute evidence of his having died by then. We may assume only that if he had died after 1643, his burial record would probably have been entered in Rehoboth Vital Records, which begin the next year—particularly since his son was then the town clerk. If I had it to do over, I would revise my statement that "he died probably during the voyage or shortly after his arrival in New England" to read, "he died probably either during the voyage or at or near Weymouth, before 1644" (see TAG 70:203). There is (1) no basis for saying where or when William married, (2) only scant circumstantial evidence suggesting that the Alice Carpenter buried at Shalbourne in 1637[/8] was his wife, and (3) none whatsoever that she was the mother of his children (which is not to say she was not). You give unwarranted certainty to my remarks as to the possibility that the Alice Carpenter buried at Shalbourne three months before William1's emigration was his wife "(though not necessarily William2's mother)" (see TAG 70:194-95). All Carpenter ancestry beyond this point is strictly conjecture and has no business being presented as anything more. Notes for 2048. William Carpenter of Wherwell << NOTE: William came to America in 1638 in the ship "Bevis" with his son. He returned to England and died there. Per 1898 Book. A carpenter by trade? HOWEVER . . . The American Genealogist, number 280, Vol. 70, No. 4 October 1995 indicates he died during the voyage to New England in the Bevis or shortly thereafter. While many records profess his return to England, no record has been found to prove this. >> He could have died as late as 1643 (see above). << NOTE: Marriage date and children seem to indicate two marriages. First one about 1598? Second in 1605. Yet another record indicates that William married Mary Batt in 1595 at Old Salisbury Parish. The 1605 date was probably for Alice who was buried in Shalbourne. Different Carpenter histories seems to only allow for one marriage, but two seems the case. any corrections on this line has been made due to newer data being found (like wills, marriages et cetera). >> This passage is full of speculations and lacks internal consistency. What marriage date? None is known. What children? His only known child is William of Rehoboth (no. 1024). The William Carpenter – Mary Batt marriage occurred at St. Thomas the Martyr, Salisbury, 18 April 1605 ("Marriages at Salisbury, St. Thomas, 1570-1812," in W. P. W. Phillimore, ed., Wiltshire Parish Registers, Marriages, vol. 5 [London, 1907], pp. 1-134 at – [sorry]; FHL film #496691, item 4). Although a Christo-pher Batt was a fellow passenger of the Carpenters on the Bevis in 1638, Batt family records indicate that he and Mary "would be no more than distant cousins" (NEHG Register 14[1860]: 336; David Kendall Martin, FASG, citing NEHG Register, Vol. 51 [1897], in letter to me, dated 16 March 1998). While the possibility remains that William of Shalbourne and Wherwell was the man who wed Mary Batt, there is no evidence to confirm it—none. What 1605 date? The only documented 1605 marriage date of possible relevance is that of the Carpenter-Batt marriage at Salisbury. How, then, does Alice come to be William's wife that year? As to her ever having been William's wife, see the previous page. << BOOK- GENEALOGY: PER "GENEALOGICAL & FAMILY HISTORY OF WESTERN NEW YORK" LEWIS, 1912: PAGE 1252, 53: ...was born in England in 1576. He came to America with his wife and son William, in the ship "Bevis," in 1638, and returned in the same ship to England. He was a resident of London. PAGE 1318: ..., third son of William Carpenter, born 1576, was a Carpenter by trade and resided in London. He rented tenements and gardens in Houndsditch. Being a Dissenter, he was driven to Whirwell to escape persecution, and took the opprotunity to join his sons in emigrating to America. He was not contented on this side, however, and returned to England in the ship which brought him. >> So much of this is wrong or speculative that its retention can only serve to confuse. << BOOK- GENEALOGY: Amos B. Carpenter, A GENEALOGICAL HISTORY OF THE REHOBOTH BRANCH OF THE CARPENTER FAMILY IN AMERICA. Also known as the CARPENTER MEMORIAL. Published 1898 By: Press of Carpenter & Morehouse, Amherst, MA This William's father is listed as William born about 1540 in the CM, but this is wrong. Wills and deeds prove Robert as the father. >> In that Amos B. Carpenter is wrong on this, why retain it? While Amos Carpenter's contention that this William's father was a London carpenter (small c) has been refuted, it is simply not true that "wills and deeds prove Robert as the father." Nothing has