Repeating this over and over does not make it so any more than the first time.

What is the *specific* reason why John III could not be Margaret's husband?
Just because Margaret may or may not be the eldest child does not mean she was born "about 1510"
She could have been born in 1500. She could have been born in 1525.

You keep repeating that "if she were the eldest daughter she would have been born about 1510"
Repeating is not evidence.

Rules of thumb are useless tools when trying to recreate a person who has no apparent record of their existence at all

On Wednesday, March 2, 2022 at 5:31:48 PM UTC-5, wjhons...@gmail.com wrote:
> Repeating this over and over does not make it so any more than the first time.
>
> What is the *specific* reason why John III could not be Margaret's husband?
> Just because Margaret may or may not be the eldest child does not mean she was born "about 1510"
> She could have been born in 1500. She could have been born in 1525.
>
> You keep repeating that "if she were the eldest daughter she would have been born about 1510"
> Repeating is not evidence.
>
> Rules of thumb are useless tools when trying to recreate a person who has no apparent record of their existence at all

Sad to see that there is so little effort to think outside the box and look in a new way at the data that we do have, but instead old, inaccurate assumptions are maintained. This lineage has been hampered for about 130 years with faulty conclusions reached by Payne and way too many inaccurate millennial files that have been accepted as truth.

Payne gave us 1) Margaret Malthouse (BP 1558) as the wife of William Montague and 2) that she was the daughter of a John Malthouse and Margaret Bullock. Hyde came along and disproved his first assumption as it related to the Montagues, but stopped there and failed to challenge her parentage. The baptismal record for Margaret (1558) shows the father only as Malthus.

What we do have:
1) A John Malthouse of Binfield had been dead for 5 years when an Inquisition was made 24 Henry VII.
2) A son John Malthouse is mentioned in the Inquisition and was 18 when the inquisition was made 24 Henry VII.
3) A John Malthouse was baptized in Binfield in 1551 and his father was a John Malthouse.
4) From the Visitation of Berkshire 1552, that Margaret Bullock, daughter of Thomas Bullock and Alice Kingsmill, married a John Malthouse.
5) From the will of Thomas Bullock in 1557, there are several references to the name Malthouse which include a) daughter Margaret Malthouse, b) son-in-law John Malthouse, co-overseer, and c) godson Thomas Malthouse.
6) From the will of a John Malthouse in 1558, he mentions a wife Anne and four children, including a John Malthouse.
7) from the Visitation of Buckinghamshire in 1634, that a Margaret Malthouse, daughter of a John, Married William Montague.
8) from Marriage records in Binfield, that a Margaret Malthouse first married Thomas Grove in 1552 and secondly married William Montague in 1560.
9) A Margaret Malthus was baptized in Binfield in 1558, and the father was listed as Malthus.

It would be nice to see more interest in pursuing new theories and looking at their possibilities, rather than shoving them aside with negativity.

On Thursday, March 3, 2022 at 10:38:52 AM UTC-5, Bob N wrote:
> On Wednesday, March 2, 2022 at 5:31:48 PM UTC-5, wjhons...@gmail.com wrote:
> > Repeating this over and over does not make it so any more than the first time.
> >
> > What is the *specific* reason why John III could not be Margaret's husband?
> > Just because Margaret may or may not be the eldest child does not mean she was born "about 1510"
> > She could have been born in 1500. She could have been born in 1525.
> >
> > You keep repeating that "if she were the eldest daughter she would have been born about 1510"
> > Repeating is not evidence.
> >
> > Rules of thumb are useless tools when trying to recreate a person who has no apparent record of their existence at all
> Sad to see that there is so little effort to think outside the box and look in a new way at the data that we do have, but instead old, inaccurate assumptions are maintained. This lineage has been hampered for about 130 years with faulty conclusions reached by Payne and way too many inaccurate millennial files that have been accepted as truth.
>
> Payne gave us 1) Margaret Malthouse (BP 1558) as the wife of William Montague and 2) that she was the daughter of a John Malthouse and Margaret Bullock. Hyde came along and disproved his first assumption as it related to the Montagues, but stopped there and failed to challenge her parentage. The baptismal record for Margaret (1558) shows the father only as Malthus.
>
> What we do have:
> 1) A John Malthouse of Binfield had been dead for 5 years when an Inquisition was made 24 Henry VII.
> 2) A son John Malthouse is mentioned in the Inquisition and was 18 when the inquisition was made 24 Henry VII.
> 3) A John Malthouse was baptized in Binfield in 1551 and his father was a John Malthouse.
> 4) From the Visitation of Berkshire 1552, that Margaret Bullock, daughter of Thomas Bullock and Alice Kingsmill, married a John Malthouse.
> 5) From the will of Thomas Bullock in 1557, there are several references to the name Malthouse which include a) daughter Margaret Malthouse, b) son-in-law John Malthouse, co-overseer, and c) godson Thomas Malthouse.
> 6) From the will of a John Malthouse in 1558, he mentions a wife Anne and four children, including a John Malthouse.
> 7) from the Visitation of Buckinghamshire in 1634, that a Margaret Malthouse, daughter of a John, Married William Montague.
> 8) from Marriage records in Binfield, that a Margaret Malthouse first married Thomas Grove in 1552 and secondly married William Montague in 1560.
> 9) A Margaret Malthus was baptized in Binfield in 1558, and the father was listed as Malthus.
>
> It would be nice to see more interest in pursuing new theories and looking at their possibilities, rather than shoving them aside with negativity.

Isn't the John who died in 1558 (having a wife ANNE) more likely to be the father of John Malthouse whose wife Margaret is mentioned in the Bullock will of 1557? In that case, John and Margaret (Bullock) Malthouse would be a younger couple and more likely parents of the Margaret Malthouse baptised in 1558. And we know the Margaret baptized 1558 could not be ancestral to the immigrants.

John (d. 1558) and wife Anne could be the parents of Margaret (Malthouse) (Grove) Montague. I suppose you'll tell me she isn't mentioned in the 1558 will.

Sometimes people were left out of wills, and we have to be aware of that possibility.

