The following was added at the suggestion of Bryan S. Godfrey:

The folowing information on Simon Hadley and his possible family background is quoted from Lyle H. Hadley in "A Hadley Genealogy: Ancestry of Simon Hadley the Immigrant and Some of His Descendants" (1974), Volume I, pages 1-6:

We know that the father of Simon Hadley II was Simon I who lived and died in Ireland. In-so-far as I am aware, we have no definite proof of the ancestry of Simon I. There are two theories, both of which are supported by considerable evidence, but no positive proof. One report says that he was the son of Jeremiah Hadley of Northumberland shire, England, whose wife was the daughter of Lady Jane Russell of Perth shire, Scotland. The Institute of American Genealogy, in the pedigree of Chalmers Hadley says that Simon I was the son of James Hadley (born ca. 1614) and Friedeswide Matthew (born ca. 1618) and that James was the son of Richard Hadley and his wife, Philippi. This I am inclined to question, for history reveals that James and Friedeswide had children: Christopher, John, James, Thomas, Anne, and Rachel. There is no mention of a Simon. However, we learn that James married second Elizabeth----. It is possible that Simon was the son of James and Elizabeth rather than James and Friedeswide. In this event we can trace further as follows: (a list of ancestors back to royalty follows, but will not be quoted herein).

If Simon I was the son of James or Jeremiah it is probable that he was born in England. How, when and under what circumstances he went to Ireland is not known. Rosa Rountree, an experienced genealogist, reported many years ago that Simon went to Ireland as an officer in the English army during the reign of William and Mary (1689-1702). This cannot be proven. On the contrary, the War College in London states that the name Simon Hadley does not appear in the army records of those who served in Irelan

The Cromwellian invasion of Ireland occurred in 1649 (Simon was only nine years of age at the time) and the army occupation continued only through 1652. No doubt small garrisons remained for years thereafter. Cromwell seized the estates of the Irish royalists and planted great bodies of Scotch and English colonists upon these confiscated lands. It is most likely that Simon followed this migration at a later date.

There were Hadleys in Ireland long before this time. In 1683 the Ulster King of Arms recorded a description of the Hadley escutcheon and noted that it had been in use in Ireland for well over 100 years. It was described thus: --- "gu. three round buckles ar. two and one. tongues fesswise." -- Three round buckles of silver, arranged two and one, tongues horizontal, on a shield of red. It is possible that Simon was descended from these Hadleys. This however, would seem improbable since the Protestant Reformation which began in 1517 and continued through the 16th century, practically never touched Ireland. Those who lived there remained Catholics. Records of Catholics who joined the Quaker movement are very, very rare. A great majority of those who became Quakers were already Protestants or dissenters, which would indicate that they had adopted their faith while in England and later carried it with them to Ireland.

George Fox began his ministry in 1647 but it was not until 1668 that the first Yearly Meeting was set up at London. This date must be considered as the real beginning of Quakerdom. Prior to that time Fox was surrounded by a devoted body of followers but no great mass of the populace joined the movement until after the organization.

I have enumerated several of the things we do not know about Simon. We do have a few indisputable facts regarding him which will appear later, together with his family chart.

The first authentic record we have that Simon Hadley was in Ireland was recorded about 1680 when he petitioned Parliament for protection against the possible confiscation of his property should the area become forfeited to the Crown as was then threatened. It will be noted that this document indicates that he had been there for seven or eight years at that time. How much longer, we do not know.

Simon Hadley I and his wife Catherine seem to have been the first of the family to join the Society of Friends. At least we find no earlier references to Hadleys in the Quaker records of Ireland or England. They were members of Moate Meeting, County West Meath. From the minutes of this meeting we learn that Simon apologized to his Meeting for allowing his son Simon II too many liberties. He himself was disowned by the Society for "marrying out of Meeting" at his second marriage, when 70 years of age. Their son Simon II apparently had great difficulty in maintaining his membership because of his repeated participation in military activities.

