https://www.academia.edu/104680646/Governor_John_Winthrop_and_the_Ancestors_of_the_St_John_Family_of_the_Massachusetts_Bay_Colony_Draft_would_appreciate_feedback_and_suggestions_?email_work_card=title&li=0

On Tuesday, July 18, 2023 at 6:05:59 PM UTC-7, Will Johnson wrote:
> https://www.academia.edu/104680646/Governor_John_Winthrop_and_the_Ancestors_of_the_St_John_Family_of_the_Massachusetts_Bay_Colony_Draft_would_appreciate_feedback_and_suggestions_?email_work_card=title&li=0

I can verify one data point in this article
Which is that Eleanor St John "fourth daughter" married to William St John of High Leigh

This is confirmed by
https://archive.org/details/visitationofwilt00sainrich/page/36/mode/2up?q=hungerford
Vis Wilt
fourth daughter

Her father also has an M.I. on his tomb
http://books.google.com/books?id=DoIuAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA192
again identifying her as fourth daughter if we accept the order of names, as the order of birth

On Wednesday, July 19, 2023 at 8:08:54 PM UTC-7, Will Johnson wrote:
> On Tuesday, July 18, 2023 at 6:05:59 PM UTC-7, Will Johnson wrote:
> > https://www.academia.edu/104680646/Governor_John_Winthrop_and_the_Ancestors_of_the_St_John_Family_of_the_Massachusetts_Bay_Colony_Draft_would_appreciate_feedback_and_suggestions_?email_work_card=title&li=0
>
> I can verify one data point in this article
> Which is that Eleanor St John "fourth daughter" married to William St John of High Leigh
>
> This is confirmed by
> https://archive.org/details/visitationofwilt00sainrich/page/36/mode/2up?q=hungerford
> Vis Wilt
> fourth daughter
>
> Her father also has an M.I. on his tomb
> http://books.google.com/books?id=DoIuAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA192
> again identifying her as fourth daughter if we accept the order of names, as the order of birth

I noticed that I'm missing a branch in this family.
Anna St John, who is here listed as second daughter married "George Ailaif" of Grettenham, Wilt

We can recognize this name as the slightly more familiar George Ayliffe.
Anna as second daughter has to have been born 1577/1585 and we find a burial for George Ayliffe
St Mary's, Lydiard Tregoze, Wiltshire
b 8 Jun 1584
d 6 Oct 1643

in family search although they are pointing to the not completely trustworthy Findagrave
But I will accept it for the moment

I'm having difficulty finding any pedigree for the Ayliffe family however
Does anyone have one? Or Go Fish?

On Friday, July 21, 2023 at 8:53:53 AM UTC-7, Will Johnson wrote:
> On Wednesday, July 19, 2023 at 8:08:54 PM UTC-7, Will Johnson wrote:
> > On Tuesday, July 18, 2023 at 6:05:59 PM UTC-7, Will Johnson wrote:
> > > https://www.academia.edu/104680646/Governor_John_Winthrop_and_the_Ancestors_of_the_St_John_Family_of_the_Massachusetts_Bay_Colony_Draft_would_appreciate_feedback_and_suggestions_?email_work_card=title&li=0
> >
> > I can verify one data point in this article
> > Which is that Eleanor St John "fourth daughter" married to William St John of High Leigh
> >
> > This is confirmed by
> > https://archive.org/details/visitationofwilt00sainrich/page/36/mode/2up?q=hungerford
> > Vis Wilt
> > fourth daughter
> >
> > Her father also has an M.I. on his tomb
> > http://books.google.com/books?id=DoIuAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA192
> > again identifying her as fourth daughter if we accept the order of names, as the order of birth
> I noticed that I'm missing a branch in this family.
> Anna St John, who is here listed as second daughter married "George Ailaif" of Grettenham, Wilt
>
> We can recognize this name as the slightly more familiar George Ayliffe.
> Anna as second daughter has to have been born 1577/1585 and we find a burial for George Ayliffe
> St Mary's, Lydiard Tregoze, Wiltshire
> b 8 Jun 1584
> d 6 Oct 1643
>
> in family search although they are pointing to the not completely trustworthy Findagrave
> But I will accept it for the moment
>
> I'm having difficulty finding any pedigree for the Ayliffe family however
> Does anyone have one? Or Go Fish?

