Hi again Bill>
I guess you could call this the "recognized"
Winston Spencer Churchill ANCESTRY. Prior is all suspect.
Abt 1522, Roger Churchill and Jane Peverell
Abt,1548, Matthew Churchill and Alice Gould
Abt,1570, Jasper Churchill and Elizabeth Chaplet
Abt,1596, John Churchill and Sarah Winston
Abt,1622, the "first" Winston Churchill and Elizabeth Drake
This was followed by John Churchill, the 1st Duke of Marlborough and Sarah Jennings.John Born 24 Jun 1650.
You might know John had NO son that reached maturity.
The Duke of Marlborough title passed through the Churchill surname onto the Spencers.John's daughter, Anne Churchill married Charles Spencer, 3rd Earl of Sunderland. By the time of fifth "Marlborough", George Spencer, the family petitioned a name change and from that time forward, the Spencer Dukes became SPENCER-CHURCHILLS.Seldom now do we we see the hyphen.So, as you can see, modern day Winston was more of Spencer blood than he was Churchill.
Princess Di was also a Spencer, thus one of her sons, a likely next king, will carry both Spencer and Churchill blood lines.
Jenny Jerome, for a matter of interest,was about 20 generations removed from the common blood lines she and Winston's father,Randolph,shared with the 16th century Churchills, by the time the two married.
Thanks for that 1898 date and Brown.That is about the time many chroniclers popped up.
Rowse wrote his book just after the turn of the century.Just prior to that names like Barbour, Stiles - a Churchill or two, and others contructed books and/or manuals and researches.
"CFA - "Churchill Family in America", etc., borrowed generously from those first publications.Much of the material perpetuated originated in the memories of families(stories ingrained generation-to-generation), although some data was extracted from sources like the family bible.
I've looked hard at many town records in most New England states and ACTUAL RECORDS,ALMOST,DO NOT EXIST. At least, not prior to 1850 when it generally became mandatory to record vital statistics.
Many descendants, both Churchills and other pioneer surnames, have, however, published family genealogies or printed manuals and deposited copies in many libraries, societies, etc, throughout New England.
I had the privilege of viewing many of these documents which are invaluable.But, in all these searches, plus hours on the internet, I don't hesitate to tell you, these documents often contain errors that originated by false reporting of over 100 years ago, were never corrected and are copied so many times today they have become "facts."
Though likely much of the content is accurate it sometimes becomes a trial (same as the internet) to determine what is fact, what is pure conjecture,imagination or blurred memories or worse, deceptions.
Now after all that is said and done, I should add this message is composed mostly from memory and I certainly don't present the material as fact - although the Gist is accurate.
And, thanks again.Brown is a new name I can add to my collection.Is his book available in the better libraries?