While not many DNA samples have been submitted so far, they certainly
suggest that the two Williams were related and closely.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Bruce E Carpenter" <carp(a)tezukayama-u.ac.jp>
To: <CARPENTER-L(a)rootsweb.com>
Sent: Monday, May 12, 2003 6:32 PM
Subject: [CARPENTER] proof
"Certain highly respected genealogists consider them to have
been related
only
by marriage."
The repeated assertion that the two Williams were not related can become
as
tiresome as the assertion that they are. The argument they are not
related
is equally deserving of 'proof'. To date Mr. Zubrinsky has
offered nothing
in the way of evidence to even suggest they were unrelated.
The other evidence i.e. the two farmed together, children married, one
referred to the other as 'cousin' in a will, points to a
probability of a blood relationship.
Mr. Zubrinsky's own Shalbourne data does not 'prove' the William of
Shalbourne was the William of Rehoboth. It does establish a very high
probability the Williams were the same. The only basis for this is name
similarity. There is nothing in those transcripts that 'proves' anything.
However most people would believe Shalbourne William was Rehoboth William
on
the basis of probability alone. I do.
"the parentage of Richard Carpenter of Amesbury has not been
proved, nor has that of William1 of Shalbourne"
Data concerning the father of William Carpenter has been presented for his
residence in
Wroxton, Oxfordshire. The names and dates of this data establish an
extremely high probability
that William of Rehoboth was born in Wroxton.
There is no evidence at all concerning a parentage of an Amesbury Richard
Carpenter. None.
If Mr. Zubrinsky deals in probabilities, then he should buy probabilities.
He doesn't deal in proof and yet
he will only buy proof from others.
BC