Never mind.
They are here
https://archive.org/details/visitationofwilt00sainrich/page/30/mode/2up?q=ayliffe

On Friday, July 21, 2023 at 8:56:38 AM UTC-7, Will Johnson wrote:
> On Friday, July 21, 2023 at 8:53:53 AM UTC-7, Will Johnson wrote:
> > On Wednesday, July 19, 2023 at 8:08:54 PM UTC-7, Will Johnson wrote:
> > > On Tuesday, July 18, 2023 at 6:05:59 PM UTC-7, Will Johnson wrote:
> > > > https://www.academia.edu/104680646/Governor_John_Winthrop_and_the_Ancestors_of_the_St_John_Family_of_the_Massachusetts_Bay_Colony_Draft_would_appreciate_feedback_and_suggestions_?email_work_card=title&li=0
> > >
> > > I can verify one data point in this article
> > > Which is that Eleanor St John "fourth daughter" married to William St John of High Leigh
> > >
> > > This is confirmed by
> > > https://archive.org/details/visitationofwilt00sainrich/page/36/mode/2up?q=hungerford
> > > Vis Wilt
> > > fourth daughter
> > >
> > > Her father also has an M.I. on his tomb
> > > http://books.google.com/books?id=DoIuAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA192
> > > again identifying her as fourth daughter if we accept the order of names, as the order of birth
> > I noticed that I'm missing a branch in this family.
> > Anna St John, who is here listed as second daughter married "George Ailaif" of Grettenham, Wilt
> >
> > We can recognize this name as the slightly more familiar George Ayliffe..
> > Anna as second daughter has to have been born 1577/1585 and we find a burial for George Ayliffe
> > St Mary's, Lydiard Tregoze, Wiltshire
> > b 8 Jun 1584
> > d 6 Oct 1643
> >
> > in family search although they are pointing to the not completely trustworthy Findagrave
> > But I will accept it for the moment
> >
> > I'm having difficulty finding any pedigree for the Ayliffe family however
> > Does anyone have one? Or Go Fish?
> Never mind.
> They are here
> https://archive.org/details/visitationofwilt00sainrich/page/30/mode/2up?q=ayliffe

Suzanne is calling the entire family line "de Port St John"
I've never seen that usage.
Can anyone point out where this came from, or when they did start calling themselves de Port ?

Just to finish up this particular family we have
John /St John/ of Lydiard Tregoz, co Wilt; Knt
d 20 Sep 1594 M.I. Lydiard Tregoz
m Lucy /Hungerford/
co-heiress of her father
d 4 Jun 1598 bur St Mary's, Lydiard Tregoze, co Wilt

I show seven children, one son, six daughters as follows
Katherine /St John/
first daughter
d 28 Mar 1633 M.I. St Mary's, Lydiard Tregoze, co Wilt
mar 1607 "26 years ago" per her own MI erected by her husband
Giles /Mompesson/ , Mp Great Bedwyn 1614; Knt 1616; W
eldest son; born 1583/4 Wiltshire
Will proved 3 Aug 1663

Anna /St John/
second daughter
mar
George /Ayliffe/ of Grettenham, co Wilt; Knt
eldest son
d 6 Oct 1643
bur St Mary's, Lydiard Tregoze, Wiltshire

Jane /St John/
third daughter
mar
Charles /Pleydell/ of Midge Hall, co Wilt; Knt 1618
d 1642

John /St John/ of Lydiard Tregoze, co Wilt; 1st Bnt 1611
Matric Trinity College 3 Apr 1601
Will 20 Sep 1648 PROB 11/205/365
[to be buried at] Lydiard Tregoz
mar
Anne /Leighton/

Eleanor /St John/
fourth daughter
mar
William /St John/ of Uchel-olau (High Light), Glamorgan
eldest son

Barbara /St John/
fifth daughter
bur 16 Sep 1672 Westminster Abbey
mar
Edward /Villiers/ , Knt
b 1585 Second son
d 7 Sep 1626 College of Younghal
bur Cork transept, St Mary's, Younghal

Lucy /St John/
b 1589
sixth and youngest daughter of her father
d 11 Oct 1659 Owthorpe, co Nott
mar 23 Oct 1615 St Anne's, Blackfriars; third wife
Allen /Apsley/ , Lt of the Tower of London; Knt
b 1557 "aet 48" in 1615; youngest son of his father; "a youth at school" at his father's death
d 24 May 1630 "in his 63rd year"