been proved. The will of Robert of Marden raises only the possibility that this William was his son. Geographic prox-imity (of Marden, Amesbury, Shalbourne, and Wherwell) and matching names (William and Richard Carpenter are hardly distinctive) do not begin to constitute adequate evidence. Robert's will "proves" only that he had sons named William and Richard. It does not prove that they were the respective fathers of William of Rehoboth and William of Providence/Pawtuxet, nor am I aware of anything that does. As I am repeatedly moved to ask, "Where's the proof?" When Robert died, his son Richard inherited a half-interest in the residue of his estate ("movable and unmovable"), which may or may not have included land (it is never mentioned) (Prerogative Court of Canterbury, Registered Wills, Huddleston, Vol. 109 [1607], folio 42 [FHL film #92029]). He presumably received the remainder upon the death of Robert's widow, Elinor (see ibid.). While it is always possible that, before their deaths, Robert and/or Elinor sold land to one or more of Robert's sons (it is not certain that Elinor was their mother), early English land records are far scarcer than probate records. Moreover, Robert's will refers to him as "husbandman." Whereas a yeoman was a farmer who worked his own land, a husbandman (narrowly defined) was a tenant farmer. Can you identify a deed that bears on this matter? << MARR PLACE: Old Salisbury Parish, England. >> There were four Anglican churches in Salisbury Parish in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. The one at which the marriage of William Carpenter (whoever he may have been) and Mary Batt occurred was St. Thomas the Martyr (see previous page). But as to this William, the identity of his wife/wives—let alone the date(s) and place(s) of his marriage(s)—is unknown. If Alice was in fact William's wife (it is only a possibility), there is no basis whatsoever for giving Salisbury as their place of marriage. << MISC: Marden and Cheriton Parishes, Wherwell in Wiltshire were Puritan strongholds. Rev. Stephen Bachiler and Richard Dummer (who was on the Bevis in 1638) were actively engaged in persuading religious dissenters to join them in New England with their Plough Company. This includes William Carpenter. >> There is no Cheriton Parish in Wiltshire. Perhaps you mean Charlton, which is near Marden. Wherwell—in Hampshire, not Wiltshire—was certainly a Puritan stronghold. What, please, is your source for saying that Marden and Cheriton (sic, Charleton) were also? To declare that "[t]his includes William Carpenter" is pure speculation. << 2049. Alice was born about 1580 in of, Salisbury, Wiltshire, England. She died 25 Jan 1637/1638 in Shalbourne, Wiltshire, England. >> It is not certain that Alice Carpenter had been William's wife. Since her age at death is not known, on what grounds do you give her a birth year, even an approximate one? Alice was buried on 25 Jan. 1637[/8]. Expressing the year in this manner indicates that the parish record has it as 1637 but that other evidence (in this case, surrounding entries) indicates that Old Style (Julian calendar) dating was used. As discussed on page 1, repeating the first three digits is misleading and con-trary to accepted practice. Notes for 2049. Alice << SEE: The American Genealogist, number 280, Vol. 70, No. 4 October 1995 indicates that an Alice Carpenter died in Shalbourne on the date indicated. She was probably his second wife. Shallbourne is now in Berkshire but at the time of Alice was a parish in Wiltshire. >> The TAG article says the following: "While she may have been an unmarried sister or daughter of Wil-liam1, his having emigrated with his son only three months after her death suggests [emphasis added] that she had been his wife (though not necessarily William2's mother)." To paraphrase this as "she was prob-ably his second wife" is a distortion. Since the sixteenth century, at least, Shalbourne Parish has been situated partly in Wiltshire and partly in Berkshire (TAG 70:194, note 5). << 2050. John Briant was born about 1580 in Shalbourne, Wiltshire, England. He married Alice about 1604 in , Wiltshire, England. >> The only appropriate words in the previous sentence are "John Briant … married Alice." All the rest is pure speculation. Without knowing Abigail (Briant) Carpenter's place in the birth order, we cannot even begin to estimate her parents' birth and marriage dates. And no clue has been found as to John and wife Alice's respective places of birth. << 2051. Alice was born about 1580 in , Wiltshire, England. >> Again, all but "Alice" is pure speculation. See immediately preceding remarks. << 