On Thursday, March 3, 2022 at 11:18:49 AM UTC-5, ravinma...@yahoo.com wrote:
> On Thursday, March 3, 2022 at 10:38:52 AM UTC-5, Bob N wrote:
> > On Wednesday, March 2, 2022 at 5:31:48 PM UTC-5, wjhons...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > Repeating this over and over does not make it so any more than the first time.
> > >
> > > What is the *specific* reason why John III could not be Margaret's husband?
> > > Just because Margaret may or may not be the eldest child does not mean she was born "about 1510"
> > > She could have been born in 1500. She could have been born in 1525.
> > >
> > > You keep repeating that "if she were the eldest daughter she would have been born about 1510"
> > > Repeating is not evidence.
> > >
> > > Rules of thumb are useless tools when trying to recreate a person who has no apparent record of their existence at all
> > Sad to see that there is so little effort to think outside the box and look in a new way at the data that we do have, but instead old, inaccurate assumptions are maintained. This lineage has been hampered for about 130 years with faulty conclusions reached by Payne and way too many inaccurate millennial files that have been accepted as truth.
> >
> > Payne gave us 1) Margaret Malthouse (BP 1558) as the wife of William Montague and 2) that she was the daughter of a John Malthouse and Margaret Bullock. Hyde came along and disproved his first assumption as it related to the Montagues, but stopped there and failed to challenge her parentage. The baptismal record for Margaret (1558) shows the father only as Malthus.
> >
> > What we do have:
> > 1) A John Malthouse of Binfield had been dead for 5 years when an Inquisition was made 24 Henry VII.
> > 2) A son John Malthouse is mentioned in the Inquisition and was 18 when the inquisition was made 24 Henry VII.
> > 3) A John Malthouse was baptized in Binfield in 1551 and his father was a John Malthouse.
> > 4) From the Visitation of Berkshire 1552, that Margaret Bullock, daughter of Thomas Bullock and Alice Kingsmill, married a John Malthouse.
> > 5) From the will of Thomas Bullock in 1557, there are several references to the name Malthouse which include a) daughter Margaret Malthouse, b) son-in-law John Malthouse, co-overseer, and c) godson Thomas Malthouse.
> > 6) From the will of a John Malthouse in 1558, he mentions a wife Anne and four children, including a John Malthouse.
> > 7) from the Visitation of Buckinghamshire in 1634, that a Margaret Malthouse, daughter of a John, Married William Montague.
> > 8) from Marriage records in Binfield, that a Margaret Malthouse first married Thomas Grove in 1552 and secondly married William Montague in 1560.
> > 9) A Margaret Malthus was baptized in Binfield in 1558, and the father was listed as Malthus.
> >
> > It would be nice to see more interest in pursuing new theories and looking at their possibilities, rather than shoving them aside with negativity.
> Isn't the John who died in 1558 (having a wife ANNE) more likely to be the father of John Malthouse whose wife Margaret is mentioned in the Bullock will of 1557? In that case, John and Margaret (Bullock) Malthouse would be a younger couple and more likely parents of the Margaret Malthouse baptised in 1558. And we know the Margaret baptized 1558 could not be ancestral to the immigrants.
>
> John (d. 1558) and wife Anne could be the parents of Margaret (Malthouse) (Grove) Montague. I suppose you'll tell me she isn't mentioned in the 1558 will.
>
> Sometimes people were left out of wills, and we have to be aware of that possibility.
The children mentioned in the 1558 will are John, Richard, Julian and daughter married tro Watlington. If we are going to talk possibilities, then there is a possibility that a John was born in 1510 based upon the information that we have, but from the direction that this chat has taken, possibilities could be anything.

On Thursday, March 3, 2022 at 11:18:49 AM UTC-5, ravinma...@yahoo.com wrote:
> On Thursday, March 3, 2022 at 10:38:52 AM UTC-5, Bob N wrote:
> > On Wednesday, March 2, 2022 at 5:31:48 PM UTC-5, wjhons...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > Repeating this over and over does not make it so any more than the first time.
> > >
> > > What is the *specific* reason why John III could not be Margaret's husband?
> > > Just because Margaret may or may not be the eldest child does not mean she was born "about 1510"
> > > She could have been born in 1500. She could have been born in 1525.
> > >
> > > You keep repeating that "if she were the eldest daughter she would have been born about 1510"
> > > Repeating is not evidence.
> > >
> > > Rules of thumb are useless tools when trying to recreate a person who has no apparent record of their existence at all
> > Sad to see that there is so little effort to think outside the box and look in a new way at the data that we do have, but instead old, inaccurate assumptions are maintained. This lineage has been hampered for about 130 years with faulty conclusions reached by Payne and way too many inaccurate millennial files that have been accepted as truth.
> >
> > Payne gave us 1) Margaret Malthouse (BP 1558) as the wife of William Montague and 2) that she was the daughter of a John Malthouse and Margaret Bullock. Hyde came along and disproved his first assumption as it related to the Montagues, but stopped there and failed to challenge her parentage. The baptismal record for Margaret (1558) shows the father only as Malthus.
> >
> > What we do have:
> > 1) A John Malthouse of Binfield had been dead for 5 years when an Inquisition was made 24 Henry VII.
> > 2) A son John Malthouse is mentioned in the Inquisition and was 18 when the inquisition was made 24 Henry VII.
> > 3) A John Malthouse was baptized in Binfield in 1551 and his father was a John Malthouse.
> > 4) From the Visitation of Berkshire 1552, that Margaret Bullock, daughter of Thomas Bullock and Alice Kingsmill, married a John Malthouse.
> > 5) From the will of Thomas Bullock in 1557, there are several references to the name Malthouse which include a) daughter Margaret Malthouse, b) son-in-law John Malthouse, co-overseer, and c) godson Thomas Malthouse.
> > 6) From the will of a John Malthouse in 1558, he mentions a wife Anne and four children, including a John Malthouse.
> > 7) from the Visitation of Buckinghamshire in 1634, that a Margaret Malthouse, daughter of a John, Married William Montague.
> > 8) from Marriage records in Binfield, that a Margaret Malthouse first married Thomas Grove in 1552 and secondly married William Montague in 1560.
> > 9) A Margaret Malthus was baptized in Binfield in 1558, and the father was listed as Malthus.
> >
> > It would be nice to see more interest in pursuing new theories and looking at their possibilities, rather than shoving them aside with negativity.
> Isn't the John who died in 1558 (having a wife ANNE) more likely to be the father of John Malthouse whose wife Margaret is mentioned in the Bullock will of 1557? In that case, John and Margaret (Bullock) Malthouse would be a younger couple and more likely parents of the Margaret Malthouse baptised in 1558. And we know the Margaret baptized 1558 could not be ancestral to the immigrants.
>
> John (d. 1558) and wife Anne could be the parents of Margaret (Malthouse) (Grove) Montague. I suppose you'll tell me she isn't mentioned in the 1558 will.
>
> Sometimes people were left out of wills, and we have to be aware of that possibility.
..... considering your possibility, if Margaret Bullock was the oldest daughter, as it appears she was, it would be highly improbable (possible yes, but improbable) that she would be marrying in 1550.

On Thursday, March 3, 2022 at 11:33:49 AM UTC-5, Bob N wrote:
> On Thursday, March 3, 2022 at 11:18:49 AM UTC-5, ravinma...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > On Thursday, March 3, 2022 at 10:38:52 AM UTC-5, Bob N wrote:
> > > On Wednesday, March 2, 2022 at 5:31:48 PM UTC-5, wjhons...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > Repeating this over and over does not make it so any more than the first time.
> > > >
> > > > What is the *specific* reason why John III could not be Margaret's husband?
> > > > Just because Margaret may or may not be the eldest child does not mean she was born "about 1510"
> > > > She could have been born in 1500. She could have been born in 1525.
> > > >
> > > > You keep repeating that "if she were the eldest daughter she would have been born about 1510"
> > > > Repeating is not evidence.
> > > >
> > > > Rules of thumb are useless tools when trying to recreate a person who has no apparent record of their existence at all
> > > Sad to see that there is so little effort to think outside the box and look in a new way at the data that we do have, but instead old, inaccurate assumptions are maintained. This lineage has been hampered for about 130 years with faulty conclusions reached by Payne and way too many inaccurate millennial files that have been accepted as truth.
> > >
> > > Payne gave us 1) Margaret Malthouse (BP 1558) as the wife of William Montague and 2) that she was the daughter of a John Malthouse and Margaret Bullock. Hyde came along and disproved his first assumption as it related to the Montagues, but stopped there and failed to challenge her parentage. The baptismal record for Margaret (1558) shows the father only as Malthus.
> > >
> > > What we do have:
> > > 1) A John Malthouse of Binfield had been dead for 5 years when an Inquisition was made 24 Henry VII.
> > > 2) A son John Malthouse is mentioned in the Inquisition and was 18 when the inquisition was made 24 Henry VII.
> > > 3) A John Malthouse was baptized in Binfield in 1551 and his father was a John Malthouse.
> > > 4) From the Visitation of Berkshire 1552, that Margaret Bullock, daughter of Thomas Bullock and Alice Kingsmill, married a John Malthouse.
> > > 5) From the will of Thomas Bullock in 1557, there are several references to the name Malthouse which include a) daughter Margaret Malthouse, b) son-in-law John Malthouse, co-overseer, and c) godson Thomas Malthouse.
> > > 6) From the will of a John Malthouse in 1558, he mentions a wife Anne and four children, including a John Malthouse.
> > > 7) from the Visitation of Buckinghamshire in 1634, that a Margaret Malthouse, daughter of a John, Married William Montague.
> > > 8) from Marriage records in Binfield, that a Margaret Malthouse first married Thomas Grove in 1552 and secondly married William Montague in 1560..
> > > 9) A Margaret Malthus was baptized in Binfield in 1558, and the father was listed as Malthus.
> > >
> > > It would be nice to see more interest in pursuing new theories and looking at their possibilities, rather than shoving them aside with negativity.
> > Isn't the John who died in 1558 (having a wife ANNE) more likely to be the father of John Malthouse whose wife Margaret is mentioned in the Bullock will of 1557? In that case, John and Margaret (Bullock) Malthouse would be a younger couple and more likely parents of the Margaret Malthouse baptised in 1558. And we know the Margaret baptized 1558 could not be ancestral to the immigrants.
> >
> > John (d. 1558) and wife Anne could be the parents of Margaret (Malthouse) (Grove) Montague. I suppose you'll tell me she isn't mentioned in the 1558 will.
> >
> > Sometimes people were left out of wills, and we have to be aware of that possibility.
> The children mentioned in the 1558 will are John, Richard, Julian and daughter married tro Watlington. If we are going to talk possibilities, then there is a possibility that a John was born in 1510 based upon the information that we have, but from the direction that this chat has taken, possibilities could be anything.