On 22-Jul-23 5:16 AM, Will Johnson wrote:
> On Friday, July 21, 2023 at 8:56:38 AM UTC-7, Will Johnson wrote:
>> On Friday, July 21, 2023 at 8:53:53 AM UTC-7, Will Johnson wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, July 19, 2023 at 8:08:54 PM UTC-7, Will Johnson wrote:
>>>> On Tuesday, July 18, 2023 at 6:05:59 PM UTC-7, Will Johnson wrote:
>>>>> https://www.academia.edu/104680646/Governor_John_Winthrop_and_the_Ancestors_of_the_St_John_Family_of_the_Massachusetts_Bay_Colony_Draft_would_appreciate_feedback_and_suggestions_?email_work_card=title&li=0
>>>>
>>>> I can verify one data point in this article
>>>> Which is that Eleanor St John "fourth daughter" married to William St John of High Leigh
>>>>
>>>> This is confirmed by
>>>> https://archive.org/details/visitationofwilt00sainrich/page/36/mode/2up?q=hungerford
>>>> Vis Wilt
>>>> fourth daughter
>>>>
>>>> Her father also has an M.I. on his tomb
>>>> http://books.google.com/books?id=DoIuAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA192
>>>> again identifying her as fourth daughter if we accept the order of names, as the order of birth
>>> I noticed that I'm missing a branch in this family.
>>> Anna St John, who is here listed as second daughter married "George Ailaif" of Grettenham, Wilt
>>>
>>> We can recognize this name as the slightly more familiar George Ayliffe.
>>> Anna as second daughter has to have been born 1577/1585 and we find a burial for George Ayliffe
>>> St Mary's, Lydiard Tregoze, Wiltshire
>>> b 8 Jun 1584
>>> d 6 Oct 1643
>>>
>>> in family search although they are pointing to the not completely trustworthy Findagrave
>>> But I will accept it for the moment
>>>
>>> I'm having difficulty finding any pedigree for the Ayliffe family however
>>> Does anyone have one? Or Go Fish?
>> Never mind.
>> They are here
>> https://archive.org/details/visitationofwilt00sainrich/page/30/mode/2up?q=ayliffe
>
> Suzanne is calling the entire family line "de Port St John"
> I've never seen that usage.
> Can anyone point out where this came from, or when they did start calling themselves de Port ?

Do you never bother to carry out research offline? Look in CP vol. xi
pp. 320-321 and you will understand that the family of Port, as known
from before the Norman conquest, started calling themselves St John from
the early 13th century, after inheriting through an heiress.

Peter Stewart

--
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG antivirus software.
www.avg.com

On Friday, July 21, 2023 at 4:20:59 PM UTC-7, Peter Stewart wrote:

> Look in CP vol. xi
> pp. 320-321 and you will understand that the family of Port, as known
> from before the Norman conquest, started calling themselves St John from
> the early 13th century, after inheriting through an heiress.
>
> Peter Stewart
>

Thanks for confirming that the odd name "de Port St John" never existed
They changed their name to St John plain and simple

On 22-Jul-23 9:40 AM, Will Johnson wrote:
> On Friday, July 21, 2023 at 4:20:59 PM UTC-7, Peter Stewart wrote:
>
>> Look in CP vol. xi
>> pp. 320-321 and you will understand that the family of Port, as known
>> from before the Norman conquest, started calling themselves St John from
>> the early 13th century, after inheriting through an heiress.
>>
>> Peter Stewart
>>
>
> Thanks for confirming that the odd name "de Port St John" never existed
> They changed their name to St John plain and simple

It is common enough for historians and genealogists to identify
family/branch connections by giving portmanteau surnames that were not
used by the people in question. If you took some trouble to read instead
of merely skimming you ought to realise this. You actually asked "when
they did start calling themselves de Port?", as if the St John surname
had come first, so that my post can hardly be said to have confirmed any
idea in your head.

Peter Stewart

--
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG antivirus software.
www.avg.com

On Friday, July 21, 2023 at 9:31:05 PM UTC-7, Peter Stewart wrote:
> On 22-Jul-23 9:40 AM, Will Johnson wrote:
> > On Friday, July 21, 2023 at 4:20:59 PM UTC-7, Peter Stewart wrote:
> >
> >> Look in CP vol. xi
> >> pp. 320-321 and you will understand that the family of Port, as known
> >> from before the Norman conquest, started calling themselves St John from
> >> the early 13th century, after inheriting through an heiress.
> >>
> >> Peter Stewart
> >>
> >
> > Thanks for confirming that the odd name "de Port St John" never existed
> > They changed their name to St John plain and simple
> It is common enough for historians and genealogists to identify
> family/branch connections by giving portmanteau surnames that were not
> used by the people in question. If you took some trouble to read instead
> of merely skimming you ought to realise this. You actually asked "when
> they did start calling themselves de Port?", as if the St John surname
> had come first, so that my post can hardly be said to have confirmed any
> idea in your head.
> Peter Stewart
>
> --
> This email has been checked for viruses by AVG antivirus software.
> www.avg.com

I'll take the part that confirms my suspicions
And ignore the part where you're a petulant snotty little bitch
Have a nice day!