In addition to his fishery properties in Dublin, Simon owned an iron foundry in Kings county.

If you examine a modern map of Ireland you will not find a Kings county. It is now called Offalay. Its principal city is Tullamore (population 5800) situated about 50 miles due west of Dublin. Fifteen miles northwest of Tullamore, just across the border in county West Meath, lies Moate (population 1300) where Simon and Catherine Hadley attended meeting. Ballynakill, mentioned as his residence in Simon's petition, is located about 50 miles southwest of Dublin, and 60 miles southeast of Moate, in county Laois. (It appears that Lyle may be in error with respect to the location of Simon's home. A Ballynakill is located in the western part of present day county West Meath, and about 10 miles to the northwest of Moate.)

Moate Meeting records reveal that Catherine Hadley, wife of Simon, died the 20th of the 4th month 1710, and was buried four days later. Shortly afterwards Simon married Elizabeth -------.

From a record in the Office of Arms, Dublin Castle, we learn that Simon died in 1711. Administration of his property was granted June 6th, 1711 to his widow Elizabeth Hadley and to his children, John Hadley, Elizabeth Miller, and Jane Kiernan. No mention is made of his son Simon. No doubt he had already received his share of the estate in preparation for his departure for America.

Simon Hadley I, born in 1640, was about 71 years of age when he died.

In the Introduction to the Hadley genealogy, Lyle Hadley mentions:

With the exception of comparatively recent arrivals, the Hadleys in America are commonly referred to as the New England Hadleys and the Quaker Hadleys. The former are descendants of George Hadley who came direct from England to Ipswich, Massachusetts in 1639. The cities of Hadley and South Hadley in Massachusetts are named for members of this family. The Quaker Hadleys are all descended from Simon Hadley II who came from Kings County, Ireland to Chester County, Pennsylvania in 1712.

This ends the information from Lyle Hadley's genealogy. Current information on a Hadley genealogy forum online indicates that the alleged royal descent of the Quaker Hadleys through the Somerset family has been entirely disproven, and research is now focusing on proving Simon Hadley was descended from the Hadleys of Shropshire, England. The name Symon Hadly has been found in Shropshire records as early as 1590. According to an October 19, 1998 e-mail from John Hadley, "The earliest proven reference to Simon I is the 1668 listing of Symon Hadly being made a Freeman of Dublin. This is solid evidence that he was not born in Dublin and that he was a smyth in Dublin prior to this date." Mr. Hadley then references a record of the 1672 baptism of Sollomon Hadley at St. Michans church in Dublin, in which the parents were shown as Symon Hadly, smyth, and Catherine.

The following is some information on current Hadley research, mainly dealing with attempts to determine the background of Simon Hadley I, copied and pasted from the Internet site http://eagle.cc.ukans.edu/~art/email.html. This research disproves earlier Hadley genealogies which traced the Quaker Hadleys back to royalty.

June 27, 1999

From: Terry McLean (John Hadley)

Subject: Hadley Surname origins

Our good friend John Hadley has discovered that his server does not allow him to make mailings to large groups of addresses at one time. Therefore, from time to time, I will forward messages of general

interest to the group on his behalf. John has been hard at work digging into the origins of the HADLEY family and has much to share. Thanks John!

Terry: This is some interesting info on the origination of our Hadley surname. Please forward to the list on my behalf. Thanks, John Hadley...

Here's some historical background on Shropshire and the Domesday book. William de Hadley (de Hedlega) became the lord of the manor Hadley after Rainauld. It is assumed he was a second or third son and took the surname from the place they resided, William of HADLEY. The Normans were part of the Viking empire, and popularized the use of the surname to identify the owner as claimant to lands and titles. Although the name Hadley (Hedlega) is certainly of Saxon origin, it almost certain that William de Hadley and his ancestors were Norman. Very few Saxons were allowed to hold any lands after the Conquest. This is what I believe to be the origin of the use of the surname Hadley. I also think it likely that we come directly from this Shropshire Hadley line. So did Kingston Goddard Hadley and Captain Cook who did much early work on our Hadley family.

John Hadley

Shropshire and the Domesday Book in 1086

Roger de Montgomery II, better known as Earl Roger in the Domesday, but officially the seigneur of Montgomery, was the major recipient of Shropshire holdings. An old man of considerable wealth and power, he contributed 60 ships to the invasion fleet and was in command of a wing at the Battle of Hastings. He returned to Normandy with Queen Matilda, and the young Duke Robert as Duke William's representative in Normandy.

He became head of the council that governed the Duchy of Normandy in Duke William's frequent absences in England. The Norman Montgomery family ancestry was closely interwoven either by blood or marriage with the Duchy of Normandy.

However, the family history in Normandy was not without blemish. Roger had four brothers, Hugh, Robert, William and Gilbert. All four brothers were murdered in revenge for the murder of Osberne de Crepon, guardian of Duke William. Roger was the survivor. Continuing, Roger de Montgomery had four sons. Eldest was Robert, Count of Alencon, and successor in Normandy to his vast estates which he still held for his father Roger as his chief domain. He was followed by second son, Hugh, who inherited the Earldom of Arundel, Chichester and Shrewsbury, the life custodian of the main Montgomery family domains granted in England. These would eventually go to Robert in 1098, purchased from William Rufus for 3000 pounds. Next youngest was Count Roger de Poitou who was made the first Earl of Lancaster by Duke William of Normandy, a less maganamious grant which befitted the third youngest son. Philip, the youngest, remained in Normandy and accompanied Duke Robert on the first crusade to the Holy land, and died there in 1094. Earl Roger was responsible to Duke William of Normandy as his chief architect in the defence of the middle marches of the border in his defence against the Welsh. He built many castles including Montgomery, Shrewsbury, Arundel, Ludlow, Clun, Hopton and Oswestry. His son, Robert, described at the Conquest as a 'novice in arms', but who might have been 40 by the Domesday, represented his father Earl Roger, and created some confusion in the records. Roger, the father, became the Earl of Shrewsbury and the Earl of Arundel in England, and retained his domains in Normandy at Bailleul (Kings of Scotland), Belmeis (Beaumais), Pantulf, Vimoutiers, Say and Tornai. However, Earl Roger also became confused with Roger de Beaumont in Normandy, who, it is claimed, was also head of the council in Normandy. But historians tend to think of this period as being locked in marble. The volatility of the favours of the Norman court were dynamic, heavily laced with treachery by land hungry Norman nobles eager to share in the prize of this new and wealthy land, England. The Beaumonts, Counts of Meulan in Normandy who became Earls and Counts of Leicester in England, do not seem to be related to the Montgomerys in any significant way and were very powerful in their own right, and, in a different time frame, Roger de Beaumont could also have been head of the Norman governing Council.

Since over 90% of the lordships and manors of Shropshire were held in Chief at the Domesday by the powerful Earl Roger, it is perhaps more interesting to determine the intricate cross-weave of under tenants of Norman nobles who assisted in the administration of these domains. Surprisingly, very little of Shropshire was retained by the King as his own land, and very little given to the Churches and Bishops as was the usual procedure. Nevertheless, we are here dealing with the Domesday Book record, 20 years after the Conquest.

In the intervening period, Earl Roger, who must by Domesday have been a very old man, and his son Robert, may well have grown and consolidated the original grants after the Conquest to a sizeable mini-kingdom on the Welsh border, particularly since the domains were constantly changing, shifting, accomodating the intrusions and wasting by the Welsh, and imposing great flexibility in the border boundaries. Almost all of Derbyshire was held by Earl Roger but we have listed some of the interesting under-tenants who held Castles, lordships or villages for him and some which he still held as tenant-in-chief:

Rainauld the Sheriff's Shropshire Land Holdings in Domesday 1086

Rainald the Sheriff, of Shropshire, otherwise Rainald de Balgiole or Baliol, another of Earl Roger's domains in Normandy, was also a tenant in chief in Staffordshire. He also assisted in the administration of Earl Roger's Shropshire. He was married to Amiera, Earl Roger's niece. Rainald or Renaud was at the Battle of Hastings. He may be one and the same as Pierre, Knight of Balliol and Fecamp who contributed one ship and twenty men-at-arms to the battle, or perhaps a brother of Pierre. Undoubtedly, subsequent Kings of Scotland were descended from this source which also produced Bishops of Lincoln. (Rainauld hels the Manor of Hadley in the Domesday Book)

Picot's Shropshire Land Holdings in Domesday 1086

William de Picot, also known as Picot de Say, was a knight of another Montgomery domain in Normandy (see above). His chief domain was at Clun Castle, part of a cluster of castles including Richards Castle and Bishops Castle, a line of defence against the Welsh intruders to the west. He was probably son of Robert Pigot, Lord of Broxton in Cheshire. The surname Piggot descended. They were also Lords of Butley in that same shire. William Picot was an under-tenant to Earl Roger in Shropshire.

June 23, 1999

From: Terry McLean

John is having trouble getting the 'mail to members' feature to work, so has asked me to forward the following to fellow HADLEY researchers:

The following tax rolls were sent to me by EJ Ryder, one of our fellow Hadley researchers. There may be more here than meets the eye. There are several Hadley families listed in the Shropshire towns, particularly Halesowen. Thomas, William and John. There's even a George. These are likely the relatives of Symon Hadley who died in 1590. Also many Pygots. One thing that stuck in my head was the Symons family from the hamlet of villa de Milson. They paid the largest tax and were therefore likely the lords of this manor. I think it possible that a Hadley married a Symons lass and behold, Symon Hadly. Another interesting point was that in the few listings for Quatt, where Simon Hadley died in 1590, the lord is listed as Edwardo de Wolrych. This was the same family who lists Symon Hadley as their vassal landholder in the 1564 document I sent out earlier. Nothing new, but a reconfirmation that these families were established for some time in these locations.

As a summary, I found in the 1661 Lay subsidy : Richard Hadley gentleman, Thomas Hadley nayler, Thomas Hadley of Halesowen nayler, John Hadley nayler, John Hadley of Rudgacre blacksmith, George Hadley weaver, George Hadley nayler, and Thomas Talbot, yeoman. Almost 50% of the male population of Shropshire were naylers at this time. This meant they made nails. So we have iron nail producers and a blacksmith. I smell a connection. In the Tudor Lay Subsidy rolls I found the following: July 8, 1524 Clarely cum membris Thomas Hadley; Halesowen cum membris William, John and John; Jan 23 1525 Broughton Thomas Hadley, Halesowen John John William and Thomas; July 29 1542 from the hundred of Brymstere Johanne Hydley ; villa de Halesowen Johe Hydley and Willo Hadley, and from villa de Lappell and villa de Longle Wallagel Thomas Hadley. October 24, 1544 in the villa de Quat Wotten and Mose is De Edwardo Wolrych. Later, in 1571 and 1572 we find under the Elizabeth I rolls for Halesowen Thomas Hadley. These are not all inclusive and are mainly for the wealthiest people in the areas. They are also primarily focused on the west

Date: December 26, 1998

From John Hadley

Hi Art,

Some very important stuff here. We've found the 2 earliest documents for Simon Hadley in Ireland. (1668 and 1672) The previously known earliest document was 1681 so this really is meaningful. Also found the earliest known Quaker reference (1685), 12 years earlier than previously known. The presentation I made to the Hadley Society in October is now being put on their website and newsletters in segments. I rambled on for almost 3 hours, so they could have enough for several years of newsletters !! I'm also going to forward some reports done for me in 1993 by an English genealogy firm, Debrett. This disproves the earlier theory as to our descendency from the famous Hadleys of Somerset. There is much of this erroneous information on the internet in Gedcom files, and I hope that this research will convince people to quit reporting disproven lineages.It's certainly tempting to claim Edward III as a relative, but entirely untrue. The Hadleys were well to do, but not royalty. We are now looking into the Talbot family, who were and still are of the noble class, as we have found evidence of Talbot landholdings very near where Simon was supposed to have settled in Ireland. This fits with my Shropshire theory, and may provide the documentation we have been looking for. Simon Hadley Sr. married Catherine Talbot. The Talbots were the Earls of Shrewsbury in Shropshire. This link to the Shropshire Hadley family in the reports is not proven, but is only a theory I'm working on. Anyway, hope you enjoy all this musty old stuff, and that we're not burdening you with your internet assistance. Thanks.

John Hadley

October 19, 1998

From: John Hadley

Hi there,

This is the "final" report sent to me by our Irish researcher. I just returned from the Hadley family reunion and really enjoyed meeting all the Hadley relatives in the Hadley genealogical society of southern California.

The forwarded portion below is an explanation of the Freeman of Dublin and special grace versus fine issue. In all of the work I have compiled I was able to summarize some of the "new" findings and will relist them here so you can update your own versions as you see fit.

1) The earliest proven reference to Simon I is the 1668 listing of Symon Hadly being made a Freeman of Dublin. This is solid evidence that he was not born in Dublin and that he was a smyth in Dublin prior to this date.

2) The 1672 baptismal of Sollomon Hadley at St Michans church in Dublin. The parents were Symon Hadly, smyth, and Catherine. This was provided by Joan Case and has opened up some interesting other avenues of investigation.

3) The other Hadleys listed in the St Michans listings were also blacksmiths and possibly were relatives who worked with or for Symon.

4) The earliest known Quaker record of Simon from 1685. This is 12 years earlier than they were thought to have joined the Friends.

5} The Quaker Meeting records giving additional info on why the Hadleys were "troublesome". The first listing of these troubles was regarding young Symon Hadly cutting in on another man who had permission to speak to Ruth (Miller, Keron ? ) about marriage. As I pointed out in my presentation to the HGSSC, it's a good thing for all of us that he did !

6) The earliest known reference to the name Hadley was in 889, prior to the Domesday listing in Shropshire by almost 200 years. Since this is not in any of the previous reports I've sent out to you, I'll get into some of the detail here. I have heard the name as going back to about 600 when the Saxons invaded England but have no solid references yet. This reference was sent to me in a letter from DB Hadley of Upham Hampshire England. In Peter Hadley's " A Hadley History" May 1978 he quotes John Weever's "Ancient Funerall Monuments" (1631) as follows: " After he (Gurmond or Gurthrum, a Danish king) had governed these counties of Suffolke and Norfolke the space of twelve years complete, he died and was buried in the king's towne, called Headlega ( so Hadley was called in the Saxon language) in Suffolke among the east English, in the year 889."

7) From Thomas Hamm I learned that Joshua Hadley had an illegitimate child with Margery Lindley about the time he married Patience Brown.

8) The wills of Symon and John Hadly from Shropshire in 1590 and 1630 respectively hold promise to be our family before Simon I.

9) A greater amount of detail regarding the lives of my direct line: Simon, Simon, Joshua, Thomas, Benjamin, John, John, Joseph, William, John (me). Very little of this is in the reports I have shared from Great Britain, so you will just have to wait until I finally publish all this

stuff. Hopefully this winter. I've done particularly well with Thomas and Benjamin as far as additional detail.

10) The listing of John Hadley and his son and grandson as being gunsmiths. This was Simon the immigrant's brother who remained in Ireland. The making of guns was certainly an offshoot of the family blacksmith business and also was very probably what got Symon in hot water with the Friends. Providing arms to oppose the English was very serious stuff indeed and has gone on ever since. We can only hope that the recent agreement there will turn out to be successful and that the peace desired by our Quaker forebearers for the last 300 years will finally become a reality.

PS I got a really big bonus for attending the family reunion. One member has a photo of the painting of Joshua Hadley, Thomas' son who was a captain in Washington's continental army. The photo is referred to in some of Chalmers Hadley's letters I have, but I had not been able to find it.

They had numerous old family photos on display that everyone brought and that was really interesting to me. Terry McLean promised to send me a copy of this photo and I really appreciate this. They also gave me a key chain knife engraved with my name and the HGSSC name. I will use and cherish it for the fond memory of meeting all these kind people. Some important things were discussed including getting all their data on a CD Rom format, including the photos. I would like to encourage everyone of us to help these people to organize our efforts. Join the Society, participate in the newsletters and let's set up a ROOTS-L forum for internet exchange. Let other people who you correspond with know about these efforts, and encourage them to participate. With the growth in communication via the internet, this will become the major form of communication, and our members will continue to expand. No single person can do as well as many working together. We all obtain our information from the help of others anyway, and it's one of the best things about studying genealogy. All the friends you make along the way.

John Hadley

October 16, 1998

From: Eneclann

To John Hadley:

This is just a quick note to answer the questions you posed in your last

e-mail, before you head off:

In your earlier correspondence you said Symon was made a Freeman of Dublin by Fine and by Special Grace. In this last report you say SG but no fine. What is the correct version? He was made a Freeman at the first available time, the quarterly Easter shindig, so one would assume he had some pull with the higher ups. Was SG awarded easily or only for a few?

Enrollment as a Freeman by special grace was limited. The more usual methods were by birth, by marriage, or by service (serving an apprenticeship

Special grace would have meant that Simon Hadley was given permission to enroll although he had no familial links with the city of Dublin, or had not served his apprenticeship in the city. However he would have still have had to pay a small 'fine'. This fine was usually payable when the rules were being 'bent' slightly. On another occasion, (another genealogy) I came across a man who had served his apprenticeship to a master craftsman. The master craftsman, in this instance a goldsmith, had himself served his apprenticeship, but had never applied to be made a freeman.

Once his apprentice had finished his time he applied to be made a freeman of Dublin, but he had to first pay a fine, prior to his enrollment. This appears to have been in recognition that the rules had been 'swayed' on his behalf. The master goldsmith was soon after compelled to enroll as a Freeman.

The Quaker contribution in 1685 is a significant "new" bit of information as it is far earlier than previously known, regarding affiliation with the faith. I think the other Hadleys at St Michans may be a serious lead in that they were possibly related.

This might well be the case, especially as the other Hadleys all appear to be blacksmiths. I.e. not simply sharing an unusual family name, but the same trade. I'll mull over this and see if I can come up with any ideas for extending this link. However I must tell you that the *only* Hadley that I found entered as a Freeman of the city of Dublin between 1660 and 1725 was Simon Hadley. Hence it may be very difficult, and maybe even impossible to take this link further.

The off the shelf Quaker book from early times is a pisser. I'm getting stuff like this in England as well. They won't cop to the fact that it's been lost or stolen, but you'd think someone would care enough to try to find such a rare source of genealogical documentation. Are there any other copies ? Like in London ?

I don't know if there are other copies for sale, however, I could photo-copy the volume in the Quaker Library in Donnybrook.

One thing I don't get is this Freeman deal. I thought earlier that the English ruled the roost and that native born Irish were discriminated against. Yet here's this law that prohibits the English immigrants from practicing their trade unless they paid the fine for the privilege, or had some other influence to have them made Freemen.

