Talk:John Crandall

message: ===2007===
This article replaces a previously deleted article about a college student of the same name.
He was a deputy to the general assembly in 1687, says the article, but the year appears to be in error. Given the context, 1667 seems more appropriate than 1687 (considering the article says he died in 1676), but I know nothing about the history of this person. Revise at your leisure. 63.114.84.9 18:23, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Views

message: This article replaces a previously deleted article about a college student of the same name.
He was a deputy to the general assembly in 1687, says the article, but the year appears to be in error. Given the context, 1667 seems more appropriate than 1687 (considering the article says he died in 1676), but I know nothing about the history of this person. Revise at your leisure. 63.114.84.9 18:23, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: 2007

message: The dueling sources on John Crandall's genealogy (John Cortland Crandall, author versus several unnamed members of the Crandall Family Association) should both be noted with the research discoveries behind each.   The fact that the former names his mother as Elizabeth Drake, while the later lists it as Eleanor of an unknown maiden name, is not a definitive proof that the former is wrong and the later is correct just because a record cannot be located in the United Kingdom.
The parish record listing a James and Eleanor Crandall as his parents indicates the John Cortland Crandall genealogy is probably in error and the Crandall Family Association research is probably correct.   However, since the Crandall Family research source is documented (although it goes no further), it is probably more correct than the John Cortland Crandall source, which relies on similar, but not identical names, in the same geographical area and goes back further.
Accordingly, it should not be right to state one source is definitely correct and the other is definitely wrong, but simply to state the facts as available and let the reader draw their own conclusion until such time, if any, that better research is discovered.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Beliaprhun (talk • contribs) 03:34, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: 2008

message: John Cortland Crandall's claim that "Sir John Crandall" and "Elizabeth Drake" were John Crandall's parents appears there and nowhere else!  It might be mentioned, but only in the context of past claims about the family.  As one of the "unnamed members of the Crandall Family Association" who did considerable research in the Crandall/Crundall family of Gloucestershire and Worcestershire, going back to the first half of the 16th century, I feel confident in stating that John Crandall was baptized on 15 February 1617/8 at Westerleigh, Gloucestershire, the son of James and Eleanor Crandall.  Here are the reasons:  1.  The name was very rare; 2.  John does not appear further in the parish registers of Westerleigh or nearby parishes, nor in the manorial records of Westerleigh; 3.  This family already had had members who had traveled far---James's brother William was an officer on a ship that had traveled to the East Indies.  
My article identifies three earlier generations of Crandall ancestors, going back to Nicholas Crundall (died 1589), a cleric from Tewkesbury, Gloucestershire, who was probably the son of Edward Crondall, a barber there.  Nicholas found employment as vicar of Winterbourne, Gloucestershire, in 1572.  His son Nicholas succeeded him, though his Puritanism.
The writer here says [one claim of parentage] "is not a definitive proof that the former is wrong and the later is correct just because a record cannot be located in the United Kingdom."  If a record cannot be located, then what should be the reason it should be mentioned at all?  In other words, just because John C. Crandall wrote in 1949 (without source) that "Sir John Crandall" and "Elizabeth Drake" were his parents and that he was born in 1612 in Monmouthshire, why should it be repeated, unless there is some evidence?  There certainly were no Crandalls who were knights----this can be shown through inquisitions post mortem, county visitations, and Prerogative Court of Canterbury wills.  On the contrary, thorough research in and familiarity with English records of this period (not limited to wills and parish registers, but including manorial records, church courts, and Star Chamber cases) has demonstrated the need to excise "Sir John Crandall" and "Elizabeth Drake."  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.216.34.75 (talk) 17:48, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: 2011