4096. Robert Carpenter of Marden was born about 1545 in , Wiltshire, England. He died 1607 in Marden, Wiltshire, England. Robert married Eleanor Carpenter about 1575 in , , England. >> On what grounds do you present Robert's birth year as "about 1545"? His will—dated 12 January 1606[/7?] and proved 21 May 1607 (he died between these dates)—provides only very general evidence as to his age at death: it mentions (among others) one grandchild and indicates that neither of his daughters was married (Prerogative Court of Canterbury, Registered Wills, Huddleston, Vol. 109 [1607], folio 42 [FHL film #92029]). This information is as compatible with a birth year of 1555 as with one of 1545. And since there is only the possibility (no proof) that so-called William of Wherwell was his son, it is inapprop-riate to work backward from William's approximate birth year (1576) in estimating Robert's date of birth or marriage. The claim that Robert's only known wife, "Elinor" (as spelled in his will and her burial record), was a Carpenter cousin derives from a misinterpreted term in the will of Isabell (Stockham [not Storke]) Carpenter of Marden (dated 20 May [proved 5 8th mo. (Oct.)] 1596), who is mistakenly thought to have been Elinor's mother. The passage in Isabell's will establishing her probable maiden name as Stockham (English genealogist Harry Rogers misread it as Storke) is this: Isabell "bind[s] mye Brother Edwarde Stockeham to see payed" 20 shillings to her "cosyn [i.e., niece] Susan Bishoppe" (Archdeaconry Court of Sarum, Original Wills, box 16-18 C [1552-1630], 5 Oct. 1596 [FHL film #97436]). (It is unlikely that Edward was her brother-in-law: she makes a bequest directly to "mye Sister Agnys Bishoppe" and presum-ably would have done so to Edward Stockham's wife if she had been Elinor's sister.) Isabell also leaves money or goods to "William Carpenter ... the Sonn of Robarte Carpenter," "my godsonn Rycharde Carpenter," and to Charles, "Eadye"/"Eadie," and "Alyce" Carpenter. She bequeathed the resi-due of her estate and bestowed executorship of it "unto mye Sonn in lawe Robarte Carpenter." It is here that the misinterpretation occurs: in the same way that cousin commonly referred during this period to a different relative from that denoted by the word today (see previous paragraph), son-in-law then typically meant stepson. Isabell was thus not Robert's wife's mother but his stepmother. Consistent with this inter-pretation is Isabell's failure to name Elinor in her will. There is consequently no basis for assuming Elinor was Robert's cousin and attributing to her the maiden name Carpenter. The will of Robert Carpenter of Marden (dated 12 Jan. 1606) names, among others, brother Richard, sons William and Charles, and daughters Edith and Alice. That these five are the same persons whose names also appear in Isabell's will is virtually certain: the size of these identical name combinations is too large for it to be otherwise, and there is no conflicting evidence. And tending to confirm that the Robert Carpen-ter named by Isabell became the 1606 testator is that two of the witnesses to Isabell's will, Nicholas Henton and James Clarke, also witnessed Robert's will. Thus if Isabell had been Elinor's mother, then Robert's children William, Charles, Edith/Eadie/Eadye, and Alice/Alyce would have been Isabell's natural grand-children. Yet her will uses no terminology indicating (or even implying) that her Carpenter legatees are related to her by birth. Also supporting the proposition that Isabell was Robert's stepmother is that she did not appoint brother Edward Stockham as her executor. If Robert Carpenter had been her son-in-law (in the modern sense), it is likely she would have named an executor to whom she was more closely related. Of course Isabell's having been Robert's stepmother means she was the widow of Robert's father, William of Marden, who had died between 21 Dec. 1586 (will) and 14 April 1587 (probate). And in the same way that Isabell, early in her will, names "William Carpenter … the Sonn of Robarte Carpenter," William, early in his, mentions son "Robert Carpenter's eldest sonne Willm" (Archdeaconry Court of Sarum, Registered Wills, Vols. 5-8 [1556-1613], 7:71 [FHL film #994488]). Isabell names "mye Sonn in lawe Robarte Carpenter" her executor; William makes "my sonne Robert Carpenter" his executor. Isabell names as her overseer "John Bekingham Clarcke [sic] vicar of marden"; among the witnesses to William's will is "Johens Bekingham Vicar." Despite all the above evidence pointing to Isabell as the widow of William of Marden (though not the mother of his sons Robert and