The established church in Ireland was the Anglican Church of Ireland. The real problem here was the King of England, also the King of Ireland was head of the established church. There was a political understanding that loyalty to the King required loyalty to the established church. In addition religion so infused people's day to day lives, in a way that it doesn't in today's secular society, that a person's religious outlook, could also determine their notion of Prerogative, Natural and secular law etc. This issue affected Protestant dissenting sects as much as Catholics. (Dissenters, 'dissented' or disagreed with the notions of the established church). The best example of this is how the radical puritans who came to dominate the English Parliament by the early 1640s were able to execute the King, and declare a Commonwealth in England for most of the 1650s. (Other examples of politically radical Protestant sects were the Diggers and the Levellers, many of whom are still cited by Marxists, and Marxist historians, as forerunners of socialist ideas).

Hope you have a good weekend, in the best Hadley tradition of course,

Fiona Fitzsimons..

Eneclann

Irish Historical and Genealogical Research Services

Innovation Centre,

The O'Reilly Institute,

Trinity College,

Dublin 2,

Ireland

Date: October 2, 1998

From Chris Hadley

Hi. My name is Chris Hadley. I live in Indianapolis, Indiana, but now I'm a student at the University of Dayton, Ohio. I just wanted to compliment you on this page. It's incredible, to say the least. Thanks for the great work.

Chris

Date: September 22, 1998

From Jim Hadley

Question: Do you have copies of all the other Family coat of arms? There are about two dozen all together, from both England and Ireland. I think I have copies of most of them in my files.

I believe I met your grandfather Lyle at a family get together here in Indiana quite a few years ago. I think he was with Wallace Hadley of Mooresville, In. and my grandfather, Harol D. Hadley, and he said he was from St. Petersburg, Fl. Lyle, Wallace and quite a few other Hadleys were in constant communication on genealogy over the years. Wallace was the one that got me interested in the family history and started giving me copies of his files. This was around 1960 as I remember. Regretfully, after Wallace died, I do not know what happened to the original Hadley genealogy he had worked on for so many years.

Jim Hadley

Jim, it would be great if we could put your coat of arms collection up on the web. And thanks for the pictures of the Simon Hadley house.

They're here!

***********************************************************************

http://newsarch.rootsweb.com/th/read/HADLEY/2007-11/1194674106

From: "John Hadley"

To:

Sent: Friday, November 09, 2007 1:54 AM

Subject: Re: [HADLEY] Looking for any Hadleys

Since that time I was determined to solve the riddle of who Simon

Hadley, our oldest proven ancestor, parents really were.

I paid for work to be done in England and Ireland, went there myself,

and have conversed with hundreds of fellow researchers. The sad fact is, we

still have to say we really don't know. Recently, Brad Hadley started a

Hadley DNA research project. He asked me to help, and I have made some

efforts, but it is Brad who has really made it go. Of great interest, the

male Hadley DNA in all of the Simon Hadley descendents tested matches in the

first and most important group of markers, a perfect 12 for 12. This is

really rather amazing. We all go back to Joshua the immigrant, if the

surname is still Hadley, from this lineage. Joshua was married twice.

Descendents of both legitimate line's DNA matches. As Joshua was born in

1703, it is now over 300 years the DNA has remained true. Mutations a

normal event, so this is really fairly remarkable.

Then we had a fellow from Utah send in his DNA. His grandfather came

to the US from Derbyshire, England. So he could not be of our line. But the

DNA again matched 12 for 12. The only answer here is that there must be a

common ancestor in England. We did some digging and we found that before

landing in Derby, this lineage came from Shropshire. It has long been my

theory that we came from a line of Shropshire Hadleys. Two old wills dated

1590 and 1630 have the name Simon Hadley in them. The only reference I have

seen to the name in years of looking. So now I think it is safe to say that

we have compelling evidence that our lineage came from Shropshire. I am

trying to hire a genealogist to carry on this work and hope someday to find

this common ancestor.