(p. 440)
http://books.google.com/books?vid=LCCN0 ... +thomasine
(p. 4)
http://books.google.com/books?vid=OCLC0 ... d%22+sarah
Some criticism of the claimed Alston line to South Carolina
Moderator: MOD_nyhetsgrupper
-
John Brandon
Re: Some criticism of the claimed Alston line to South Carol
Here is what Eugene A. Stratton says in _Applied Genealogy_, pp.
166-67:
Accepted Royal Lines with Some Weakness
John Alston of South Carolina. There is a royal line going
through gateway ancestor John Alston, who died in South Carolina in
1719, as the son of William and Thomasine (Brooke) Alston of
Bedfordshire, England. I have accepted this line as valid, as have
other knowledgeable genealogists. The crucial generation, the
parentage of immigrant John Alston, depends on three facts. First, an
apprenticeship record shows that a John Alston, who became an
apprentice in South Carolina in 1682, was the son of William Alston,
gentleman, of Hammersmith, Middlesex (a suburb of London). Second,
William and Thomasine (Brooke) Alston had a son named John baptized at
Pavenham, Bedfordshire, on 25 February 1668. There is no direct
evidence to connect these two facts. Are we just dealing with the
name's the same again? The identification looks plausible, for John
was the right age to become an apprentice in 1682. We have eliminated
some possibilities of just dealing with a coincidence of names when we
see that John's father in the apprenticeship document is a "gentleman,"
as was the William Alston of Bedfordshire. Though we have no evidence
that the William of Bedfordshire resided at any time in the vicinity of
London, he was a barrister and thus it was quite possible that at some
point in his career he might have lived in a London suburb. With the
third fact, we become a little more certain. The John Alston of South
Carolina named children John, William, and Thomasine. John and William
were apparently named after himself and his father, and thus we know he
favored family names. Thomasine is not a nme found in the Alston
family in general, but it was the name of the wife of William Alston of
Bedfordshire. This is onomastic evidence, and by itself it is not
sufficient to prove a genealogical relationship. But in some cases it
adds just enough to the other evidence to become important, and I think
this is one such case. The evidence is not direct, though, and we must
rely on making an assumption.
166-67:
Accepted Royal Lines with Some Weakness
John Alston of South Carolina. There is a royal line going
through gateway ancestor John Alston, who died in South Carolina in
1719, as the son of William and Thomasine (Brooke) Alston of
Bedfordshire, England. I have accepted this line as valid, as have
other knowledgeable genealogists. The crucial generation, the
parentage of immigrant John Alston, depends on three facts. First, an
apprenticeship record shows that a John Alston, who became an
apprentice in South Carolina in 1682, was the son of William Alston,
gentleman, of Hammersmith, Middlesex (a suburb of London). Second,
William and Thomasine (Brooke) Alston had a son named John baptized at
Pavenham, Bedfordshire, on 25 February 1668. There is no direct
evidence to connect these two facts. Are we just dealing with the
name's the same again? The identification looks plausible, for John
was the right age to become an apprentice in 1682. We have eliminated
some possibilities of just dealing with a coincidence of names when we
see that John's father in the apprenticeship document is a "gentleman,"
as was the William Alston of Bedfordshire. Though we have no evidence
that the William of Bedfordshire resided at any time in the vicinity of
London, he was a barrister and thus it was quite possible that at some
point in his career he might have lived in a London suburb. With the
third fact, we become a little more certain. The John Alston of South
Carolina named children John, William, and Thomasine. John and William
were apparently named after himself and his father, and thus we know he
favored family names. Thomasine is not a nme found in the Alston
family in general, but it was the name of the wife of William Alston of
Bedfordshire. This is onomastic evidence, and by itself it is not
sufficient to prove a genealogical relationship. But in some cases it
adds just enough to the other evidence to become important, and I think
this is one such case. The evidence is not direct, though, and we must
rely on making an assumption.
-
John Brandon
Re: Some criticism of the claimed Alston line to South Carol
Here is what Eugene A. Stratton says in _Applied Genealogy_, pp.
