Hi Sue,

I was not sure of the gentleman's first name, but it was a truly massive amount of work that he did. I have mentioned some areas where I had doubts but the areas of potential error, are tiny compared to the vast amount of solid data that either I found independently before Roger Sims showed me the Brew book, and which tallied, or that after I looked at Brew I then checked and confirmed. I think everyone owes him a big debt, but inevitably there are going to be errors. I have written over 20 books over the past 30 years, and whilst I try to be accurate. there are a few mistakes I know of now, and I am sure there are errors I do not know of, but the only way to avoid making a mistake is to do nothing !

The problem I have is that A W Moore was a first class researcher, but J A Brew is another heavyweight in this field, but their results are totally at variance over the Tyldsleys.

With Suzanna Corrin, who married Dominique LaMothe, I had a lot of cards stacked up on my side, and when Roger came up with the Bishop's Transcripts, and I found witnesses to the 1793 wedding, the ownership of Quay house, and the association of the relevant graves, the weight of material was pretty conclusive, but the pointers to much of that was "insider" information, as I have a far more detailed account of Sukie's side of events that High Bailiff LaMothe did, and that would not have been available to Brew as we did not know one another sadly.

With the trail from Comptroller Tyldesley to Richard T of c1701, I do not have any "insider" information, as no helpful stories on the Tyldesley family survived. Unlike the Joughins, Corrins, and Christian of Milntown, all of which were known, tho the detail was lost, I had no idea of a Tyldesley connection, or at least no idea that would point one in that direction. Thee was the legend of the armour (which seems to have been from Amy Stevenson) and there were dim legends of Vikings and Knights in combat, but ironically they could be from either Ann Tyldesley or Amy Stevenson, as they both share a common ancestry by about 1300.

To try to tease out the story, I have the following sources to mesh together

A) Parish registers - minimal or non existent for much of the period
B) wills, of use, but gaps in the pre 1700 period.
C) Land records - they cover changes in the occupier, but do not necessarily give the relationship. Usually it is father to eldest son, but if you guess that, on the names alone, you may find it was a brother to brother

That means that reputed researchers such as A W Moore and J A Brew are esp inportant, as they devoted a lifetime to the topic.

If I said I would be happy to disprove one or the other, it would be untrue, for they deserve praise rather than stones, but one account MUST be wrong. IF I can find the facts that demolish one story or the other, whilst that does not prove the other story, it at least eliminates one lot of red herrings.

What I reluctantly hope is that by highlighting the inconsistencies, someone may come up with a useful stone to throw at one or other account.

best wishes

RObert