Yes, that's 4 sons mentioned in Margery's 1688 will. Eleven years later in 1699, widower John talks of 3 sons (plus son James Colleash who might be a step son), and Philip is not included. Donald = Daniel in this case.

Interesting statement in the latter will:

" ... And he declared that his son Jo : nor donold shall not force thr. brothr. Will. to pay them, the above sd. moneyes, but receive it of him as he Can pay them [missing bit?] pence without any hindrance."

I get the impression he favoured son William over the other two. But more importantly, a John b 1687 would only be 12 years old, so [if he exists] he shouldn't be included in that statement. Whereas John b 1667 and Daniel b 1676/77 plus William ca 1670 could fit the statement very well.

Am I alone in thinking that "John" 1687 should have been "Philip", and therefore we have to throw away the 1687 John?