Richard and perhaps not of their siblings), William's will refers to "my Welbeloved Wife Elizabeth [emphasis added]." This apparent contradiction, however, can be explained by the interchangeability in England at the time of the names Elizabeth and Isabel. Based on a common derivation from the Hebrew Elisheba ("God's oath"), Isabel was a variant form of Elizabeth (Alfred J. Kovatch, The Jonathan David Dictionary of First Names [Middle Village, N.Y., 1980], pp. 355, 384). (The early French equivalent of Elizabeth was Isabelle; to this day, the Spanish translation of Elizabeth is Isabel.) It would therefore not have been considered strange for an Englishwoman named Elizabeth to have used the name Isabel(l) and to have been known by either or both names. (This entire discussion represents my own analysis. If you incorporate it into your work, I would appreciate your crediting me as its originator.) Notes for 4096. Robert Carpenter of Marden << Robert was a well-to-do sheep proprietor. >> Robert's will indicates he was not poor, but "well-to-do" may be an overstatement. His specific monetary bequests totaled £86 15s. 4d.; bequests of specific goods totaled 30 sheep, two cows, one heifer, and one bushel of barley. His remaining "goods, movable and unmovable," which he left to wife Elinor and son Richard, are not itemized. Son John's inheritance (£10) was to be paid when his apprenticeship, presum-ably in a trade, was finished. These facts lead me to describe Robert more cautiously, as a "moderately prosperous husbandman or sheepman." << WILL: His 1607 will lists his wife, who was his cousin Eleanor Carpenter, their children (William, Richard, John, Charles, Robert, Edith, and Alice. A grandson named William and a brother named Richard. He bequeathed money Salibury Cathedral (Old Sarum), which is added evidence for his descent from Vicar Richard Carpenter who had served as Vicar General to the Bishop of Salisbury. He also bequeathed certain lands to his oldest son William and grandson William as well as to his son Richard Carpenter. This Will, copy now at the Carpenter Museum in Rehoboth, MA, is the only one ever found in England that agrees with all the proven facts about the American Carpenter Family. The success in proving this lineage after 300 years of failure was achieved through the superlative work of English Genealogist Harry F. Rogers of Abington, England. >> The will is dated 12 Jan. 1606; it was proved on 21 May 1607. Elinor's maiden name is not known. As the previous page's discussion indicates, there is no evidence that she was Robert's cousin and therefore no reason to assume her maiden name was Carpenter. Elinor's having been Robert's widow does not guarantee that she was the mother of his children. That Robert gave 12 pence to the cathedral church of Sarum (Salisbury) indicates nothing more than con-ventional Anglican piety. It was a common gesture, and the amount is extremely modest. The only items of evidence of which I am aware underlying the speculation (no matter how it is couched, that is all it is) that Robert's agnate great-grandfather was Vicar Richard Carpenter are these: (1) Richard is said to have been Vicar of Ramsbury (about 16 air miles NW of Marden) and Vicar General to the Bishop of Salisbury (about 16 air miles S of Marden); (2) his will is said to mention a son Robert; and (3) the agnate grand-father of Robert of Marden is said (but not proved) to be Robert of Eskydmore Upton (i.e., Upton Scuda-more, about 15 air miles SW of Marden, 20 miles NW of Salisbury, and about 30 SW of Ramsbury) (see The Carpenter Family News-Journal 1[1971]:3:n.p. [microfiche 3 of 18, FHL set #1047153]). Even if every "said to" is a fact, this does not begin to constitute adequate evidence that Vicar Richard Carpenter was a direct ancestor of Robert of Marden. Robert's will leaves "thirteene pounds sixe shillinges eighte pence" to son William and a heifer to grandson William; nowhere does it explicitly mention land. Harry Rogers located, copied, and analyzed the will of Robert Carpenter of Upton Scudamore and those of William, Isabell, and Robert Carpenter, all of Marden. Neither his transcriptions nor his interpretations are altogether accurate, however. The Carpenter lineage he and Raymond G. Carpenter first published in Rosemary Bachelor's The Carpenter Family News-Journal in 1971 is not proved (see microfiche 3 of 18, FHL set #1047153). << 4097. Eleanor Carpenter was born about 1545 in , Wiltshire, England. >> There are no more grounds for estimating Elinor's birth year than for Robert's. While it may be that she was born in Wiltshire, expressing it as a certainty is