Hi Frances,
Many thanks for deleting the goof up with Stevenson in the title. I had seen the 1889 A W Moore account, which I referred to in my query.

The problem is that whilst A W Moore did some fantastic work, I think there are discrepancies in the Tyldesley account, and it bears no similarity to Brew's work. Both have elements that are entirely plausible, and given two very capable researchers, one would expect that, On the other hand, the two accounts are completely incompatible, and whilst both start with Comptroller Richard, and end up with Captain Richard T of 1701, with the same number of intermediate generations, the path in between bears no similarities.

AWM has a Thurstan who would have been born in 1659 per the parish register, and a William who could not be earlier than 1679, whilst Brew offers a William of c1630 and another William of c1660. Brew provides a lot of supporting data, compounding for the Friary, wives, times as an MHK and so on, but at the end of the day, no amount of juggling can reconcile the two accounts.

The nightmare is that once a story gets into the public domain, it becomes "fact" even if it is utter nonsense, and is then quoted for eternity. Sadly either Brew or Moore has to be wrong, but at present, the source data I have found does not convince me either way.

I hope somebody can offer sufficient facts that will demolish one hypothesis. That does not prove the other one, but it is a start, and the hope that a clear answer will emerge.

For example, if Isabell Norris married Comptroller Tyldesley who was born c1600 according to everyone, then if they were having children in 1654-1666, she was a good deal younger than he was, but that is not, of itself, a problem.

AT first when I read AWM's line, I saw no inherent objection to accepting his idea that Isabell was Comptroller Tyldelsey's wife, but when I studied the parish records, which give both parents and often dates of birth and christening, which is in itself unusual, the period from Thurstan's birth in 1658 thru to William and then to Richard of c1701 is very tight. It is just 43 years, which is possible, but surprising.

On the other hand, Brew's theory, that Isabell Norris was the wife of the Comptroller's son who was also called Richard, is plausible, and in that case, as the younger Richard was not the eldest son, they do not inherit the Friary, as that goes vias Moore's line of two Williams. If we accept the Brew account, why are these children given such prominence ? If they were the Comptroller's children, that is quite natural, as the parish records often give more detail on "important" births, deaths etc.

Brew asssigns a birth date of 164os to Ruchard, the son of the comptroller, but as Issable's will of 1668 refers to children who are of age, they had to be born by 1654 at latest. There are three children of age, so they could be three singles, twins and a one, or improbably triplets, so we are looking at "start dates of 1651-1654 for these three children.
That in turn means that Brew's idea of a 1640s birth for Richard is a non starter, as 1631 is the earliest possible

To add to the fun there is the wonderful William Tyldesley will of 1722 which I have a copy of and have also found in the Notebook. The highlight of that is the unfortunate Anne who is left to her momma to do what she pleased with. It is weird. Brew offers us a pair of Williams dying in the 1720s, whilst Moore gives us just one, but given that several children are under age in 1722, it could hardly be the older WIlliam postulated by Brew.

At present I have quite a lot of data, but trying to correlate it is the problem.

Robert