166-67:
Accepted Royal Lines with Some Weakness
John Alston of South Carolina. There is a royal line going
through gateway ancestor John Alston, who died in South Carolina in
1719, as the son of William and Thomasine (Brooke) Alston of
Bedfordshire, England. I have accepted this line as valid, as have
other knowledgeable genealogists. The crucial generation, the
parentage of immigrant John Alston, depends on three facts. First, an
apprenticeship record shows that a John Alston, who became an
apprentice in South Carolina in 1682, was the son of William Alston,
gentleman, of Hammersmith, Middlesex (a suburb of London). Second,
William and Thomasine (Brooke) Alston had a son named John baptized at
Pavenham, Bedfordshire, on 25 February 1668. There is no direct
evidence to connect these two facts. Are we just dealing with the
name's the same again? The identification looks plausible, for John
was the right age to become an apprentice in 1682. We have eliminated
some possibilities of just dealing with a coincidence of names when we
see that John's father in the apprenticeship document is a "gentleman,"
as was the William Alston of Bedfordshire. Though we have no evidence
that the William of Bedfordshire resided at any time in the vicinity of
London, he was a barrister and thus it was quite possible that at some
point in his career he might have lived in a London suburb. With the
third fact, we become a little more certain. The John Alston of South
Carolina named children John, William, and Thomasine. John and William
were apparently named after himself and his father, and thus we know he
favored family names. Thomasine is not a nme found in the Alston
family in general, but it was the name of the wife of William Alston of
Bedfordshire. This is onomastic evidence, and by itself it is not
sufficient to prove a genealogical relationship. But in some cases it
adds just enough to the other evidence to become important, and I think
this is one such case. The evidence is not direct, though, and we must
rely on making an assumption.
166-67:
Accepted Royal Lines with Some Weakness
John Alston of South Carolina. There is a royal line going
through gateway ancestor John Alston, who died in South Carolina in
1719, as the son of William and Thomasine (Brooke) Alston of
Bedfordshire, England. I have accepted this line as valid, as have
other knowledgeable genealogists. The crucial generation, the
parentage of immigrant John Alston, depends on three facts. First, an
apprenticeship record shows that a John Alston, who became an
apprentice in South Carolina in 1682, was the son of William Alston,
gentleman, of Hammersmith, Middlesex (a suburb of London). Second,
William and Thomasine (Brooke) Alston had a son named John baptized at
Pavenham, Bedfordshire, on 25 February 1668. There is no direct
evidence to connect these two facts. Are we just dealing with the
name's the same again? The identification looks plausible, for John
was the right age to become an apprentice in 1682. We have eliminated
some possibilities of just dealing with a coincidence of names when we
see that John's father in the apprenticeship document is a "gentleman,"
as was the William Alston of Bedfordshire. Though we have no evidence
that the William of Bedfordshire resided at any time in the vicinity of
London, he was a barrister and thus it was quite possible that at some
point in his career he might have lived in a London suburb. With the
third fact, we become a little more certain. The John Alston of South
Carolina named children John, William, and Thomasine. John and William
were apparently named after himself and his father, and thus we know he
favored family names. Thomasine is not a nme found in the Alston
family in general, but it was the name of the wife of William Alston of
Bedfordshire. This is onomastic evidence, and by itself it is not
sufficient to prove a genealogical relationship. But in some cases it
adds just enough to the other evidence to become important, and I think
this is one such case. The evidence is not direct, though, and we must
rely on making an assumption.
-
Susan Perrett
Re: Some criticism of the claimed Alston line to South Carol
I would like to reply to this message by entering my comments below the
section/s within the message.
I have been researching the ALSTON name for many years and have studied
both the Bedfordshire and Suffolk Families, and my reseearch has led me
to the following conclusions:
In article <1165612947.358375.194060@f1g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
starbuck95@hotmail.com says...
This John Alston is the son of William and Thomasine Alston of
Bedfordshire. This John also changed his name to ALLSTON, when he parted
from his cousin John, when both were in the Carolinas, This John going
to the Southern part and the double LL stayed in the family for a
further two/three generations before reverting back to one L (and the
other John staying in the Northern section of the state). This John was
given a grant of land in Berkeley County, South Carolina of 190 acres on
January 11th 1686.