On Saturday, July 22, 2023 at 5:43:02 AM UTC-7, Will Johnson wrote:
> On Friday, July 21, 2023 at 9:31:05 PM UTC-7, Peter Stewart wrote:
> > On 22-Jul-23 9:40 AM, Will Johnson wrote:
> > > On Friday, July 21, 2023 at 4:20:59 PM UTC-7, Peter Stewart wrote:
> > >
> > >> Look in CP vol. xi
> > >> pp. 320-321 and you will understand that the family of Port, as known
> > >> from before the Norman conquest, started calling themselves St John from
> > >> the early 13th century, after inheriting through an heiress.
> > >>
> > >> Peter Stewart

I use de Port-St. John intentionally to avoid confusion in the DNA project I administer and to help members keep the two main families separated. A lot of earlier researchers did not understand there were two main families and I spent 4 years unmerging the madness with an entire wall serving as a pedigree and evidence board. At one time I had over 100 pieces of paper taped together moving sub branches back and forth until the primary data matched.. I don't have time to constantly repeat that effort to explain which family belongs where. I then spent years mapping and carefully validating the lineages of each test subject to be able to confirm these branches using DNA and primary record research. It is very common for these two families to be merged and it creates a lot of confusion and conflict. On the front page of my website, I address spelling conventions. I am an IT Quality professional first and foremost and a phrase we use in this field is crap in --> crap out. I chose to put spelling conventions in place to aid search engines, to save time, and to ensure information can be understood. I have identified over 100 phonetic spellings for St. John. Using the illiteracy of others centuries before modern English was standardized to drive data quality would be the equivalent of crap in. I also know the Mewes family, the Poynings family and the Mildmay family in addition to the de Port family assumed the St. John surname. Without spelling conventions, it would be nearly impossible to map all these (and probably more) paternal lineages with Y-DNA and primary record research. It would appear we had a lot of non-paternal and socially negative events that were breaking lineages instead of documented social events pertaining to nobility titles creating new families. This would be irresponsible to put one's potential nobility title in jeopardy simply because the Y-DNA differed when other's expected one uniform family.
On my website www.stjohngenealogy.com

"Spelling Conventions

All phonetic variations of confirmed St. John who descend paternally from Ralph St. John are in this database as St. John or St. John-[surname]
All phonetic variations of confirmed St. John who descend paternally from Adam de Port are in this database as de Port-St. John"

When I have time, I update this Known Phonetic Spellings of St. John https://www.stjohngenealogy.com/getperson.php?personID=I105550454&tree=OSA0001

I hope this helps.

Suzanne St. John

On 23-Jul-23 12:06 AM, St. John Genealogy wrote:
> On Saturday, July 22, 2023 at 5:43:02 AM UTC-7, Will Johnson wrote:
>> On Friday, July 21, 2023 at 9:31:05 PM UTC-7, Peter Stewart wrote:
>>> On 22-Jul-23 9:40 AM, Will Johnson wrote:
>>>> On Friday, July 21, 2023 at 4:20:59 PM UTC-7, Peter Stewart wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Look in CP vol. xi
>>>>> pp. 320-321 and you will understand that the family of Port, as known
>>>>> from before the Norman conquest, started calling themselves St John from
>>>>> the early 13th century, after inheriting through an heiress.
>>>>>
>>>>> Peter Stewart
>
> I use de Port-St. John intentionally to avoid confusion in the DNA project I administer and to help members keep the two main families separated. A lot of earlier researchers did not understand there were two main families and I spent 4 years unmerging the madness with an entire wall serving as a pedigree and evidence board. At one time I had over 100 pieces of paper taped together moving sub branches back and forth until the primary data matched. I don't have time to constantly repeat that effort to explain which family belongs where. I then spent years mapping and carefully validating the lineages of each test subject to be able to confirm these branches using DNA and primary record research. It is very common for these two families to be merged and it creates a lot of confusion and conflict. On the front page of my website, I address spelling conventions. I am an IT Quality professional first and foremost and a phrase we use in this field is crap in --> crap out. I chose to put spelling conventions in place to aid search engines, to save time, and to ensure information can be understood. I have identified over 100 phonetic spellings for St. John. Using the illiteracy of others centuries before modern English was standardized to drive data quality would be the equivalent of crap in. I also know the Mewes family, the Poynings family and the Mildmay family in addition to the de Port family assumed the St. John surname. Without spelling conventions, it would be nearly impossible to map all these (and probably more) paternal lineages with Y-DNA and primary record research. It would appear we had a lot of non-paternal and socially negative events that were breaking lineages instead of documented social events pertaining to nobility titles creating new families. This would be irresponsible to put one's potential nobility title in jeopardy simply because the Y-DNA differed when other's expected one uniform family.
> On my website www.stjohngenealogy.com
>
> "Spelling Conventions
>
> All phonetic variations of confirmed St. John who descend paternally from Ralph St. John are in this database as St. John or St. John-[surname]
> All phonetic variations of confirmed St. John who descend paternally from Adam de Port are in this database as de Port-St. John"
>
> When I have time, I update this Known Phonetic Spellings of St. John https://www.stjohngenealogy.com/getperson.php?personID=I105550454&tree=OSA0001
>
> I hope this helps.
This makes sense to me - as it should do to most SGM readers familiar
with usages such as "Jacqueline Bouvier Kennedy" placing different
surnames over time in their biographic-chronological order. Only a
light-weight mouthy nincompoop could have supposed from "Port St John"
that the St John family might have switched to using Port rather than
the proper way round.
However, I would take issue with describing medieval phonetic spellings
as "illiterate", since by that standard the gloriously literate
Shakepeare would have to be included for spelling his own surname in
various ways.
Peter Stewart

