Thomas M. Farquhar, in his History of the Bowles Family, stated, "William Augustus Bowles, the eldest son of Thomas Bowles, was born in Frederick County, Maryland, October 22, 1763." Charles, Do you know of any children belonging to William Augustus Bowles and/or if he ever moved on to Kentucky? I'm searching for a William A. Bowles born 1803 in PA. and I beleive was in KY. by about 1813. Thank you for your time, BRENDA -----Original Message----- From: bowles-request@rootsweb.com To: bowles@rootsweb.com Sent: Sat, Jun 13, 2009 2:01 am Subject: BOWLES Digest, Vol 4, Issue 179 Today's Topics: 1. William Augustus Bowles - Frederick Co MD: Examining the Evidence (Charles Hartley) 2. Re: William Augustus Bowles - Frederick Co MD: Examining theEvidence (twt@mtco.com) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Message: 1 Date: Fri, 12 Jun 2009 11:58:17 -0400 From: Charles Hartley <hartley@iglou.com> Subject: [BOWLES] William Augustus Bowles - Frederick Co MD: Examining the Evidence To: bowles@rootsweb.com Message-ID: <52135e780906120858me55ae9cye2833d76491e9654@mail.gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 First I want to caution you to read all of this message carefully, or not read it at all. The purpose of this message is to point out the danger of assuming that because something of a genealogical nature was printed a long time ago, that it can be taken for absolute truth. The example I have in mind concerns a man named William Augustus Bowles who was born in Frederick County MD. Mr. Bowles led a very interesting life. At 13 he is said to have run off and joined the British army, and later to have been associated with the Creek Indians. There are numerous sources on the Internet describing his life. Here is a link to one of them: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Augustus_Bowles Thomas M. Farquhar, in his History of the Bowles Family, stated, "William Augustus Bowles, the eldest son of Thomas Bowles, was born in Frederick County, Maryland, October 22, 1763." You may view this book at Google Books [http://books.google.com/] by searching for the book's title. While we have grown to suspect that Farquhar invented some relationships in this book, in this case he was probably accurate. However, earlier in the book he stated that this Thomas Bowles was a brother of Carrington Bowles of London, and that is the relationship we want to examine. Also available at Google Books is a book written in England in 1804, titled Public Characters of 1801-1802, and printed for Richard Phillips, No. 71, St. Paul's. This b ook contains the following quote: *"General Bowles [William Augustus Bowles], the subject of this memoir, is a native of America. His father was an Englishman, who settled on the Trans-Atlantic continent, and acquired considerable wealth there. He was the brother of the well-known Mr. Carrington Bowles, print-seller in St. Paul's Church-yard, and having conceived the idea of meliorating his fortune by emigrating into a new country, he repaired to Maryland in the capacity of a schoolmaster, and resided for many years in Frederic county in that province, where he acquired a plantation, obtained some wealth, and was invested with a public office of considerable trust. "William Augustus Bowles, his eldest son, was born in Frederic county in Maryland, about the year 1764."* Now on the face of it, it seems that this contemporary source supports the conclusion of Mr. Farquhar regarding the relationship of Thomas and Carrington Bowles, and at first I thought it was so. Fortunately for me, and hopefully now for you, I shared my thoughts with our own Tom LaPorte, and here is what he told me: *"I don?t know if I believe that entry. It is a contemporary entry so should be credible but it is in a book published by a competitor (Richard Phillips at #71 St. Paul?s) of the Bowles (also in St. Paul?s Churchyard) right on their same city square in London so that might be a reason for a false reference. Also, the is no brother of Carrington Bowles available to be William Augustus? father. John Bowles, Carrington? father, left a very detailed Will. He died in 1779 and was quite specific about his sons including a son John who he wanted disinherited. If he had a son in America he would very, very likely have mentioned him. If Thomas in Maryland was his son and there was no specific mention of him in the Will he could have easily challenged Carrington?s inheritance of the family business from John Sr. That was very common back then and the Bowles would have had good legal council being in the very competitive publishing business . If Thomas had died before the Will was written in 1779 I would buy it better but there is also the reference that Thomas Bowles died only in 1800. "John Bowles Sr. did have one son of unknown name whose death was reported in London in 1762 but then it would be hard fro him to have been the father of William Augustus born in 1764. Maybe if he was really born in 1761 which is possible I suppose but he still wouldn?t have been the Thomas who died in 1800 if we accept him as the ancestor of the line we?re looking into. "So, I have my doubts. You know when some things just seem to fit all the known pieces, it?s easier to accept. This one really doesn?t. It would be great though to finally tie in Chief Bowles. I could easily believe he?s connected to these other Maryland Bowles, just the Carrington Bowles part is harder to accept."* Okay, Tom has raised some very valid points that I had not known before; facts that cast significant doubt on this supposed relationship. My point in sharing this is to encourage each of us to examine carefully what we assume to be true in the light of all the available evidence, and to rely on the expertise of others, where appropriate, to reach our conclusions. At this point, my judgment is that Thomas and Carrington Bowles were probably not brothers, despite the statements by Phillips and by Farquhar. I want to thank Tom for helping me to understand this line better. ------------------------------ Message: 2 Date: Fri, 12 Jun 2009 19:38:46 -0500 From: twt@mtco.com Subject: Re: [BOWLES] William Augustus Bowles - Frederick Co MD: Examining theEvidence To: <bowles@rootsweb.com> Message-ID: <50996.1244853526@mtco.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px; } Hi everyone, I have been reading all of these Bowles connections all these years and I have to agree with Charles. I have printed one family history and in the process of printing another. I only include information that has reliable so urces attached to them. I do extensive research and when there is something in question, I ask others to verify or help me out. That Bowles history by Farquhar has many errors in it. How fortunate we are to have so many records open to us for our research. Most county courthouses are great about letting you search for information. I believe you can use someone elses research as a starting point but always verify each step in their history. In my Hill line, someone started attaching an Abner Hill to my gr-gr-gr grandfather and dna testing proved this to be incorrect but there are still literally 100's of people that won't change their records even though I have definitive proof of Abner not being his father. So do your own research and then see if anyone out there dips into your tree and contact them. Compare notes and sources and work from there. But don't ever just use someone elses research and take it at being the truth without verifying every part of it. Then it becomes a part of your reserch too. And always try to contact the person to make a connection. Just a thought from someone who loves genealogy and my family history. Wendy Hill Young On Fri 12/06/09 10:58 AM , Charles Hartley hartley@iglou.com sent: First I want to caution you to read all of this message carefully, or not read it at all. The purpose of this message is to point out the danger of assuming that because something of a genealogical nature was printed a long time ago, that it can be taken for absolute truth. The example I have in mind concerns a man named William Augustus Bowles who was born in Frederick County MD. Mr. Bowles led a very interesting life. At 13 he is said to have run off and joined the British army, and later to have been associated with the Creek Indians. There are numerous sources on the Internet describing his life. Here is a link to one of them: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Augustus_Bowles [1] Thomas M. Farquhar, in his History of the Bowles Family, stated, "William Augustus Bowles, the eldest son of Thomas Bowles, was born in Frederick County, Maryland, October 22, 1763." You may view this book at Google Books [http://books.google.com/] [2] by searching for the book's title. While we have grown to suspect that Farquhar invented some relationships in this book, in this case he was probably accurate. However, earlier in the book he stated that this Thomas Bowles was a brother of Carrington Bowles of London, and that is the relationship we want to examine. Also available at Google Books is a book written in England in 1804, titled Public Characters of 1801-1802, and printed for Richard Phillips, No. 71, St. Paul's. This book contains the following quote: *"General Bowles [William Augustus Bowles], the subject of this memoir, is a native of America. His father was an Englishman, who settled on the Trans-Atlantic continent, and acquired considerable wealth there. He was the brother of the well-known Mr. Carrington Bowles, print-seller in St. Paul's Church-yard, and having conceived the idea of meliorating his fortune by emigrating into a new country, he repaired to Maryland in the capacity of a schoolmaster, and resided for many years in Frederic county in that province, where he acquired a plantation, obtained some wealth, and was invested with a public office of considerable trust. "William Augustus Bowles, his eldest son, was born in Frederic county in Maryland, about the year 1764."* Now on the face of it, it seems that this contemporary source supports the conclusion of Mr. Farquhar regarding the relationship of Thomas and Carrington Bowles, and at first I thought it was so. Fortunately for me, and hopefully now for you, I shared my thoughts with our own Tom LaPorte, and here is what he told me: *"I don?t know if I believe that entry. It is a contemporary entry so should be credible but it is in a book published by a competitor (Richard Phillips at #71 St. Paul?s) of the Bowles (also in St. Paul?s Churchyard) right on their same city square in London so that might be a reason for a false reference. Also, the is no brother of Carrington Bowles available to be William Augustus? father. John Bowles, Carrington? father, left a very detailed Will. He died in 1779 and was quite specific about his sons including a son John who he wanted disinherited. If he had a son in America he would very, very likely have mentioned him. If Thomas in Maryland was his son and there was no specific mention of him in the Will he could have easily challenged Carrington?s inheritance of the family business from John Sr. That was very common back then and the Bowles would have had good legal council being in the very competitive publishing business. If Thomas had died before the Will was written in 1779 I would buy it better but there is also the reference that Thomas Bowles died only in 1800. "John Bowles Sr. did have one son of unknown name whose death was reported in London in 1762 but then it would be hard fro him to have been the father of William Augustus born in 1764. Maybe if he was really born in 1761 which is possible I suppose but he still wouldn?t have been the Thomas who died in 1800 if we accept him as the ancestor of the line we?re looking into. "So, I have my doubts. You know when some things just seem to fit all the known pieces, it?s easier to accept. This one really doesn?t. It would be great though to finally tie in Chief Bowles. I could easily believe he?s connected to these other Maryland Bowles, just the Carrington Bowles part is harder to accept."* Okay, Tom has raised some very valid points that I had not known before; facts that cast significant doubt on this supposed relationship. My point in sharing this is to encourage each of us to examine carefully what we assume to be true in the light of all the available evidence, and to rely on the expertise of others, where appropriate, to reach our conclusions. At this point, my judgment is that Thomas and Carrington Bowles were probably not brothers, despite the statements by Ph illips and by Farquhar. I want to thank Tom for helping me to understand this line better. ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to BOWLES-request@rootsweb.com [3] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message Links: ------ [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Augustus_Bowles [2] http://books.google.com/] [3] mailto:BOWLES-request@rootsweb.com ------------------------------ To contact the BOWLES list administrator, send an email to BOWLES-admin@rootsweb.com. To post a message to the BOWLES mailing list, send an email to BOWLES@rootsweb.com. __________________________________________________________ To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to BOWLES-request@rootsweb.com with the word "unsubscribe" without the quotes in the subject and the body of the email with no additional text. End of BOWLES Digest, Vol 4, Issue 179 **************************************

I have not investigated his descendants yet. On Sun, Jun 14, 2009 at 7:55 AM, <bbrock1945@aol.com> wrote: > > Thomas M. Farquhar, in his History of the Bowles Family, stated, "William > Augustus Bowles, the eldest son of Thomas Bowles, was born in Frederick > County, Maryland, October 22, 1763." > > Charles, > Do you know of any children belonging to William Augustus Bowles and/or if > he ever moved on to Kentucky? > >