G2G: Birth date to use for John Franklon Washburn?

Question

John Washburn, son of John Washburn of Bengeworth b. abt 1518 and Jone Bushell, is shown in the "English Origins of the Washburn Families of Plymouth Colony and Hempstead, Long Island" by John Maltby, as John Washborne baptized on 31 Jan. 1551 in St. Peter’s Parish, Bengeworth, as “John Franklon alias Wasborne.”, citing: St. Peter’s Parish Registers, Bengeworth, Worcestershire, England, from FHL Microfilm #0383530 for John and all the other siblings  ... Another source that is suggested to be from the "Descendants of Roger De Washbourne" by Anne Miller mirrors the above.

A date of 1566 is shown on the profile, from an online tree (Rhodes) and states: "John Washborn, was baptized in 1566 according to the register of Bengeworth baptisms: "Item; the first daye of August - Wasborn . . . "   

A statement on the tree is included saying that this information has come from another tree.

They then show "The Genealogical History of the Washburn Family of Northwest Tennessee" by Jeffery T Washburn, I believe as an attempt to corroborate the above and quote an extract from same: "This John Washbourne was born on August 1, 1566, at Bengeworth, Wickenford Parrish, Worchestershire, England. He was the first child born of John Washbourne and Joan Bushell."   

According to Maltby, John Washburn & Jone Bushell were married in 1542 and the John in question was the fifth of six children born to them. We all know the strength of Maltby's research.

I believe that he is correct and need some input from the community to help decide which date to use.

Thank you much,

Dan

Comments

I think I'd really want to see that microffilm.  Formats of early registers varied, but if it really does say John Franklon alias Wasborne, then all other things being equal I'd take that as a strong suggestion that the parents weren't married.  Just treating Franklon as a middle name doesn't really deal with it.

---

The record is available at https://familysearch.org/catalog-search under "Film/Fiche Number" using the 0383530 that Maltby cites... but won't print to a file and I know it's lame, but I don't have a working printer at the moment ... Possibly someone else can print it and post herein??  I'd very much like to see it myself.

Thank you for the comment RJ, It's a valid point.

Dan

---

Please excuse my ignorance. I am still a DNA newbie.  I took a look at the referenced profile and the link to the DNA results. How were you able to determine that the ancestors born hundreds of years ago actually have the same DNA results? Was one or more exhumed to provide a sample?

---

Hi Michele, I am certainly not a DNA expert, but I have been following the Washburn DNA project for about 15 years.

The quick answers are: I didn't make the determination, this was done by the folks at FamilyTreeDNA for this project;   And yes, it is my understanding that some family members were exhumed to provide the baseline for the many volunteers that have come forward recently (last 2 decades).

I personally have not been able to participate, since it was my mother that was a Washburn and the Y-Chromosome DNA markers are passed only from fathers to sons, BUT, I was recently contacted by a cousin who shares the same gg-grandfather and he is in the direct male line from same!! I am very excited about getting him tested.

---

Thank you. And good luck with your project(s).

---

Daniel, the microfilm you reference has not yet been digitized so someone (in the U.S.) would need to rent the film from Salt Lake City, go to their local LDS family history center and review the film on a reader. Or perhaps one of our UK members has access to these records through another means.

But I concur that the original records (or microfilms of them) should be reviewed.

Answer 1

Hi Dan,

In reviewing the information you have the quote on the 1566 date is actually sourced out from an email received from another person.   There is no actual "record look up" cited.   I always fear in those cases that no one has actually seen the record that is quoting the record.   I trust Maltby, and I would go with the 1551 date.   Very easily they could have had 5 children between 1542 and 1551.  And if you look at the dates on the other children, that date would also make him 5 of 6.

Comments

Thank you Robin, really appreciate that you took the time to help on this .... The 1566 date shown simply as "Wasborn" belongs to someone and I will continue to look for whom it belongs.

---

So is the consensus that the mother of John (born 1551, not 1566) was Jone Bushnell?  And that the descendants of the Washburns come through her, and not Jone (Shepey) Whitehead?  I'm trying to put together a family tree, which includes the Washburns, and it would nice to know what the experts conclude.  Thanks.