--
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG antivirus software.
www.avg.com

On Saturday, July 22, 2023 at 4:54:14 PM UTC-7, Peter Stewart wrote:
> On 23-Jul-23 12:06 AM, St. John Genealogy wrote:
> > On Saturday, July 22, 2023 at 5:43:02 AM UTC-7, Will Johnson wrote:
> >> On Friday, July 21, 2023 at 9:31:05 PM UTC-7, Peter Stewart wrote:
> >>> On 22-Jul-23 9:40 AM, Will Johnson wrote:
> >>>> On Friday, July 21, 2023 at 4:20:59 PM UTC-7, Peter Stewart wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> Look in CP vol. xi
> >>>>> pp. 320-321 and you will understand that the family of Port, as known
> >>>>> from before the Norman conquest, started calling themselves St John from
> >>>>> the early 13th century, after inheriting through an heiress.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Peter Stewart
> >
> > I use de Port-St. John intentionally to avoid confusion in the DNA project I administer and to help members keep the two main families separated. A lot of earlier researchers did not understand there were two main families and I spent 4 years unmerging the madness with an entire wall serving as a pedigree and evidence board. At one time I had over 100 pieces of paper taped together moving sub branches back and forth until the primary data matched. I don't have time to constantly repeat that effort to explain which family belongs where. I then spent years mapping and carefully validating the lineages of each test subject to be able to confirm these branches using DNA and primary record research. It is very common for these two families to be merged and it creates a lot of confusion and conflict. On the front page of my website, I address spelling conventions. I am an IT Quality professional first and foremost and a phrase we use in this field is crap in --> crap out. I chose to put spelling conventions in place to aid search engines, to save time, and to ensure information can be understood. I have identified over 100 phonetic spellings for St. John. Using the illiteracy of others centuries before modern English was standardized to drive data quality would be the equivalent of crap in. I also know the Mewes family, the Poynings family and the Mildmay family in addition to the de Port family assumed the St. John surname. Without spelling conventions, it would be nearly impossible to map all these (and probably more) paternal lineages with Y-DNA and primary record research. It would appear we had a lot of non-paternal and socially negative events that were breaking lineages instead of documented social events pertaining to nobility titles creating new families. This would be irresponsible to put one's potential nobility title in jeopardy simply because the Y-DNA differed when other's expected one uniform family.
> > On my website www.stjohngenealogy.com
> >
> > "Spelling Conventions
> >
> > All phonetic variations of confirmed St. John who descend paternally from Ralph St. John are in this database as St. John or St. John-[surname]
> > All phonetic variations of confirmed St. John who descend paternally from Adam de Port are in this database as de Port-St. John"
> >
> > When I have time, I update this Known Phonetic Spellings of St. John https://www.stjohngenealogy.com/getperson.php?personID=I105550454&tree=OSA0001
> >
> > I hope this helps.
> This makes sense to me - as it should do to most SGM readers familiar
> with usages such as "Jacqueline Bouvier Kennedy" placing different
> surnames over time in their biographic-chronological order. Only a
> light-weight mouthy nincompoop could have supposed from "Port St John"
> that the St John family might have switched to using Port rather than
> the proper way round.
>
> However, I would take issue with describing medieval phonetic spellings
> as "illiterate", since by that standard the gloriously literate
> Shakepeare would have to be included for spelling his own surname in
> various ways.
> Peter Stewart
>
>
>
> --
> This email has been checked for viruses by AVG antivirus software.
> www.avg.com

I meant no disrespect to anyone past or present. I was very poorly trying to make a point that some argue for original spellings to be preserved and if one does that, which, of the over 100 phonetic options, gets chosen and why would one get chosen instead of another? It also doesn't help in this case that St. John is pronounced sin jin.