Doesn't the will of Thomas Grove (the first husband) mention "my welbeloved Rycharde Watlington of Redinge"? This could be a brother in law.

On Thursday, March 3, 2022 at 11:38:55 AM UTC-5, Bob N wrote:
> On Thursday, March 3, 2022 at 11:18:49 AM UTC-5, ravinma...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > On Thursday, March 3, 2022 at 10:38:52 AM UTC-5, Bob N wrote:
> > > On Wednesday, March 2, 2022 at 5:31:48 PM UTC-5, wjhons...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > Repeating this over and over does not make it so any more than the first time.
> > > >
> > > > What is the *specific* reason why John III could not be Margaret's husband?
> > > > Just because Margaret may or may not be the eldest child does not mean she was born "about 1510"
> > > > She could have been born in 1500. She could have been born in 1525.
> > > >
> > > > You keep repeating that "if she were the eldest daughter she would have been born about 1510"
> > > > Repeating is not evidence.
> > > >
> > > > Rules of thumb are useless tools when trying to recreate a person who has no apparent record of their existence at all
> > > Sad to see that there is so little effort to think outside the box and look in a new way at the data that we do have, but instead old, inaccurate assumptions are maintained. This lineage has been hampered for about 130 years with faulty conclusions reached by Payne and way too many inaccurate millennial files that have been accepted as truth.
> > >
> > > Payne gave us 1) Margaret Malthouse (BP 1558) as the wife of William Montague and 2) that she was the daughter of a John Malthouse and Margaret Bullock. Hyde came along and disproved his first assumption as it related to the Montagues, but stopped there and failed to challenge her parentage. The baptismal record for Margaret (1558) shows the father only as Malthus.
> > >
> > > What we do have:
> > > 1) A John Malthouse of Binfield had been dead for 5 years when an Inquisition was made 24 Henry VII.
> > > 2) A son John Malthouse is mentioned in the Inquisition and was 18 when the inquisition was made 24 Henry VII.
> > > 3) A John Malthouse was baptized in Binfield in 1551 and his father was a John Malthouse.
> > > 4) From the Visitation of Berkshire 1552, that Margaret Bullock, daughter of Thomas Bullock and Alice Kingsmill, married a John Malthouse.
> > > 5) From the will of Thomas Bullock in 1557, there are several references to the name Malthouse which include a) daughter Margaret Malthouse, b) son-in-law John Malthouse, co-overseer, and c) godson Thomas Malthouse.
> > > 6) From the will of a John Malthouse in 1558, he mentions a wife Anne and four children, including a John Malthouse.
> > > 7) from the Visitation of Buckinghamshire in 1634, that a Margaret Malthouse, daughter of a John, Married William Montague.
> > > 8) from Marriage records in Binfield, that a Margaret Malthouse first married Thomas Grove in 1552 and secondly married William Montague in 1560..
> > > 9) A Margaret Malthus was baptized in Binfield in 1558, and the father was listed as Malthus.
> > >
> > > It would be nice to see more interest in pursuing new theories and looking at their possibilities, rather than shoving them aside with negativity.
> > Isn't the John who died in 1558 (having a wife ANNE) more likely to be the father of John Malthouse whose wife Margaret is mentioned in the Bullock will of 1557? In that case, John and Margaret (Bullock) Malthouse would be a younger couple and more likely parents of the Margaret Malthouse baptised in 1558. And we know the Margaret baptized 1558 could not be ancestral to the immigrants.
> >
> > John (d. 1558) and wife Anne could be the parents of Margaret (Malthouse) (Grove) Montague. I suppose you'll tell me she isn't mentioned in the 1558 will.
> >
> > Sometimes people were left out of wills, and we have to be aware of that possibility.
> .... considering your possibility, if Margaret Bullock was the oldest daughter, as it appears she was, it would be highly improbable (possible yes, but improbable) that she would be marrying in 1550.

I question how we really know Margaret was the eldest daughter. Also, someone could easily marry in the late 1530s and have a child as late as 1558.

On Thursday, March 3, 2022 at 8:33:49 AM UTC-8, Bob N wrote:
> On Thursday, March 3, 2022 at 11:18:49 AM UTC-5, ravinma...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > On Thursday, March 3, 2022 at 10:38:52 AM UTC-5, Bob N wrote:
> > > On Wednesday, March 2, 2022 at 5:31:48 PM UTC-5, wjhons...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > Repeating this over and over does not make it so any more than the first time.
> > > >
> > > > What is the *specific* reason why John III could not be Margaret's husband?
> > > > Just because Margaret may or may not be the eldest child does not mean she was born "about 1510"
> > > > She could have been born in 1500. She could have been born in 1525.
> > > >
> > > > You keep repeating that "if she were the eldest daughter she would have been born about 1510"
> > > > Repeating is not evidence.
> > > >
> > > > Rules of thumb are useless tools when trying to recreate a person who has no apparent record of their existence at all
> > > Sad to see that there is so little effort to think outside the box and look in a new way at the data that we do have, but instead old, inaccurate assumptions are maintained. This lineage has been hampered for about 130 years with faulty conclusions reached by Payne and way too many inaccurate millennial files that have been accepted as truth.
> > >
> > > Payne gave us 1) Margaret Malthouse (BP 1558) as the wife of William Montague and 2) that she was the daughter of a John Malthouse and Margaret Bullock. Hyde came along and disproved his first assumption as it related to the Montagues, but stopped there and failed to challenge her parentage. The baptismal record for Margaret (1558) shows the father only as Malthus.
> > >
> > > What we do have:
> > > 1) A John Malthouse of Binfield had been dead for 5 years when an Inquisition was made 24 Henry VII.
> > > 2) A son John Malthouse is mentioned in the Inquisition and was 18 when the inquisition was made 24 Henry VII.
> > > 3) A John Malthouse was baptized in Binfield in 1551 and his father was a John Malthouse.
> > > 4) From the Visitation of Berkshire 1552, that Margaret Bullock, daughter of Thomas Bullock and Alice Kingsmill, married a John Malthouse.
> > > 5) From the will of Thomas Bullock in 1557, there are several references to the name Malthouse which include a) daughter Margaret Malthouse, b) son-in-law John Malthouse, co-overseer, and c) godson Thomas Malthouse.
> > > 6) From the will of a John Malthouse in 1558, he mentions a wife Anne and four children, including a John Malthouse.
> > > 7) from the Visitation of Buckinghamshire in 1634, that a Margaret Malthouse, daughter of a John, Married William Montague.
> > > 8) from Marriage records in Binfield, that a Margaret Malthouse first married Thomas Grove in 1552 and secondly married William Montague in 1560..
> > > 9) A Margaret Malthus was baptized in Binfield in 1558, and the father was listed as Malthus.
> > >
> > > It would be nice to see more interest in pursuing new theories and looking at their possibilities, rather than shoving them aside with negativity.
> > Isn't the John who died in 1558 (having a wife ANNE) more likely to be the father of John Malthouse whose wife Margaret is mentioned in the Bullock will of 1557? In that case, John and Margaret (Bullock) Malthouse would be a younger couple and more likely parents of the Margaret Malthouse baptised in 1558. And we know the Margaret baptized 1558 could not be ancestral to the immigrants.
> >
> > John (d. 1558) and wife Anne could be the parents of Margaret (Malthouse) (Grove) Montague. I suppose you'll tell me she isn't mentioned in the 1558 will.
> >
> > Sometimes people were left out of wills, and we have to be aware of that possibility.
> The children mentioned in the 1558 will are John, Richard, Julian and daughter married tro Watlington. If we are going to talk possibilities, then there is a possibility that a John was born in 1510 based upon the information that we have, but from the direction that this chat has taken, possibilities could be anything.

