On Friday, October 21, 2022 at 8:16:06 PM UTC-7, joe...@gmail.com
> Almost the very next sentence is "Thus there is no doubt that the parents
> of Richard Warren, passenger in 1620 on the Mayflower, were John and
> [Lettes] Warren.". No doubt?! Strong words, indeed! The only evidence given
> to this point is that the 3rd son of Richard's son Nathaniel was named John,
> so Richard's father would have to be named John; and THIS John has to be
> the one because he is in London. Any one of those assumptions quite
> tenuous, and do not strengthen with aggregation.
> If naming patterns were so strong in the Warren family, let's look at Richard
> Warren's other son Joseph. Were his kids named Richard, <maternal
> grandfather>, John? No, in fact they were Joseph and Benjamin. Hmm. Of
> course, not to mention that Richard Warren did not have a known son named
> John as evidence of strong naming patterns.
At this time and place, no onomastic arguments should be made based on John - it was too common, and the Pilgrims did not follow traditional onomastic patterns. Also, given that neither of Richard's sons knew their grandfather, there is a reduced likelihood that they would choose to memorialize him. The name that would be diagnostic is Lettes, and of RIchard's five known daughters, and something like 38 granddaughters, exactly zero bore this name, while one finds the name Mercy given 5 granddaughters. Such sloppy onomastics are, of course, way too common, basing arguments on the appearance of the most common names of the period, sometimes generations away. (I recall one New England immigrant origin argued based on the use of the name James five generations earlier, which is absurd.)
> But at this time I do not agree with the author that there is "no doubt" that the
> father of Richard Warren is proven.
Unfortunately, you will be in the minority. The origin of Richard Warren will doubtless be _taken as proven_ by the genealogical community. Once an argument like this gets published in a flagship journal, it becomes the default solution, even if it is not the strongest (and just to be clear, I am speaking generically - I have not had time to read the specific article in question yet). Wikipedia now has a source to cite, the online genealogies will all copy it one to the other, with scholars who underappreciate the complexity of the question will take it at face value as 'doubtless' per the author's assertion and repeat it in their summary publications. Like it or not, this is now The Answer.