As an aside, I was in a car accident that broke my neck in 4 places and my back in 4 places and I am finally returning to my research. I had to have 8 vertebrae fused after 3 years of being told I was fine. I was not fine. For about 6 months, I couldn't recall basic words. For another 6 months, I randomly replaced homophones with the wrong ones; or I just used the wrong words all together. And the newest thing I notice is that I throw commas and apostrophes into weird places. Then I can only "see them" if I proofread while reading it out loud. I mention this because I know my draft version has such issues that I will be editing out. But there are potential issues I may not yet recognize I could be making, so if you see anything strikingly odd, especially issues of logic, please let me know.

Also, I uploaded two letters to the editor that I had sent the NEHGHS Register editor about the "Dutch" article claim to my Academia profile. After reading them again, I think I will be adding some of those points to this new document I am writing.

Thank you,

Suz

I have uploaded a more comprehensive article that includes the important details I included in the letters to the editor. I removed all other copies.

https://www.academia.edu/104843104/DRAFT_Governor_John_Winthrop_and_the_Ancestors_of_the_St_John_Family_of_the_Massachusetts_Bay_Colony

On Wednesday, 19 July 2023 at 02:05:59 UTC+1, Will Johnson wrote:
> https://www.academia.edu/104680646/Governor_John_Winthrop_and_the_Ancestors_of_the_St_John_Family_of_the_Massachusetts_Bay_Colony_Draft_would_appreciate_feedback_and_suggestions_?email_work_card=title&li=0

Oops! It looks like you're in the wrong aisle.
We're sorry for the confusion. We're currently working on it. In the meantime, feel free to browse the restricted section.

Causes of sudden confusion. Sudden confusion can be caused by many different things. Do not try to self-diagnose. Get medical help if someone suddenly becomes confused or delirious. Some of the most common causes of sudden confusion include: an infection - urinary tract infections (UTIs) are a common cause in elderly people - that's probably my problem.

Sorry, I pulled all the drafts down. I realized I had quite a lot more documented a few years ago before my car accident that I could add to make a better case for this family history now that I have this new manuscript to support it all cohesively. I'll repost my new draft in a bit. Sorry for the confusion!

Suz

On Friday, July 21, 2023 at 3:33:27 PM UTC-6, Will Johnson wrote:
> Just to finish up this particular family we have
> John /St John/ of Lydiard Tregoz, co Wilt; Knt
> d 20 Sep 1594 M.I. Lydiard Tregoz
> m Lucy /Hungerford/
> co-heiress of her father
> d 4 Jun 1598 bur St Mary's, Lydiard Tregoze, co Wilt
>
> I show seven children, one son, six daughters as follows
> Katherine /St John/
> first daughter
> d 28 Mar 1633 M.I. St Mary's, Lydiard Tregoze, co Wilt
> mar 1607 "26 years ago" per her own MI erected by her husband
> Giles /Mompesson/ , Mp Great Bedwyn 1614; Knt 1616; W
> eldest son; born 1583/4 Wiltshire
> Will proved 3 Aug 1663
>
> Anna /St John/
> second daughter
> mar
> George /Ayliffe/ of Grettenham, co Wilt; Knt
> eldest son
> d 6 Oct 1643
> bur St Mary's, Lydiard Tregoze, Wiltshire
>
> Jane /St John/
> third daughter
> mar
> Charles /Pleydell/ of Midge Hall, co Wilt; Knt 1618
> d 1642
>
> John /St John/ of Lydiard Tregoze, co Wilt; 1st Bnt 1611
> Matric Trinity College 3 Apr 1601
> Will 20 Sep 1648 PROB 11/205/365
> [to be buried at] Lydiard Tregoz
> mar
> Anne /Leighton/
>
> Eleanor /St John/
> fourth daughter
> mar
> William /St John/ of Uchel-olau (High Light), Glamorgan
> eldest son
>
> Barbara /St John/
> fifth daughter
> bur 16 Sep 1672 Westminster Abbey
> mar
> Edward /Villiers/ , Knt
> b 1585 Second son
> d 7 Sep 1626 College of Younghal
> bur Cork transept, St Mary's, Younghal
>
> Lucy /St John/
> b 1589
> sixth and youngest daughter of her father
> d 11 Oct 1659 Owthorpe, co Nott
> mar 23 Oct 1615 St Anne's, Blackfriars; third wife
> Allen /Apsley/ , Lt of the Tower of London; Knt
> b 1557 "aet 48" in 1615; youngest son of his father; "a youth at school" at his father's death
> d 24 May 1630 "in his 63rd year"
Will,

I think that Jane St John had a first marriage to Robert Atye (1588-1612). Their daughter was Eleanor Atye (1608-1678), who married Sir William Roberts (1604-1662). http://www.historyofparliamentonline.org/volume/1660-1690/member/roberts-sir-william-1638-88 ; https://www.ancestry.com/family-tree/person/tree/57364495/person/40351942991/hints ; https://www.ancestry.com/imageviewer/collections/61187/images/47284_263021009496_2658-00008?pId=903111811