There was no John born in 1510
This is a made up statement.

On Thursday, March 3, 2022 at 1:48:46 PM UTC-5, wjhons...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Thursday, March 3, 2022 at 8:33:49 AM UTC-8, Bob N wrote:
> > On Thursday, March 3, 2022 at 11:18:49 AM UTC-5, ravinma...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > > On Thursday, March 3, 2022 at 10:38:52 AM UTC-5, Bob N wrote:
> > > > On Wednesday, March 2, 2022 at 5:31:48 PM UTC-5, wjhons...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > Repeating this over and over does not make it so any more than the first time.
> > > > >
> > > > > What is the *specific* reason why John III could not be Margaret's husband?
> > > > > Just because Margaret may or may not be the eldest child does not mean she was born "about 1510"
> > > > > She could have been born in 1500. She could have been born in 1525.
> > > > >
> > > > > You keep repeating that "if she were the eldest daughter she would have been born about 1510"
> > > > > Repeating is not evidence.
> > > > >
> > > > > Rules of thumb are useless tools when trying to recreate a person who has no apparent record of their existence at all
> > > > Sad to see that there is so little effort to think outside the box and look in a new way at the data that we do have, but instead old, inaccurate assumptions are maintained. This lineage has been hampered for about 130 years with faulty conclusions reached by Payne and way too many inaccurate millennial files that have been accepted as truth.
> > > >
> > > > Payne gave us 1) Margaret Malthouse (BP 1558) as the wife of William Montague and 2) that she was the daughter of a John Malthouse and Margaret Bullock. Hyde came along and disproved his first assumption as it related to the Montagues, but stopped there and failed to challenge her parentage. The baptismal record for Margaret (1558) shows the father only as Malthus.
> > > >
> > > > What we do have:
> > > > 1) A John Malthouse of Binfield had been dead for 5 years when an Inquisition was made 24 Henry VII.
> > > > 2) A son John Malthouse is mentioned in the Inquisition and was 18 when the inquisition was made 24 Henry VII.
> > > > 3) A John Malthouse was baptized in Binfield in 1551 and his father was a John Malthouse.
> > > > 4) From the Visitation of Berkshire 1552, that Margaret Bullock, daughter of Thomas Bullock and Alice Kingsmill, married a John Malthouse.
> > > > 5) From the will of Thomas Bullock in 1557, there are several references to the name Malthouse which include a) daughter Margaret Malthouse, b) son-in-law John Malthouse, co-overseer, and c) godson Thomas Malthouse.
> > > > 6) From the will of a John Malthouse in 1558, he mentions a wife Anne and four children, including a John Malthouse.
> > > > 7) from the Visitation of Buckinghamshire in 1634, that a Margaret Malthouse, daughter of a John, Married William Montague.
> > > > 8) from Marriage records in Binfield, that a Margaret Malthouse first married Thomas Grove in 1552 and secondly married William Montague in 1560.
> > > > 9) A Margaret Malthus was baptized in Binfield in 1558, and the father was listed as Malthus.
> > > >
> > > > It would be nice to see more interest in pursuing new theories and looking at their possibilities, rather than shoving them aside with negativity.
> > > Isn't the John who died in 1558 (having a wife ANNE) more likely to be the father of John Malthouse whose wife Margaret is mentioned in the Bullock will of 1557? In that case, John and Margaret (Bullock) Malthouse would be a younger couple and more likely parents of the Margaret Malthouse baptised in 1558. And we know the Margaret baptized 1558 could not be ancestral to the immigrants.
> > >
> > > John (d. 1558) and wife Anne could be the parents of Margaret (Malthouse) (Grove) Montague. I suppose you'll tell me she isn't mentioned in the 1558 will.
> > >
> > > Sometimes people were left out of wills, and we have to be aware of that possibility.
> > The children mentioned in the 1558 will are John, Richard, Julian and daughter married tro Watlington. If we are going to talk possibilities, then there is a possibility that a John was born in 1510 based upon the information that we have, but from the direction that this chat has taken, possibilities could be anything.
> There was no John born in 1510
> This is a made up statement.

if you read what I said ...... referring to the term possibility.......
besides you have a very limited aspect of what can be. there are ways to determine that someone existed besides having a firm date for birth.

On Thursday, March 3, 2022 at 12:03:32 PM UTC-5, ravinma...@yahoo.com wrote:
> On Thursday, March 3, 2022 at 11:38:55 AM UTC-5, Bob N wrote:
> > On Thursday, March 3, 2022 at 11:18:49 AM UTC-5, ravinma...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > > On Thursday, March 3, 2022 at 10:38:52 AM UTC-5, Bob N wrote:
> > > > On Wednesday, March 2, 2022 at 5:31:48 PM UTC-5, wjhons...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > Repeating this over and over does not make it so any more than the first time.
> > > > >
> > > > > What is the *specific* reason why John III could not be Margaret's husband?
> > > > > Just because Margaret may or may not be the eldest child does not mean she was born "about 1510"
> > > > > She could have been born in 1500. She could have been born in 1525.
> > > > >
> > > > > You keep repeating that "if she were the eldest daughter she would have been born about 1510"
> > > > > Repeating is not evidence.
> > > > >
> > > > > Rules of thumb are useless tools when trying to recreate a person who has no apparent record of their existence at all
> > > > Sad to see that there is so little effort to think outside the box and look in a new way at the data that we do have, but instead old, inaccurate assumptions are maintained. This lineage has been hampered for about 130 years with faulty conclusions reached by Payne and way too many inaccurate millennial files that have been accepted as truth.
> > > >
> > > > Payne gave us 1) Margaret Malthouse (BP 1558) as the wife of William Montague and 2) that she was the daughter of a John Malthouse and Margaret Bullock. Hyde came along and disproved his first assumption as it related to the Montagues, but stopped there and failed to challenge her parentage. The baptismal record for Margaret (1558) shows the father only as Malthus.
> > > >
> > > > What we do have:
> > > > 1) A John Malthouse of Binfield had been dead for 5 years when an Inquisition was made 24 Henry VII.
> > > > 2) A son John Malthouse is mentioned in the Inquisition and was 18 when the inquisition was made 24 Henry VII.
> > > > 3) A John Malthouse was baptized in Binfield in 1551 and his father was a John Malthouse.
> > > > 4) From the Visitation of Berkshire 1552, that Margaret Bullock, daughter of Thomas Bullock and Alice Kingsmill, married a John Malthouse.
> > > > 5) From the will of Thomas Bullock in 1557, there are several references to the name Malthouse which include a) daughter Margaret Malthouse, b) son-in-law John Malthouse, co-overseer, and c) godson Thomas Malthouse.
> > > > 6) From the will of a John Malthouse in 1558, he mentions a wife Anne and four children, including a John Malthouse.
> > > > 7) from the Visitation of Buckinghamshire in 1634, that a Margaret Malthouse, daughter of a John, Married William Montague.
> > > > 8) from Marriage records in Binfield, that a Margaret Malthouse first married Thomas Grove in 1552 and secondly married William Montague in 1560.
> > > > 9) A Margaret Malthus was baptized in Binfield in 1558, and the father was listed as Malthus.
> > > >
> > > > It would be nice to see more interest in pursuing new theories and looking at their possibilities, rather than shoving them aside with negativity.
> > > Isn't the John who died in 1558 (having a wife ANNE) more likely to be the father of John Malthouse whose wife Margaret is mentioned in the Bullock will of 1557? In that case, John and Margaret (Bullock) Malthouse would be a younger couple and more likely parents of the Margaret Malthouse baptised in 1558. And we know the Margaret baptized 1558 could not be ancestral to the immigrants.
> > >
> > > John (d. 1558) and wife Anne could be the parents of Margaret (Malthouse) (Grove) Montague. I suppose you'll tell me she isn't mentioned in the 1558 will.
> > >
> > > Sometimes people were left out of wills, and we have to be aware of that possibility.
> > .... considering your possibility, if Margaret Bullock was the oldest daughter, as it appears she was, it would be highly improbable (possible yes, but improbable) that she would be marrying in 1550.
> I question how we really know Margaret was the eldest daughter. Also, someone could easily marry in the late 1530s and have a child as late as 1558.

