If we take the known 1638-50 information from Herts and the known info from New Haven for the same period, I think it isquite clear that we have two different men and that Adrian has shown conclusively that John, son of John of Caswell, was in Herts that entire time.He could not have been in New Haven. And one might wonder what evidence indicates that he was. The considerable evidence available shows that New Haven John was most certainly of the yeoman class.Less firm evidence indicates that he was probably of the family of Edward. Further, what transpired later in the lives of John Jr and his family is not germaine to the point.We need only to show that John Jr was indeed in Herts during the critical period.Then start looking for New Haven John somewhere else.
Those were tumultuous times, and records were then poorly maintained, if at all.
Personally, Ron, I think it is very unfortunate that E.J. Brockett published his book a hundred years ago.He saw what he wanted to see, and he wrote to satisfy his dream. But he did a great disservice to future researchers who now find it hard to detach themselves from the false image he conjured up. They often think that picture of a knight in EJ's book is of their ancestor, but he isn't even English.I met the problem early on (40 years ago) when I discovered the errors he had made in my branch of the family, showing them connecting to the CT line, which they don't.(My mother was a Brockett).I got mine straightened out, angering people along the way (for the same reason: refusal to believe the facts), as I worked through numerous counties in 7 states and into England. I am now more than a year past 80, and I'm still asking people to look at the facts when you can find them, then use judgement.How well do they support each other? Best wishes.Arwen