On Monday, July 24, 2023 at 6:44:43 AM UTC-6, St. John Genealogy wrote:
> Sorry, I pulled all the drafts down. I realized I had quite a lot more documented a few years ago before my car accident that I could add to make a better case for this family history now that I have this new manuscript to support it all cohesively. I'll repost my new draft in a bit. Sorry for the confusion!
>
> Suz
Suz, I hope all things are on the up and up. I might suggest as you reedit things that you do find another way of tagging your DNA if the tree/data is going to be open to the broader public. I suggest you move the "Port" to a post title or something, but ensure it's clear this is you sorting things instead of documenting.

On Monday, July 24, 2023 at 8:28:57 AM UTC-7, Kev Bar wrote:
> On Monday, July 24, 2023 at 6:44:43 AM UTC-6, St. John Genealogy wrote:
> > Sorry, I pulled all the drafts down. I realized I had quite a lot more documented a few years ago before my car accident that I could add to make a better case for this family history now that I have this new manuscript to support it all cohesively. I'll repost my new draft in a bit. Sorry for the confusion!
> >
> > Suz
> Suz, I hope all things are on the up and up. I might suggest as you reedit things that you do find another way of tagging your DNA if the tree/data is going to be open to the broader public. I suggest you move the "Port" to a post title or something, but ensure it's clear this is you sorting things instead of documenting.

Hi Kev,

The DNA information I included, I have permission to share and we have a group where people openly discuss their results but I did put the data into a table and replaced names with person ID numbers that are linked to records that are private on my website. This also allows one to compare branches and verify I didn't pull data from a single cluster or branch.

I'm not sure what you mean about "move the Port". Would you clarify? Thank you.

Suz

Current Draft https://www.academia.edu/104893312/DRAFT_Governor_John_Winthrop_and_the_Ancestors_of_the_St_John_Family_of_the_Massachusetts_Bay_Colony

On Monday, July 24, 2023 at 8:22:42 AM UTC-7, Kev Bar wrote:
> On Friday, July 21, 2023 at 3:33:27 PM UTC-6, Will Johnson wrote:
> > Just to finish up this particular family we have
> > John /St John/ of Lydiard Tregoz, co Wilt; Knt
> > d 20 Sep 1594 M.I. Lydiard Tregoz
> > m Lucy /Hungerford/
> > co-heiress of her father
> > d 4 Jun 1598 bur St Mary's, Lydiard Tregoze, co Wilt
> >
> > I show seven children, one son, six daughters as follows
> > Katherine /St John/
> > first daughter
> > d 28 Mar 1633 M.I. St Mary's, Lydiard Tregoze, co Wilt
> > mar 1607 "26 years ago" per her own MI erected by her husband
> > Giles /Mompesson/ , Mp Great Bedwyn 1614; Knt 1616; W
> > eldest son; born 1583/4 Wiltshire
> > Will proved 3 Aug 1663
> >
> > Anna /St John/
> > second daughter
> > mar
> > George /Ayliffe/ of Grettenham, co Wilt; Knt
> > eldest son
> > d 6 Oct 1643
> > bur St Mary's, Lydiard Tregoze, Wiltshire
> >
> > Jane /St John/
> > third daughter
> > mar
> > Charles /Pleydell/ of Midge Hall, co Wilt; Knt 1618
> > d 1642
> >
> > John /St John/ of Lydiard Tregoze, co Wilt; 1st Bnt 1611
> > Matric Trinity College 3 Apr 1601
> > Will 20 Sep 1648 PROB 11/205/365
> > [to be buried at] Lydiard Tregoz
> > mar
> > Anne /Leighton/
> >
> > Eleanor /St John/
> > fourth daughter
> > mar
> > William /St John/ of Uchel-olau (High Light), Glamorgan
> > eldest son
> >
> > Barbara /St John/
> > fifth daughter
> > bur 16 Sep 1672 Westminster Abbey
> > mar
> > Edward /Villiers/ , Knt
> > b 1585 Second son
> > d 7 Sep 1626 College of Younghal
> > bur Cork transept, St Mary's, Younghal
> >
> > Lucy /St John/
> > b 1589
> > sixth and youngest daughter of her father
> > d 11 Oct 1659 Owthorpe, co Nott
> > mar 23 Oct 1615 St Anne's, Blackfriars; third wife
> > Allen /Apsley/ , Lt of the Tower of London; Knt
> > b 1557 "aet 48" in 1615; youngest son of his father; "a youth at school" at his father's death
> > d 24 May 1630 "in his 63rd year"
> Will,
>
> I think that Jane St John had a first marriage to Robert Atye (1588-1612).. Their daughter was Eleanor Atye (1608-1678), who married Sir William Roberts (1604-1662). http://www.historyofparliamentonline.org/volume/1660-1690/member/roberts-sir-william-1638-88 ; https://www.ancestry.com/family-tree/person/tree/57364495/person/40351942991/hints ; https://www.ancestry.com/imageviewer/collections/61187/images/47284_263021009496_2658-00008?pId=903111811