inappropriate. Notes for 4097. Eleanor Carpenter << Eleanor Carpenter was a cousin to her husband, Robert Carpenter. (2nd cousin, 1 generation removed with a common ancestor of William Carpenter of Marden (b. abt. 1545).) >> This is incorrect. See the discussion on pp. 12-13. Elinor Carpenter, described as a widow, was buried at Marden on 17 October 1626 (Marden Parish Records [Bishop's Transcripts], Wiltshire Record Office, Trowbridge [FHL Film #1279413]). << 8192. William Carpenter of Marden was born about 1520 in of, Wiltshire, England. He died 1587 in Marden, Wiltshire, England. William married Elizabeth Carpenter. >> William's birth year is unknown. Even substituting say for about would give the impression of a more precise calculation than is possible. William died between 21 Dec. 1586 (will) and 14 April 1587 (probate) (see Archdeaconry Court of Sarum, Registered Wills, Vols. 5-8 [1556-1613], 7:71 [FHL film #994488]). Notes for 8192. William Carpenter of Marden << WILL: His will mentions his wife, and arranged for the division of his estate amoung his grandchildren. His children mentioned were Robert, John, Richard, William, Alice, Dyke, and Maud Welling. The majority of the estate was left to Robert and a special bequest was made to Robert's oldest son, William, proving that this son, William born in 1576, was older than his brother Richard Carpenter. >> William makes specific bequests to "my Welbeloved Wife Elizabeth Carpenter[,] … Robert Carpenter's eldest sonne Willm[,] … my sonne[s] John[,] … Richard[,] … [and] Willm[,] … each of my sonnes & daughters children[,] … Willm Darke[,] … my Daughter[s] Alice Darke … [and] Maude Jenynge[,] … [and] Willm Pavy"; "[a]ll the rest of my goods moveable & unmovable unbequeathed I give to my sonne Robert Carpenter whom I make my lawfull executor" (ibid.). "Alice Dyke" and "Maud Welling" represent misreading of Robert's will by Harry Rogers (see The Carpenter Family News-Journal 1[1971]:3:n.p. [microfiche 3 of 18, FHL set #1047153]). Others have since compounded these errors by transforming "Alice Dyke … Maud Welling" into "Alice, Dyke, and Maud." The will names only two daughters—Alice Dark and Maud Jenning (modern spelling). << The Late noted genealogist Donald Lines Jacobus of New Haven, CT, after studying the English Carpenter Wills (copies), now at the Carpenter Museum, praised the expert ability of Harry F. Rogers in interpreting those wills and concurred in his belief that Harry had found the correct family in England. >> This apocryphal story is both unverifiable and hard to believe. The wills of William, Isabell, and Robert Carpenter, all of Marden, clearly relate to the same family. But many other intergenerational articulations claimed for the Carpenters remain to be demonstrated, beginning with that between so-called William of Wherwell (father of William of Rehoboth) and/or Richard of Amesbury (father of William of Providence and Pawtuxet), on the one hand, and Robert of Marden, on the other. It is therefore a waste of time (at best) to make highly questionable claims as to the ancient English and French ancestry of the aforemen-tioned William and Richard when so much remains to be confirmed for more-recent generations. << 8193. Elizabeth Carpenter was born about 1520 in of Hertford, Herefordshire, England. >> That she is called Elizabeth Carpenter in her husband's will is no reason to think that Carpenter was her maiden name. In fact, we know from her own will (as Isabell Carpenter) that her maiden name was Stockham and that she was not William's first wife. In that her will refers to William's sons Richard and Robert as her godson and "sonn-in-lawe" (i.e., stepson), respectively, it is clear that she was not the mother of either and may not have borne any of William's children. For details, see the discussion on pp. 12-13. As with her husband, Elizabeth/Isabell's birth date is unknown. Even substituting say for about would give the impression of a more precise calculation than is possible. I know of no evidence that she came from Herefordshire. What, please, is your source? Notes for 8193. Elizabeth Carpenter << Carpenter was her maiden name. >> As above, her maiden name was Stockham. << 8194. Robert Carpenter was born about 1520/1525 in of, Downton, Wiltshire, England. He married Isabella Storke about 1550 in , , England. >> Since "Isabella Storke" is actually Elizabeth/Isabell Stockham, widow of William Carpenter of Marden (see above), this man and his ancestry appear to have no place in this Carpenter genealogy. Notes for 8194. Robert Carpenter << FOUNDER: Robert Carpenter (of William of William of Homme) is concidered