'Johnny Brananas' via soc.genealogy.medieval
11:45 AM (2 hours ago)
to
Doesn't the will of Thomas Grove (the first husband) mention "my welbeloved Rycharde Watlington of Redinge"? This could be a brother in law.

'Johnny Brananas' via soc.genealogy.medieval
12:03 PM (2 hours ago)
to
I question how we really know Margaret was the eldest daughter. Also, someone could easily marry in the late 1530s and have a child as late as 1558.

Bob N <bobn050021@gmail.com>
12:23 PM (1 hour ago)
to soc.genealogy.medieval
Being the oldest daughter is based on the two visitations to Berkshire. The sons are listed by age and the daughter's are listed in the same order in both visitations, so as meticulous as the author was,they should be by age as well.

It is far more likely that Margaret Bullock married John Malthouse born in 1491 than Jon Malthouse born about 1530. As it was pointed out, it was more common that a much older man married a younger woman as would have been the case with John (1491) ( he would have been about her father's age), but for an older woman to marry a younger man, this was rarely seen, as would have been the case with John (1530). Also John was of some stature in 1557 to be co-overseer of Thomas Bullock's will.

On Thursday, March 3, 2022 at 2:17:51 PM UTC-5, Bob N wrote:
> On Thursday, March 3, 2022 at 12:03:32 PM UTC-5, ravinma...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > On Thursday, March 3, 2022 at 11:38:55 AM UTC-5, Bob N wrote:
> > > On Thursday, March 3, 2022 at 11:18:49 AM UTC-5, ravinma...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > > > On Thursday, March 3, 2022 at 10:38:52 AM UTC-5, Bob N wrote:
> > > > > On Wednesday, March 2, 2022 at 5:31:48 PM UTC-5, wjhons...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > Repeating this over and over does not make it so any more than the first time.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > What is the *specific* reason why John III could not be Margaret's husband?
> > > > > > Just because Margaret may or may not be the eldest child does not mean she was born "about 1510"
> > > > > > She could have been born in 1500. She could have been born in 1525.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > You keep repeating that "if she were the eldest daughter she would have been born about 1510"
> > > > > > Repeating is not evidence.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Rules of thumb are useless tools when trying to recreate a person who has no apparent record of their existence at all
> > > > > Sad to see that there is so little effort to think outside the box and look in a new way at the data that we do have, but instead old, inaccurate assumptions are maintained. This lineage has been hampered for about 130 years with faulty conclusions reached by Payne and way too many inaccurate millennial files that have been accepted as truth.
> > > > >
> > > > > Payne gave us 1) Margaret Malthouse (BP 1558) as the wife of William Montague and 2) that she was the daughter of a John Malthouse and Margaret Bullock. Hyde came along and disproved his first assumption as it related to the Montagues, but stopped there and failed to challenge her parentage. The baptismal record for Margaret (1558) shows the father only as Malthus.
> > > > >
> > > > > What we do have:
> > > > > 1) A John Malthouse of Binfield had been dead for 5 years when an Inquisition was made 24 Henry VII.
> > > > > 2) A son John Malthouse is mentioned in the Inquisition and was 18 when the inquisition was made 24 Henry VII.
> > > > > 3) A John Malthouse was baptized in Binfield in 1551 and his father was a John Malthouse.
> > > > > 4) From the Visitation of Berkshire 1552, that Margaret Bullock, daughter of Thomas Bullock and Alice Kingsmill, married a John Malthouse.
> > > > > 5) From the will of Thomas Bullock in 1557, there are several references to the name Malthouse which include a) daughter Margaret Malthouse, b) son-in-law John Malthouse, co-overseer, and c) godson Thomas Malthouse.
> > > > > 6) From the will of a John Malthouse in 1558, he mentions a wife Anne and four children, including a John Malthouse.
> > > > > 7) from the Visitation of Buckinghamshire in 1634, that a Margaret Malthouse, daughter of a John, Married William Montague.
> > > > > 8) from Marriage records in Binfield, that a Margaret Malthouse first married Thomas Grove in 1552 and secondly married William Montague in 1560.
> > > > > 9) A Margaret Malthus was baptized in Binfield in 1558, and the father was listed as Malthus.
> > > > >
> > > > > It would be nice to see more interest in pursuing new theories and looking at their possibilities, rather than shoving them aside with negativity.
> > > > Isn't the John who died in 1558 (having a wife ANNE) more likely to be the father of John Malthouse whose wife Margaret is mentioned in the Bullock will of 1557? In that case, John and Margaret (Bullock) Malthouse would be a younger couple and more likely parents of the Margaret Malthouse baptised in 1558. And we know the Margaret baptized 1558 could not be ancestral to the immigrants.
> > > >
> > > > John (d. 1558) and wife Anne could be the parents of Margaret (Malthouse) (Grove) Montague. I suppose you'll tell me she isn't mentioned in the 1558 will.
> > > >
> > > > Sometimes people were left out of wills, and we have to be aware of that possibility.
> > > .... considering your possibility, if Margaret Bullock was the oldest daughter, as it appears she was, it would be highly improbable (possible yes, but improbable) that she would be marrying in 1550.
> > I question how we really know Margaret was the eldest daughter. Also, someone could easily marry in the late 1530s and have a child as late as 1558.
> 'Johnny Brananas' via soc.genealogy.medieval
>
> 11:45 AM (2 hours ago)
>
> to
> Doesn't the will of Thomas Grove (the first husband) mention "my welbeloved Rycharde Watlington of Redinge"? This could be a brother in law.
> 'Johnny Brananas' via soc.genealogy.medieval
>
> 12:03 PM (2 hours ago)
>
> to
> I question how we really know Margaret was the eldest daughter. Also, someone could easily marry in the late 1530s and have a child as late as 1558.
> Bob N <bobn0...@gmail.com>
>
> 12:23 PM (1 hour ago)
>
> to soc.genealogy.medieval
> Being the oldest daughter is based on the two visitations to Berkshire. The sons are listed by age and the daughter's are listed in the same order in both visitations, so as meticulous as the author was,they should be by age as well.
>
> It is far more likely that Margaret Bullock married John Malthouse born in 1491 than Jon Malthouse born about 1530. As it was pointed out, it was more common that a much older man married a younger woman as would have been the case with John (1491) ( he would have been about her father's age), but for an older woman to marry a younger man, this was rarely seen, as would have been the case with John (1530). Also John was of some stature in 1557 to be co-overseer of Thomas Bullock's will.
i will reread the Grove will....thank you

> > > Isn't the John who died in 1558 (having a wife ANNE) more likely to be the father of John Malthouse whose wife Margaret is mentioned in the Bullock will of 1557? In that case, John and Margaret (Bullock) Malthouse would be a younger couple and more likely parents of the Margaret Malthouse baptised in 1558. And we know the Margaret baptized 1558 could not be ancestral to the immigrants.
> > >
> > > John (d. 1558) and wife Anne could be the parents of Margaret (Malthouse) (Grove) Montague. I suppose you'll tell me she isn't mentioned in the 1558 will.
> > >
> > > Sometimes people were left out of wills, and we have to be aware of that possibility.
> > .... considering your possibility, if Margaret Bullock was the oldest daughter, as it appears she was, it would be highly improbable (possible yes, but improbable) that she would be marrying in 1550.
> I question how we really know Margaret was the eldest daughter. Also, someone could easily marry in the late 1530s and have a child as late as 1558.

I think that was more or less what I was trying to suggest, in so far as I think it most likely that it is John III (who is mentioned in John II's 1558 will) who was married to Margaret Bullock (and that he is the one mentioned in Thomas Bullock's will which was written in 1557). That leaves us with a John Malthouse (with no wife listed) who was having children between ca.. 1551 and 1563 (if I remember correctly) and a Margaret Malthouse Grove Montague who is having children between 1554 and 1573. This suggests (at least I think so) that those two might be contemporaries and probably siblings.. I don't think she can be the unnamed daughter of John II, who was married to Thomas Watlington, since we know that Margaret Malthouse was married to Thomas Grove from 1552 until his death in 1558 -- and I'm pretty sure that when she married William Montague in 1560 she did so as the widow of Thomas Grove. That being the case, and for now I'll assume that to be so, I think we have to at least be open to the probability that she is therefore the daughter of John III, and that that also means that she might in fact be the daughter of Margaret Bullock after all. For this to be the case, however, clearly both John III and Margaret Bullock would, of necessity, have to be among their respective parents' older children, although I don't that we gain anything by speculating on exact dates, I think there is a range of birth years that would apply and still be plausible. And while I don't think anything we currently do know (vis-a-vis dates) precludes that (i.e. Margaret Malthouse Grove Montague being the daughter of John III and Margaret Bullock, even with the Margaret born in 1558) from being possible, it does imply the existence of a John IV who would be Margaret's brother and the father of the children being baptized between 1551 and 1563. Another possibility might be that John III was married more than once, and Margaret Malthouse Grove Montague was the child of an earlier marriage, and the children being baptized between 1551 and 1563 are indeed the children of John III, but by a subsequent wife (i.e. Margaret Bullock). I know that would mean that John III named two daughters Margaret, but that is not as unusual as one might think (particularly when it comes to half siblings -- going slightly off course, I'm descended from two half-brothers both of whom were named Mareen Duvall). I think Payne has some discussion of the Watlington family so I'll try to track that down when I am home this evening, but I don't know if it will provide any answers or not.

At this point I think there are any number of ways we can reconstruct this family, but each reconstruction requires us to fill in the many gaps in the family's history with "possible, probable, likely" (etc.) scenarios to support each theory we come up with. Even so, I think the discussion is worth having -- up to now I simply accepted Hyde's position as fact and never really even bothered to consider any other possible interpretation of what fragments of evidence are available; so even if we wind up back where we started (and we may very well do so), I think it's been a worth while exercise.

On Thursday, March 3, 2022 at 11:13:24 AM UTC-8, Bob N wrote:
> On Thursday, March 3, 2022 at 1:48:46 PM UTC-5, wjhons...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Thursday, March 3, 2022 at 8:33:49 AM UTC-8, Bob N wrote:
> > > On Thursday, March 3, 2022 at 11:18:49 AM UTC-5, ravinma...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > > > On Thursday, March 3, 2022 at 10:38:52 AM UTC-5, Bob N wrote:
> > > > > On Wednesday, March 2, 2022 at 5:31:48 PM UTC-5, wjhons...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > Repeating this over and over does not make it so any more than the first time.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > What is the *specific* reason why John III could not be Margaret's husband?
> > > > > > Just because Margaret may or may not be the eldest child does not mean she was born "about 1510"
> > > > > > She could have been born in 1500. She could have been born in 1525.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > You keep repeating that "if she were the eldest daughter she would have been born about 1510"
> > > > > > Repeating is not evidence.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Rules of thumb are useless tools when trying to recreate a person who has no apparent record of their existence at all
> > > > > Sad to see that there is so little effort to think outside the box and look in a new way at the data that we do have, but instead old, inaccurate assumptions are maintained. This lineage has been hampered for about 130 years with faulty conclusions reached by Payne and way too many inaccurate millennial files that have been accepted as truth.
> > > > >
> > > > > Payne gave us 1) Margaret Malthouse (BP 1558) as the wife of William Montague and 2) that she was the daughter of a John Malthouse and Margaret Bullock. Hyde came along and disproved his first assumption as it related to the Montagues, but stopped there and failed to challenge her parentage. The baptismal record for Margaret (1558) shows the father only as Malthus.
> > > > >
> > > > > What we do have:
> > > > > 1) A John Malthouse of Binfield had been dead for 5 years when an Inquisition was made 24 Henry VII.
> > > > > 2) A son John Malthouse is mentioned in the Inquisition and was 18 when the inquisition was made 24 Henry VII.
> > > > > 3) A John Malthouse was baptized in Binfield in 1551 and his father was a John Malthouse.
> > > > > 4) From the Visitation of Berkshire 1552, that Margaret Bullock, daughter of Thomas Bullock and Alice Kingsmill, married a John Malthouse.
> > > > > 5) From the will of Thomas Bullock in 1557, there are several references to the name Malthouse which include a) daughter Margaret Malthouse, b) son-in-law John Malthouse, co-overseer, and c) godson Thomas Malthouse.
> > > > > 6) From the will of a John Malthouse in 1558, he mentions a wife Anne and four children, including a John Malthouse.
> > > > > 7) from the Visitation of Buckinghamshire in 1634, that a Margaret Malthouse, daughter of a John, Married William Montague.
> > > > > 8) from Marriage records in Binfield, that a Margaret Malthouse first married Thomas Grove in 1552 and secondly married William Montague in 1560.
> > > > > 9) A Margaret Malthus was baptized in Binfield in 1558, and the father was listed as Malthus.
> > > > >
> > > > > It would be nice to see more interest in pursuing new theories and looking at their possibilities, rather than shoving them aside with negativity.
> > > > Isn't the John who died in 1558 (having a wife ANNE) more likely to be the father of John Malthouse whose wife Margaret is mentioned in the Bullock will of 1557? In that case, John and Margaret (Bullock) Malthouse would be a younger couple and more likely parents of the Margaret Malthouse baptised in 1558. And we know the Margaret baptized 1558 could not be ancestral to the immigrants.
> > > >
> > > > John (d. 1558) and wife Anne could be the parents of Margaret (Malthouse) (Grove) Montague. I suppose you'll tell me she isn't mentioned in the 1558 will.
> > > >
> > > > Sometimes people were left out of wills, and we have to be aware of that possibility.
> > > The children mentioned in the 1558 will are John, Richard, Julian and daughter married tro Watlington. If we are going to talk possibilities, then there is a possibility that a John was born in 1510 based upon the information that we have, but from the direction that this chat has taken, possibilities could be anything.
> > There was no John born in 1510
> > This is a made up statement.
> if you read what I said ...... referring to the term possibility.......
> besides you have a very limited aspect of what can be. there are ways to determine that someone existed besides having a firm date for birth.

Stop saying that he that he "was born in 1510"
If he existed at all, he could have been born in 1511 or 1512 or 1513 or 1520

You are just creating a mythical claim and then supporting a house on top of it

On Thursday, March 3, 2022 at 2:56:41 PM UTC-5, wjhons...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Thursday, March 3, 2022 at 11:13:24 AM UTC-8, Bob N wrote:
> > On Thursday, March 3, 2022 at 1:48:46 PM UTC-5, wjhons...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > On Thursday, March 3, 2022 at 8:33:49 AM UTC-8, Bob N wrote:
> > > > On Thursday, March 3, 2022 at 11:18:49 AM UTC-5, ravinma...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > > > > On Thursday, March 3, 2022 at 10:38:52 AM UTC-5, Bob N wrote:
> > > > > > On Wednesday, March 2, 2022 at 5:31:48 PM UTC-5, wjhons...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > Repeating this over and over does not make it so any more than the first time.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > What is the *specific* reason why John III could not be Margaret's husband?
> > > > > > > Just because Margaret may or may not be the eldest child does not mean she was born "about 1510"
> > > > > > > She could have been born in 1500. She could have been born in 1525.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > You keep repeating that "if she were the eldest daughter she would have been born about 1510"
> > > > > > > Repeating is not evidence.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Rules of thumb are useless tools when trying to recreate a person who has no apparent record of their existence at all
> > > > > > Sad to see that there is so little effort to think outside the box and look in a new way at the data that we do have, but instead old, inaccurate assumptions are maintained. This lineage has been hampered for about 130 years with faulty conclusions reached by Payne and way too many inaccurate millennial files that have been accepted as truth.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Payne gave us 1) Margaret Malthouse (BP 1558) as the wife of William Montague and 2) that she was the daughter of a John Malthouse and Margaret Bullock. Hyde came along and disproved his first assumption as it related to the Montagues, but stopped there and failed to challenge her parentage. The baptismal record for Margaret (1558) shows the father only as Malthus.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > What we do have:
> > > > > > 1) A John Malthouse of Binfield had been dead for 5 years when an Inquisition was made 24 Henry VII.
> > > > > > 2) A son John Malthouse is mentioned in the Inquisition and was 18 when the inquisition was made 24 Henry VII.
> > > > > > 3) A John Malthouse was baptized in Binfield in 1551 and his father was a John Malthouse.
> > > > > > 4) From the Visitation of Berkshire 1552, that Margaret Bullock, daughter of Thomas Bullock and Alice Kingsmill, married a John Malthouse.
> > > > > > 5) From the will of Thomas Bullock in 1557, there are several references to the name Malthouse which include a) daughter Margaret Malthouse, b) son-in-law John Malthouse, co-overseer, and c) godson Thomas Malthouse.
> > > > > > 6) From the will of a John Malthouse in 1558, he mentions a wife Anne and four children, including a John Malthouse.
> > > > > > 7) from the Visitation of Buckinghamshire in 1634, that a Margaret Malthouse, daughter of a John, Married William Montague.
> > > > > > 8) from Marriage records in Binfield, that a Margaret Malthouse first married Thomas Grove in 1552 and secondly married William Montague in 1560.
> > > > > > 9) A Margaret Malthus was baptized in Binfield in 1558, and the father was listed as Malthus.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > It would be nice to see more interest in pursuing new theories and looking at their possibilities, rather than shoving them aside with negativity.
> > > > > Isn't the John who died in 1558 (having a wife ANNE) more likely to be the father of John Malthouse whose wife Margaret is mentioned in the Bullock will of 1557? In that case, John and Margaret (Bullock) Malthouse would be a younger couple and more likely parents of the Margaret Malthouse baptised in 1558. And we know the Margaret baptized 1558 could not be ancestral to the immigrants.
> > > > >
> > > > > John (d. 1558) and wife Anne could be the parents of Margaret (Malthouse) (Grove) Montague. I suppose you'll tell me she isn't mentioned in the 1558 will.
> > > > >
> > > > > Sometimes people were left out of wills, and we have to be aware of that possibility.
> > > > The children mentioned in the 1558 will are John, Richard, Julian and daughter married tro Watlington. If we are going to talk possibilities, then there is a possibility that a John was born in 1510 based upon the information that we have, but from the direction that this chat has taken, possibilities could be anything.
> > > There was no John born in 1510
> > > This is a made up statement.
> > if you read what I said ...... referring to the term possibility.......
> > besides you have a very limited aspect of what can be. there are ways to determine that someone existed besides having a firm date for birth.
> Stop saying that he that he "was born in 1510"
> If he existed at all, he could have been born in 1511 or 1512 or 1513 or 1520
>
> You are just creating a mythical claim and then supporting a house on top of it
ok if you dislike John (abt 1510) then we have John 1491 and John (abt 1530), and John 1491 is a much more believable candidate for the husband of Margaret Bullock that John 1530. To quote you .... "We have examples from this time period of a husband marrying (as her first husband) when the man was OVER 50 and the woman was 12 !! " and the reverse with on older woman from a upper class family marrying a much younger man, as her first marriage, is very rare.

On Thursday, March 3, 2022 at 2:31:34 PM UTC-8, Bob N wrote:
> On Thursday, March 3, 2022 at 2:56:41 PM UTC-5, wjhons...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Thursday, March 3, 2022 at 11:13:24 AM UTC-8, Bob N wrote:
> > > On Thursday, March 3, 2022 at 1:48:46 PM UTC-5, wjhons...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > On Thursday, March 3, 2022 at 8:33:49 AM UTC-8, Bob N wrote:
> > > > > On Thursday, March 3, 2022 at 11:18:49 AM UTC-5, ravinma...@yahoo..com wrote:
> > > > > > On Thursday, March 3, 2022 at 10:38:52 AM UTC-5, Bob N wrote:
> > > > > > > On Wednesday, March 2, 2022 at 5:31:48 PM UTC-5, wjhons...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > Repeating this over and over does not make it so any more than the first time.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > What is the *specific* reason why John III could not be Margaret's husband?
> > > > > > > > Just because Margaret may or may not be the eldest child does not mean she was born "about 1510"
> > > > > > > > She could have been born in 1500. She could have been born in 1525.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > You keep repeating that "if she were the eldest daughter she would have been born about 1510"
> > > > > > > > Repeating is not evidence.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Rules of thumb are useless tools when trying to recreate a person who has no apparent record of their existence at all
> > > > > > > Sad to see that there is so little effort to think outside the box and look in a new way at the data that we do have, but instead old, inaccurate assumptions are maintained. This lineage has been hampered for about 130 years with faulty conclusions reached by Payne and way too many inaccurate millennial files that have been accepted as truth.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Payne gave us 1) Margaret Malthouse (BP 1558) as the wife of William Montague and 2) that she was the daughter of a John Malthouse and Margaret Bullock. Hyde came along and disproved his first assumption as it related to the Montagues, but stopped there and failed to challenge her parentage. The baptismal record for Margaret (1558) shows the father only as Malthus.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > What we do have:
> > > > > > > 1) A John Malthouse of Binfield had been dead for 5 years when an Inquisition was made 24 Henry VII.
> > > > > > > 2) A son John Malthouse is mentioned in the Inquisition and was 18 when the inquisition was made 24 Henry VII.
> > > > > > > 3) A John Malthouse was baptized in Binfield in 1551 and his father was a John Malthouse.
> > > > > > > 4) From the Visitation of Berkshire 1552, that Margaret Bullock, daughter of Thomas Bullock and Alice Kingsmill, married a John Malthouse.
> > > > > > > 5) From the will of Thomas Bullock in 1557, there are several references to the name Malthouse which include a) daughter Margaret Malthouse, b) son-in-law John Malthouse, co-overseer, and c) godson Thomas Malthouse.
> > > > > > > 6) From the will of a John Malthouse in 1558, he mentions a wife Anne and four children, including a John Malthouse.
> > > > > > > 7) from the Visitation of Buckinghamshire in 1634, that a Margaret Malthouse, daughter of a John, Married William Montague.
> > > > > > > 8) from Marriage records in Binfield, that a Margaret Malthouse first married Thomas Grove in 1552 and secondly married William Montague in 1560.
> > > > > > > 9) A Margaret Malthus was baptized in Binfield in 1558, and the father was listed as Malthus.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > It would be nice to see more interest in pursuing new theories and looking at their possibilities, rather than shoving them aside with negativity.
> > > > > > Isn't the John who died in 1558 (having a wife ANNE) more likely to be the father of John Malthouse whose wife Margaret is mentioned in the Bullock will of 1557? In that case, John and Margaret (Bullock) Malthouse would be a younger couple and more likely parents of the Margaret Malthouse baptised in 1558. And we know the Margaret baptized 1558 could not be ancestral to the immigrants.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > John (d. 1558) and wife Anne could be the parents of Margaret (Malthouse) (Grove) Montague. I suppose you'll tell me she isn't mentioned in the 1558 will.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Sometimes people were left out of wills, and we have to be aware of that possibility.
> > > > > The children mentioned in the 1558 will are John, Richard, Julian and daughter married tro Watlington. If we are going to talk possibilities, then there is a possibility that a John was born in 1510 based upon the information that we have, but from the direction that this chat has taken, possibilities could be anything.
> > > > There was no John born in 1510
> > > > This is a made up statement.
> > > if you read what I said ...... referring to the term possibility........
> > > besides you have a very limited aspect of what can be. there are ways to determine that someone existed besides having a firm date for birth.
> > Stop saying that he that he "was born in 1510"
> > If he existed at all, he could have been born in 1511 or 1512 or 1513 or 1520
> >
> > You are just creating a mythical claim and then supporting a house on top of it
> ok if you dislike John (abt 1510) then we have John 1491 and John (abt 1530), and John 1491 is a much more believable candidate for the husband of Margaret Bullock that John 1530. To quote you .... "We have examples from this time period of a husband marrying (as her first husband) when the man was OVER 50 and the woman was 12 !! " and the reverse with on older woman from a upper class family marrying a much younger man, as her first marriage, is very rare.

That would also allow relaxing the extremely tight chronology

On Friday, March 4, 2022 at 9:11:26 AM UTC-5, wjhons...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Thursday, March 3, 2022 at 2:31:34 PM UTC-8, Bob N wrote:
> > On Thursday, March 3, 2022 at 2:56:41 PM UTC-5, wjhons...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > On Thursday, March 3, 2022 at 11:13:24 AM UTC-8, Bob N wrote:
> > > > On Thursday, March 3, 2022 at 1:48:46 PM UTC-5, wjhons...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > On Thursday, March 3, 2022 at 8:33:49 AM UTC-8, Bob N wrote:
> > > > > > On Thursday, March 3, 2022 at 11:18:49 AM UTC-5, ravinma...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > > > > > > On Thursday, March 3, 2022 at 10:38:52 AM UTC-5, Bob N wrote:
> > > > > > > > On Wednesday, March 2, 2022 at 5:31:48 PM UTC-5, wjhons...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > > Repeating this over and over does not make it so any more than the first time.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > What is the *specific* reason why John III could not be Margaret's husband?
> > > > > > > > > Just because Margaret may or may not be the eldest child does not mean she was born "about 1510"
> > > > > > > > > She could have been born in 1500. She could have been born in 1525.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > You keep repeating that "if she were the eldest daughter she would have been born about 1510"
> > > > > > > > > Repeating is not evidence.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Rules of thumb are useless tools when trying to recreate a person who has no apparent record of their existence at all
> > > > > > > > Sad to see that there is so little effort to think outside the box and look in a new way at the data that we do have, but instead old, inaccurate assumptions are maintained. This lineage has been hampered for about 130 years with faulty conclusions reached by Payne and way too many inaccurate millennial files that have been accepted as truth.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Payne gave us 1) Margaret Malthouse (BP 1558) as the wife of William Montague and 2) that she was the daughter of a John Malthouse and Margaret Bullock. Hyde came along and disproved his first assumption as it related to the Montagues, but stopped there and failed to challenge her parentage. The baptismal record for Margaret (1558) shows the father only as Malthus.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > What we do have:
> > > > > > > > 1) A John Malthouse of Binfield had been dead for 5 years when an Inquisition was made 24 Henry VII.
> > > > > > > > 2) A son John Malthouse is mentioned in the Inquisition and was 18 when the inquisition was made 24 Henry VII.
> > > > > > > > 3) A John Malthouse was baptized in Binfield in 1551 and his father was a John Malthouse.
> > > > > > > > 4) From the Visitation of Berkshire 1552, that Margaret Bullock, daughter of Thomas Bullock and Alice Kingsmill, married a John Malthouse.
> > > > > > > > 5) From the will of Thomas Bullock in 1557, there are several references to the name Malthouse which include a) daughter Margaret Malthouse, b) son-in-law John Malthouse, co-overseer, and c) godson Thomas Malthouse.
> > > > > > > > 6) From the will of a John Malthouse in 1558, he mentions a wife Anne and four children, including a John Malthouse.
> > > > > > > > 7) from the Visitation of Buckinghamshire in 1634, that a Margaret Malthouse, daughter of a John, Married William Montague.
> > > > > > > > 8) from Marriage records in Binfield, that a Margaret Malthouse first married Thomas Grove in 1552 and secondly married William Montague in 1560.
> > > > > > > > 9) A Margaret Malthus was baptized in Binfield in 1558, and the father was listed as Malthus.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > It would be nice to see more interest in pursuing new theories and looking at their possibilities, rather than shoving them aside with negativity.
> > > > > > > Isn't the John who died in 1558 (having a wife ANNE) more likely to be the father of John Malthouse whose wife Margaret is mentioned in the Bullock will of 1557? In that case, John and Margaret (Bullock) Malthouse would be a younger couple and more likely parents of the Margaret Malthouse baptised in 1558. And we know the Margaret baptized 1558 could not be ancestral to the immigrants.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > John (d. 1558) and wife Anne could be the parents of Margaret (Malthouse) (Grove) Montague. I suppose you'll tell me she isn't mentioned in the 1558 will.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Sometimes people were left out of wills, and we have to be aware of that possibility.
> > > > > > The children mentioned in the 1558 will are John, Richard, Julian and daughter married tro Watlington. If we are going to talk possibilities, then there is a possibility that a John was born in 1510 based upon the information that we have, but from the direction that this chat has taken, possibilities could be anything.
> > > > > There was no John born in 1510
> > > > > This is a made up statement.
> > > > if you read what I said ...... referring to the term possibility........
> > > > besides you have a very limited aspect of what can be. there are ways to determine that someone existed besides having a firm date for birth.
> > > Stop saying that he that he "was born in 1510"
> > > If he existed at all, he could have been born in 1511 or 1512 or 1513 or 1520
> > >
> > > You are just creating a mythical claim and then supporting a house on top of it
> > ok if you dislike John (abt 1510) then we have John 1491 and John (abt 1530), and John 1491 is a much more believable candidate for the husband of Margaret Bullock that John 1530. To quote you .... "We have examples from this time period of a husband marrying (as her first husband) when the man was OVER 50 and the woman was 12 !! " and the reverse with on older woman from a upper class family marrying a much younger man, as her first marriage, is very rare.
> That would also allow relaxing the extremely tight chronology

Katherine Neville married John Woodville, about a 40- or 50-year age difference (1400s).