Thomas Woodward Part 2

But '''''was''''' that Thomas Woodward of Lambeth Marsh, Surrey and St. Mary le Bow, Cheapside, really and truly deceased “by 1655”? Might it not be at least '''''possible''''' that, instead of merely dying, he had rather simply absconded to the colonies—to Virginia—leaving a wife and child (or children?) back in London to believe he had met an untimely end? Such occurrences were not at all uncommon back then. Another, equally-valid possibility is that he could have been officially “encouraged” to go there (in view of saving his skin—and head) because his outspoken Royalist political views (which had already caused Parliament to sack him from one lucrative position) had rendered his remaining in England ‘problematic’ for those then in power (the Cromwellian ‘Long Parliament’). This is all merely speculation on my part, yes, I know.  But there are several circumstances which (intriguingly) lend themselves to this new interpretation:

But '''''was''''' that Thomas Woodward of Lambeth Marsh, Surrey and St. Mary le Bow, Cheapside, really and truly deceased “by 1655”? Might it not be at least '''''possible''''' that, instead of merely dying, he had rather simply absconded to the colonies—to Virginia—leaving a wife and child (or children?) back in London to believe he had met an untimely end? Such occurrences were not at all uncommon back then. Another, equally-valid possibility is that he could have been officially “encouraged” to go there (in view of saving his skin—and head) because his outspoken Royalist political views (which had already caused Parliament to sack him from one lucrative position) had rendered his remaining in England ‘problematic’ for those then in power (the Cromwellian ‘Long Parliament’). This is all merely speculation on my part, yes, I know.  But there are several circumstances which (intriguingly) lend themselves to this new interpretation: