William H Hungerford, Sr. - William H Hungerford, Sr. 1584-1658

Ann Farley

I too think that the connection of William Hungerford to Sir John Hungerford, MP, of Down Ampney is problematic.

Firstly, I see no sources or research that hints at origins for William Hungerford (1626-1658).
This tree makes no claims for William's parentage: https://www.colonial-settlers-md-va.us/getperson.php?personID=I0028...

Meanwhile, this tree: http://home.netcom.com/~fzsaund/hungerford.html references genetic testing that suggested that the Hungerfords of Maryland were related to the Hungerfords of Connecticut, but likewise makes no claims to knowledge about William's origins.

At the Sir John Hungerford, MP, of Down Ampney end of the line there is likewise no trustworthy trees which lists William Hungerford as a son.

The information in John's about profile lists 3 sons: Sir Anthony, Richard, and John, while some other trees omit Richard altogether (perhaps he died young?)
http://www.tudorplace.com.ar/HUNGERFORD.htm
https://www.stirnet.com/genie/data/british/hh4bz/hungerford02.php
http://freepages.rootsweb.com/~hwbradley/genealogy/aqwg3019.htm#74296
https://archive.org/details/visitationofcoun00inchit/page/88

There is no William listed as a son on any of them.

In light of these inconsistencies, I would suggest that we detach William Hungerford (1626-1658) from his supposed parents, William Hungerford?through=6000000003367407891 (1584-1658) and Anne, and then further disconnect William Hungerford (1584-1658) from his supposed father, Sir John Hungerford, MP, of Down Ampney.

Does anyone else have any thoughts on what to do with the two Williams?

Sincerely,
Tamas

P.S. It is also worth noting that the birth date for the elder William is 1584, which would make him older than his supposed brother Sir Andrew (born 1857) and thus William would have been the heir to Sir John's estate instead of Andrew, so this date is clearly incorrect. In addition, his death date, 1658, is simply the death year for the younger William, which (unless they happened to die in the same year) implies to me that someone just stuck that date into his profile.

I think the Archives of Maryland would have taken note of someone from prominent landed gentry. They think he was a soldier.

https://books.google.com/books?id=5_kMAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA382&lpg...

In my opinion, disconnect from parents and lock relationships.

Erica Howton Thanks!

I have gone ahead and done just that.

The thing about the Hungerfords is that they were *very* prolific, and in all probability a number of younger sons got "lost" off the family tree over time. So somebody might be related at X generations remove, but proving it would be difficult - and showing exactly *how* might not be possible at all.