to be a founder of the line that produced: Eleanor who married Robert of Marden who was the grandfather of Captain William Carpenter who founded the Rehoboth, MA Branch of the Carpenter Family AND William Carpenter of Amesbury who founded the Providence (Pawtuxet), RI Branch of the Carpenter Family. >> See above. << 8195. Isabella Storke was born about 1525 in , Wiltshire, England. She died after 1590. >> Isabell/Elizabeth (Stockham) Carpenter, widow of William of Marden, died between 20 May 1596 and 5 October 1596 (see p. 12). Notes for 8195. Isabella Storke << NAME: Stork or Storke. >> There was no Isabella Storke. In copying the will of Isabell Carpenter, Harry Rogers mistakenly tran-scribed the surname of her brother Edward as Storke, rather than Stockeham (see p. 12). Others, apparently content to take his word for it, have simply repeated it, rather than consult the original will. << 16384. Robert Carpenter was born about 1495 in Upton Scudamore, Wiltshire, England. He died in of Wherwell, Hampshire, England and was buried before 25 Jun 1545 in Upton Scudamore, Wiltshire, England. Robert married Elizabeth about 1519 in , , England. >> Robert Carpenter's birthplace is unknown. His will, dated 25 June 1545, indicates he was of Eskydmore Upton (i.e., Upton Scudamore) when he died (Archdeaconry of Sarum, Registered Wills, Vols. 1-4 [1538-1566], 1:77 [FHL film #994487]). The only known Carpenter connection to Wherwell involves a brief stay there by the eventual William of Rehoboth and his family (including his father), immediately before their emigration, in 1638. It would have been a good trick if Robert had been buried before making his will. The dates presented for his birth and marriage lack proper supporting evidence and should be omitted. Most important, however, is the lack of evidence to support the assertion that Robert of Upton Scudamore was the father of William of Marden. His having named a son William in his will and resided about 15 air miles SW of Marden are insufficient to regard as probable, let alone certain, that William of Marden was his son. Where's the proof? Notes for 16384. Robert Carpenter << WILL: A husbandman who bequeathed sheep to his children: William, Thomas, John, Ambrose, Christopher, Agnes, Alice and Elizabeth Carpenter. He bequeathed money to Salisbury Cathedral where his father had been Vicar General to the Bishop of Salisbury. Will information: "Carpyntar, Robert of Eskydmore Upton; husbandman." Will dated or proved 25 June 1545. Reference Book 1 folio 77." >> Specific bequests were made to his children, named in the following order: William (eldest son), Elizabeth (eldest daughter), Thomas, John, Ambrose, Christopher, Alice, Agnes, and Elizabeth (presumably the eldest daughter again). The residue of Robert's estate (presumably the bulk of it) was left to wife Eliza-beth, who was also named executrix. While this raises the possibility that none of his children was yet of age, the will lacks any requirements as to the age at which, or length of time before which, any child is to receive his or her inheritance. As indicated previously, making a small bequest to the cathedral church of one's diocese was a common gesture of Anglican piety. Satisfactory evidence that Robert's father was Vicar Richard Carpenter has yet to be produced. For more details, see p. 14. << Raymond G. Carpenter believes that one of the sons above other than William, was the father of Alexander Carpenter of Bath, England, and Leyden, Holland, and grandfather of Alice Carpenter who married Edward Southworth in 1613 and then, after being widowed, came to America where she married Gov. William Bradford of the Plymouth Colony in 1623. However, another record (AF) indicates Alice, her father Alexander then her Grandfather William (born 1520 of Norton Cannon) then to John of Wrington (b. 1495) and James of Homme (b. 1460) and William of Hommme (b. 1440) et cetera. >> This material comes, not from records, but secondary sources. Both versions are wildly speculative. Where's the proof? << CHILD: Some records indicate an eighth child: Elizabeth Carpenter. >> If some sources indicate an eighth child, it is because the one available record, Robert's will, mentions a daughter Elizabeth as one of eight children (see above). If you meant ninth child, presumably the same Elizabeth is mentioned twice (see above). << MISC: In Wherewell, Andover, Hampshire, England is the "White Lion Inn." The Inn, which has been renovated several times in the past four hundred some years was orginally built by the Carpenters of the 1500-1600 era. There is a picture in the "Carpenter and Related Family