Hi Darlene Athey Hill
Thank you so much for posting the quote from George Freeman Sanborn, Jr. Provided the opportunity to look at the various suits again. First though,
I might be able to explain a basis for the variant spelling "Bates." I either have or will cross that off the list above and address it separately.
I'm not motivated to change the LNAB associated with Rev. Stephen's wife ("Bate"). It's possible to explain why the surname is attribute to her in the biography. (More follows.)
I do think we enter the slippery slope when we call her "Ann." We're half way down the mountain when we associate her with parents John and Ann (Bray) Bate. We've crossed into a different zone by reporting a deep ancestry dating back to say 1300.
See also, Jillaine's helpful comment above.
Again, thank you for including George Freeman Sanborn, Jr.'s quote. Realizing your time is scarce, appreciate even more if you have the chance to look over the notes below.
As your time permits.--GeneJ
There are two English suits (or bills) that provide information about the Bachiler and Bate families. One was filed in 1614, the other, said in 1639. It seems to me that the 1614 suit establishes a basis for the Bachiler-Bates family tie (not the 1639 case). The 1614 case leaves us hanging a bit, thus adding a qualification about that surname in her biography makes sense.
What am I missing, especially in terms of the 1639 case?
1614 suit: Albeit heresy, allegations made in this case establish a "cousin" relationship between the Bachiler and Bate families.
The suit was filed by George Wighley against "Stephen Bacheler of Wherwell, clerk, Stephen Bacheler, his son, and other defendants" including John Bate. Part of the case involved poems Wighley found objectionable. He claimed John Bate "of Wherwell, clerk" intended to keep one of the poems "as a monument of his cosens the said Stephen Bacheler the younger his witte, whoe is in truth his Cosen."
John Bate and another defendant (Withers) reportedly filed responses to Wighley's claims; the Bachilers filed no response.
George F. Sanborn, Charles Hull Batchelder and Robert Charles Anderson have presumably had the benefit of the full case history (including the responses); I have not. This includes that while I'm confident one cousin is Stephen^2 Bachiler (Stephen^1), I'm not smart or informed enough to identify the cousin-ee, John Bate. Having tried to diagram this more than once, I defaulted to comments by Charles Hull Batchelder (c1936). He considered the co-defendant to be "Rev. John Bate," and wrote, "calling Rev. Stephen's son his cousin … furnishes the only clue I know, and it may be explained in several ways. It is possible Bate and Bachiler were brothers-in-law or they married sisters."
For Charles Hull Batchelder's worthwhile overview of the 1614 case, see "Genealogy of the Batchelder Family of Hampton, New Hampshire: Free Download," for "Pages 1-50," pages 2-3. Access it here: http://www.hampton.lib.nh.us/genealog/batchelder/index.htm
1639 suit: This case establishes a long term association between the Bates and Bachilers. It identifies family relations (many) among the Bachilers and among the Bates, but I don't see that it directly mentions family relationships between them.
The case was filed by "Henry Atkinson, London, gent" against "Dorcas Bate and others." As to the Bate family, the information identifies Rev. John's wife/widow as Dorcas; his three children as John Bate, Ann (Bate) Southwood (wife of Robert), and Gabriel Bate. Reports where Dorcas resides, etc. (Charles Hull Batchiler separately reports the will of "John Bate of Wherwell" was proved in 1633 at Winchester.)
Worthwhile details and overview of this case found in _Sanborn Signatures_ 4.2 (1988):10-11. View it here: http://www.sanbornfamilyassociation.com/images/Vol4%20No2.pdf
 As "John Bates" :-)