I have a note that John's father William did live in Hammersmith as well
as in Pavenham.
Family DNA from a descendant of this Southern Carolina John has
connected him to the Bedfordshire branch, as well as the Northern
Carolina John Alston, son of John Alston and Anne WALLIS - this Anne
Wallis is NOT the daughter, as many believe, of the mathamatitian John
WALLIS. DNA was also contributed by another descentant of the Northern
Carolina John Alston, again proving the two are descended from the
Bedfordshire branch as I and my brother are descended from the Suffolk
branch and are therefore related to each other.
I would be interested to hear from anyone, who is connected to either of
these families, who has not already been in touch with be before.
With regards,
--
Susan
Victoria
Australia
section/s within the message.
I have been researching the ALSTON name for many years and have studied
both the Bedfordshire and Suffolk Families, and my reseearch has led me
to the following conclusions:
In article <1165612947.358375.194060@f1g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
starbuck95@hotmail.com says...
Here is what Eugene A. Stratton says in _Applied Genealogy_, pp.
166-67:
Accepted Royal Lines with Some Weakness
John Alston of South Carolina. There is a royal line going
through gateway ancestor John Alston, who died in South Carolina in
1719, as the son of William and Thomasine (Brooke) Alston of
Bedfordshire, England.
This John Alston is the son of William and Thomasine Alston of
Bedfordshire. This John also changed his name to ALLSTON, when he parted
from his cousin John, when both were in the Carolinas, This John going
to the Southern part and the double LL stayed in the family for a
further two/three generations before reverting back to one L (and the
other John staying in the Northern section of the state). This John was
given a grant of land in Berkeley County, South Carolina of 190 acres on
January 11th 1686.
I have a note that John's father William did live in Hammersmith as well
as in Pavenham.
Family DNA from a descendant of this Southern Carolina John has
connected him to the Bedfordshire branch, as well as the Northern
Carolina John Alston, son of John Alston and Anne WALLIS - this Anne
Wallis is NOT the daughter, as many believe, of the mathamatitian John
WALLIS. DNA was also contributed by another descentant of the Northern
Carolina John Alston, again proving the two are descended from the
Bedfordshire branch as I and my brother are descended from the Suffolk
branch and are therefore related to each other.
I would be interested to hear from anyone, who is connected to either of
these families, who has not already been in touch with be before.
With regards,
I have accepted this line as valid, as have
other knowledgeable genealogists. The crucial generation, the
parentage of immigrant John Alston, depends on three facts. First, an
apprenticeship record shows that a John Alston, who became an
apprentice in South Carolina in 1682, was the son of William Alston,
gentleman, of Hammersmith, Middlesex (a suburb of London). Second,
William and Thomasine (Brooke) Alston had a son named John baptized at
Pavenham, Bedfordshire, on 25 February 1668. There is no direct
evidence to connect these two facts. Are we just dealing with the
name's the same again? The identification looks plausible, for John
was the right age to become an apprentice in 1682. We have eliminated
some possibilities of just dealing with a coincidence of names when we
see that John's father in the apprenticeship document is a "gentleman,"
as was the William Alston of Bedfordshire. Though we have no evidence
that the William of Bedfordshire resided at any time in the vicinity of
London, he was a barrister and thus it was quite possible that at some
point in his career he might have lived in a London suburb. With the
third fact, we become a little more certain. The John Alston of South
Carolina named children John, William, and Thomasine. John and William
were apparently named after himself and his father, and thus we know he
favored family names. Thomasine is not a nme found in the Alston
family in general, but it was the name of the wife of William Alston of
Bedfordshire. This is onomastic evidence, and by itself it is not
sufficient to prove a genealogical relationship. But in some cases it
adds just enough to the other evidence to become important, and I think
this is one such case. The evidence is not direct, though, and we must
rely on making an assumption.
--
Susan
Victoria
Australia