You're right
https://archive.org/details/visitationoflond15howa/page/32/mode/1up

https://archive.org/details/visitationofwilt00sainrich/page/36/mode/2up?q=hungerford

I had missed that marriage

sorry correct link https://www.academia.edu/104893910/DRAFT_Governor_John_Winthrop_and_the_Ancestors_of_the_St_John_Family_of_the_Massachusetts_Bay_Colony

On Monday, July 24, 2023 at 11:55:36 AM UTC-7, Will Johnson wrote:
> You're right
> https://archive.org/details/visitationoflond15howa/page/32/mode/1up
>
> https://archive.org/details/visitationofwilt00sainrich/page/36/mode/2up?q=hungerford
>
> I had missed that marriage

Actually this connection turned out to be more interesting

Robert /Atye/ of Kilborne, co Mdx
born 1583/1592 eldest son
mar as first husband
Jane /St John/
born 1578/1586 third daughter

They had two children Arthur who died young and Eleanor Sole heiress of her father
She was born 1600/1610
and married
William /Roberts/ of Willesden, co Mdx; Knt 1624 and Bnt 1661-2; D
born 1605 Second son d 19 Sep 1662
bur St Mary's, Willesden, co Mdx

The Roberts of Willesden's are descendants of Edward III

William /Roberts/ of Willesden, co Mdx; Knt 1624 and Bnt 1661-2; D
son of
Barne /Roberts/ d.v.p. 1610
son of
Mary /Barne/ co-heiress
M.I. at Willesden bur 24 Feb 1623/1624
daughter of
Jane /Langton/ co-heiress of her father
d 1609 M.B. at Willesden
daughter of
Thomas /Langton/ of co York; esq third son
son of
John /Langton/ , Knt by Isabel /Conyers/

On Monday, July 24, 2023 at 12:42:33 PM UTC-7, Will Johnson wrote:
> On Monday, July 24, 2023 at 11:55:36 AM UTC-7, Will Johnson wrote:

I stupidly did a replace all for born and replaced it with baptized so the wording baptized instead of born is going to be odd in a few places. I have fixed them in my version but I just wanted you to be aware.

On Monday, July 24, 2023 at 9:42:33 AM UTC-6, St. John Genealogy wrote:
> On Monday, July 24, 2023 at 8:28:57 AM UTC-7, Kev Bar wrote:
> > On Monday, July 24, 2023 at 6:44:43 AM UTC-6, St. John Genealogy wrote:
> > > Sorry, I pulled all the drafts down. I realized I had quite a lot more documented a few years ago before my car accident that I could add to make a better case for this family history now that I have this new manuscript to support it all cohesively. I'll repost my new draft in a bit. Sorry for the confusion!
> > >
> > > Suz
> > Suz, I hope all things are on the up and up. I might suggest as you reedit things that you do find another way of tagging your DNA if the tree/data is going to be open to the broader public. I suggest you move the "Port" to a post title or something, but ensure it's clear this is you sorting things instead of documenting.
> Hi Kev,
>
> The DNA information I included, I have permission to share and we have a group where people openly discuss their results but I did put the data into a table and replaced names with person ID numbers that are linked to records that are private on my website. This also allows one to compare branches and verify I didn't pull data from a single cluster or branch.
>
> I'm not sure what you mean about "move the Port". Would you clarify? Thank you.
>
> Suz
Sure, if the use of "Port" confused someone, anyone, you'll need to expect a rash of folks that'll be wondering the same thing, "when did the St John family change their name to Port?" Expertise matters not in this situation. If there are 10 folks that read the item and one of them was confused, the author needs to be risk averse and assume the potentiality that 10% of the readership will be likely confused in the same manner. The writing should be so tight as to remove as much ambiguity as possible, but without introducing ambiguity or confusion.

In reading the thread on the St Johns, it appeared that the use of "Port" originated in your writing. I could be wrong for certain. If so, I apologize, but hopefully whoever used the term "Port" will read the above. The introduction of unique codes/names, etc. into lines simply to help the creator of the data parse the data in their own way causes great headache for the rest of us when those unique codes/names, etc are released outside in uncontrolled environments. It does not do any good for the impression the author would prefer to have.

My thoughts only.

Cheers,
Kevan