Re: Some criticism of the claimed Alston line to South Carolina
Diana Trenchard
as reported by John Brandon, which might have a small influence on the
interpretation:
He said: "... an apprenticeship record shows that a John Alston, who
became an
apprentice in South Carolina in 1682, was the son of William Alston,
gentleman, of Hammersmith, Middlesex (a suburb of London)."
and
" Though we have no evidence
that the William of Bedfordshire resided at any time in the vicinity of
London, he was a barrister and thus it was quite possible that at some
point in his career he might have lived in a London suburb."
In the 17th century Hammersmith was a village separated by quite a few
miles of fields (and highwaymen, robbers etc) from the western
outskirts of London. It remained so for another two centuries. It was
therefore very unlikely that a barrister working in London would reside
in Hammersmith. The village was on the road from London to the Royal
Palaces at Kew, Richmond and Windsor, and to Bristol, South Wales and
Plymouth/Falmouth etc in the West Country. It was also on the River
Thames route to the same Palaces.
Diana
Susan Perrett
section/s within the message.
I have been researching the ALSTON name for many years and have studied
both the Bedfordshire and Suffolk Families, and my reseearch has led me
to the following conclusions:
In article <1165612947.3...@f1g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
starb...@hotmail.com says...
> Here is what Eugene A. Stratton says in _Applied Genealogy_, pp.
> 166-67:
>
> Accepted Royal Lines with Some Weakness
>
> John Alston of South Carolina. There is a royal line going
> through gateway ancestor John Alston, who died in South Carolina in
> 1719, as the son of William and Thomasine (Brooke) Alston of
> Bedfordshire, England.
This John Alston is the son of William and Thomasine Alston of
Bedfordshire. This John also changed his name to ALLSTON, when he parted
from his cousin John, when both were in the Carolinas, This John going
to the Southern part and the double LL stayed in the family for a
further two/three generations before reverting back to one L (and the
other John staying in the Northern section of the state). This John was
given a grant of land in Berkeley County, South Carolina of 190 acres on
January 11th 1686.
I have a note that John's father William did live in Hammersmith as well
as in Pavenham.
Family DNA from a descendant of this Southern Carolina John has
connected him to the Bedfordshire branch, as well as the Northern
Carolina John Alston, son of John Alston and Anne WALLIS - this Anne
Wallis is NOT the daughter, as many believe, of the mathamatitian John
WALLIS. DNA was also contributed by another descentant of the Northern
Carolina John Alston, again proving the two are descended from the
Bedfordshire branch as I and my brother are descended from the Suffolk
branch and are therefore related to each other.
I would be interested to hear from anyone, who is connected to either of
these families, who has not already been in touch with be before.
With regards,
>I have accepted this line as valid, as have
> other knowledgeable genealogists. The crucial generation, the
> parentage of immigrant John Alston, depends on three facts. First, an
> apprenticeship record shows that a John Alston, who became an
> apprentice in South Carolina in 1682, was the son of William Alston,
> gentleman, of Hammersmith, Middlesex (a suburb of London). Second,
> William and Thomasine (Brooke) Alston had a son named John baptized at
> Pavenham, Bedfordshire, on 25 February 1668. There is no direct
> evidence to connect these two facts. Are we just dealing with the
> name's the same again? The identification looks plausible, for John
> was the right age to become an apprentice in 1682. We have eliminated
> some possibilities of just dealing with a coincidence of names when we
> see that John's father in the apprenticeship document is a "gentleman,"
> as was the William Alston of Bedfordshire. Though we have no evidence
> that the William of Bedfordshire resided at any time in the vicinity of
> London, he was a barrister and thus it was quite possible that at some
> point in his career he might have lived in a London suburb. With the
> third fact, we become a little more certain. The John Alston of South
> Carolina named children John, William, and Thomasine. John and William
> were apparently named after himself and his father, and thus we know he
> favored family names. Thomasine is not a nme found in the Alston
> family in general, but it was the name of the wife of William Alston of
> Bedfordshire. This is onomastic evidence, and by itself it is not
> sufficient to prove a genealogical relationship. But in some cases it
> adds just enough to the other evidence to become important, and I think
> this is one such case. The evidence is not direct, though, and we must
> rely on making an assumption.
>
>
--
Susan
Victoria
Australia