Historical Journal", page 314, Vol. 5 in an article by John (Jack) Micheal Carpenter dated 15 Mar 1992. >> To say it does not make it so. As above, the only known Carpenter connection to Wherwell involves a brief stay there by the eventual William of Rehoboth and his family—including his father, so-called William of Wherwell—immediately before their emigration, in 1638. What is the evidence that these men's ancestors had lived there previously—particularly since the parentage of William, father of William of Rehoboth, has not been proved? Those believed to be their ancestors were Marden husbandmen, not Wherwell innkeepers. << DEATH: One record indicates he died in 1576 and not 1545. >> You again seem to be misusing the word record. The only available record is Robert's will, dated 25 June 1545. Since you know 1576 to be incorrect, why retain such a statement—particularly since you do not identify the source? << 16385. Elizabeth was born about 1500 in of, Wiltshire, England. >> There are no grounds for assigning her a birth date or place. Of course, since none of the ancestry previous to so-called William of Wherwell has been established as his, none of this really matters. General Remarks While a fertile imagination is essential to the genealogist's ability to formulate plausible hypotheses, it must be tempered by (among other things) healthy skepticism and intellectual discipline. These latter qualities are given expression in primary research, without which hypotheses remain untested, speculations pose as facts, possibilities masquerade as certainties, approximations pass as precision, and errors abound. It is intellectually dishonest and lazy to accept, let alone publish, data unconfirmed or unsupported by the examination, interpretation, and citation of original documents. The fruits of sloppy methodology cannot withstand careful scrutiny. Those who publish their findings must employ not only appropriate research methods but also a vocabulary and style that present their compilations clearly and accurately. The most exemplary genealogical research and writing are found consistently in journals such as The American Genealogist, The New England Historical and Genealogical Register, The National Genealogical Society Quarterly, The New York Genealogical and Biographical Record, and The Genealogist: all statements of fact are referenced with specific, complete citations—of primary sources, whenever possible; indexes and commercial databases are not considered legitimate sources; dates (exact and estimated) and date ranges are presented unambiguous-ly, according to accepted practice; genealogical and other terms are used according to their accepted meanings; conclusions based on circumstantial evidence are presented with rationales and supporting evidence explicitly stated; if erroneous information is included (in the text or a footnote), it is only for the purpose of explicitly refuting it; and estimates, probabilities, possibilities, and speculations—always with an evidentiary basis—are clearly identified as such. That published compilations often fail to meet these and other such standards explains why historians are generally contemptuous of genealogy. I take no pleasure in saying this, but as you must realize from the number and content of my corrections and specific remarks, your work falls well short of the aforementioned criteria. To be blunt, your exclu-sive and indiscriminate reliance on secondary sources— many of dubious reliability, some not cited—makes your staggering error rate inevitable. That some of the compilers you cite may have done primary research means little if their assertions (and yours, repeating them) are unaccompanied by supporting evidence, explicit rationales, or primary-source citations. To uncritically accept others' pronouncements is to reinforce what often turn out to be their errors. At the same time, to ignore their qualifying language and state as fact that which was expressed tentatively or as an approximation creates new distortions. You must have the expertise and courage to evaluate the quality of your sources (both primary and secondary) and the discipline to resist unwarranted revisions of what they say. The problem is compounded by, among other things, the presentation of items based on what appears to be your own guesswork. You insist, for example, on inserting certain sixteenth-century birth and marriage dates and places, despite the absence of any supporting evidence for them. While it may be tempting to fill gaps by guessing at event dates and places, you must exclude them when the evidence is not there. If some evidence exists but