I was in the NEHGS library last Friday, MINDING MY OWN BUSINESS, when I saw on the new book shelf a large two volume genealogy entitled, The Genealogy of the Descendants of John Clough of Salisbury, Massachusetts compiled and edited by Sheila D. Andersen and published by the John Clough Genealogical Society in 2009. Since I happen to be a Clough descendant, twice over, I pulled the book and copied the appropriate pages. John Clough is one of hundreds of immigrant ancestors I have from whom I descend through a daughter. So, it's a one generation deal and then out. This book includes all the daughters of the second generation with their husbands. Elizabeth Clough married William Horne of Dover and I descend from this couple twice, through children John and Mary.
Sadly this huge and modern genealogy has no footnotes. For whatever reason they chose to quote the earlier version of this genealogy published in 1952. However even in the genealogical date summary at the top of sketch there are no footnotes. I find this careless genealogy for the year 2009. And the first thing that struck me was the death date of Jane (---) Clough was incorrect. The genealogy gives it as 11 January 1678/79 and it was 16 January 1679/80. Minor perhaps, but that is the sort of thing that taints a work for me.
The real crime appears in the sketch for William Horne. They give an English origins for him which is completely false. Again no footnotes or even a discussion of the information, it is just given as if fact. If you do a little research on this absurd claim, you see that it is another 100 year old+ proposition based on the Hornes of Dover being possibly related to the Ornes of Salem and then another proposition that an Horne chart given at NEHGR 40:47 for the Sewall family has something to do with the Orne family of Salem. Does anyone read these things? Do you see that at the bottom of the page as an aside with an asterisk it says "Was John Horne (otherwise Orne) of Salem a descendant of this Warwickshire family?" It asks a question (which by the way was never answered), it does not declare a relationship. On top of which here's all the William Hornes in the IGI born just in 1609:
Did anyone stop and consider that he married a woman born in 1642 (and therefore 33 younger than he) and has children born between 1662 and 1682? Unless you provide strong evidence to the contrary, I would say that such a person was born about 1635 and not 1609.
So, please take all this stuff on William Horne from the sloppy Clough genealogy and bury it in your backyard and grow tomatoes. If you want good information on John and Jane Clough they are included in the Great Migration 1634-35 Series II:107-114. That was published in 2001. Too bad the Clough people didn't do their homework.