is not definitive, use an appropriate qualifier, such as say, about/circa, probably, or perhaps—and know the difference between the first two, for example. (It is not acceptable to present a date accompanied by say or circa/about, both of which require a calculation based on some sort of evi-dence, when there is none.) In your "Notes" sections, you seem to resist excluding any information, no matter what the source or how clearly erroneous it may be. It is as though you are unwilling to part with anything you have accumulated, so you throw it all in. Your notes are consequently cluttered with inaccurate (and sometimes conflicting) items that often are not identified as such. Although only certain (often erroneous) data make it into the text sections, you often present the various items in the related notes as if they were all of equal weight. You must have the discipline and proficiency to judge what is worth keeping and what is not. It is also in the "Notes" sections where you misrepresent certain passages from my TAG article and either invent an "illegible" record (of James1 Redway's marriage) or mischaracterize (or repeat) statements on the matter from an unnamed source. These and other distortions (as in the certainty level of dates) indicate habitual carelessness. Although I limited my examination and corrections to those sections of your work that fall within my own area of expertise, the size of my "sample" is large enough to reveal patterns—as to methods, habits of mind, data quality, etc.—that can justly be inferred to characterize the entire compilation. No extrapolation is necessary to observe this, however: What you have cobbled together contains so many instances of un-demonstrated parentage—beginning with that of so-called William of Wherwell—that it hardly matters that the ancient English and French generations are highly dubious in their own right. Until the aforementioned William's immediate ancestry has been proved—not simply asserted—any earlier ancestry you or others claim for him will remain irrelevant. This may seem harsh, but by making your compilation available for public consumption in its present form, you are doing great harm. It is disheartening to contemplate the number of naïve hobbyists— credulous, in-discriminate, and zealous consumers of second-hand data—whose own compilations are and will be infect-ed by your many mistakes and distortions, which, like viral agents (though not self- replicating), are spread through contact. But while microbes ultimately die, and epidemics subside, the impact of published inac-curacies is potentially permanent. Although I recognize the practical and personal difficulties involved, I would urge that you recall immedi-ately the CDs you have delivered (or at least warn the recipients as to the problems they contain) and cease further distribution until you have reexamined the entirety of your work (data, methods, skills, etc.) and thoroughly revised it. I would further encourage you to take the same approach with the Carpenter material on your Website: remove it until you have incorporated the corrections on pages 1-17 above (giving credit where appropriate) and have substantially revised the remainder. (If you do nothing else, I would ask that you introduce your compilation with a clear expression of its methodological shortcomings and of the ten-tative nature of ancestral claims you are unable to support.) Perhaps it would also be appropriate to post messages on GenForum's Carpenter Website and RootsWeb's Carpenter mailing list, indicating what you are doing and why. If you are for any reason unwilling to undertake these measures, perhaps you will at least assist me in making my corrections available to as broad a readership as possible. While you may find my comments painful, my intention is not to offend but only to impress upon you the gravity of this matter. I simply don't know a "nice" way of saying it. If it is any consolation, although I agree with Bruce Carpenter about the De Melun foolishness, I deplore his arrogant, bigoted attacks. (The great irony is that his assertions as to the Carpenters' pre-fourteenth-century, London-merchant-class fore-bears—based on unproven fourteenth- through sixteenth-century Carpenter ancestry—are no more support-able than your claims of which he is [properly] skeptical.) I also applaud in principle your making the CD available at cost and your great willingness to lend others a hand. I only wish the practical effects of your generosity were more positive. PAGE  PAGE 14 ////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// ///////////////////////////////////////////////