Hi Leona, That's that's pretty much what I'm saying. The only evidence for John Bradford having a son Solomon is the abstract in Dryden's book. But the actual deed says "grandson" of John Bradford. After Dryden's abstract is shown to be a mistake, there's simply no reason to believe there were two Solomons. Another discovery I stumbled upon relates to Accomack John's son William Bradford. Briefly, he is not the WIlliam Bradford who left a will dated 1778 naming sons Annanias, Schoolfield, etc., etc. That William is actually William Bradford Jr., who purchased the portions of St. Martins Desert that Accomack John gave to his sons William and John. So we're at square one with William Bradford son of Accomack John. This William Bradford Jr. was the son of a William Bradford (as evidenced by Solomon's quitclaim deed to him) - who was probably the son of Accomack John. It's difficult to present all the evidence relating to this in a post to a message board, so I'm reserving that and will eventually post it to my website www.delmarvabradfords.com. Basically what this means for Samuel Bradford researchers is that it's now possible that Samuel was descended from William Bradford the son of Accomack John. Since no probate for that WIlliam has been found, it's unclear whether he had any children or who they were. The fact that Samuel named his first son William could prove significant in that light - but of course more evidence is needed. Speaking of Samuel Bradford's son William - he may be the William Bradford with wife Sarah, who was granted administration on his estate on 14 Dec. 1810. William and Sarah had at least two children - Henny and Elizabeth Bradford, who both married Truitts; this accords well with Samuel Bradford's will which mentions his son William's children. It may be significant that Samuel's will was dated 15 Dec 1810, the day after administration was granted on William Bradford's estate. There may have been an earlier will which needed to be amended after his son passed away. I have on my to-do list to research this William more thoroughly, to find out who his wife was if possible, and to find out what became of his children. Maybe something'll turn up to strengthen the case. Your confusion is understandable. These Bradfords of Worcester are truly a confusing lot, and I'm not presenting data in the most clear fashion. Again - the evidence and the arguments relating to all these findings are somewhat complicated, so I'm reserving them for my website. On 7/2/05, Leona <lmastan@jps.net> wrote: > > Hi Adam, > I am confused, (so what else is new?). > Are you saying that there is only one Solomon Bradford and he is the son of > Nathaniel Bradford (abt 1699-1759) and Mary ____ ? And that the Solomon > Bradford who is said to be the son of John Bradford (abt 1716-1776) and > Esther Smith does not exist? > Thanks, Leona > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: adam bradford > To: BRADFORD-L@rootsweb.com > Sent: Monday, June 20, 2005 9:18 PM > Subject: Solomon Bradford of Worcester County, Maryland: Dispelling Two > Common Misconceptions > > Having just returned from the Maryland Hall of Records, I have two > discoveries to report that should clear up a lot of the confusion > regarding Solomon Bradford of Worcester County - namely, whether there > were two Solomons, and whether one of these Solomons died in 1788. > > The sole evidence for the presence of two Solomons comes from Ruth > Dryden's book on Worcester County land records. Under the history of > the tract JOHNS LOT she provides the following abstract: "17 May 1771 > Solomon Bradford son of John sold to William Davis." It turns out > this is twice an error, as I discovered by viewing the actual deed. > First, the deed was not a sale, nor was Solomon's other deed on the > same day (to William, Jr. of St. Martin's Desert) a sale. Both these > were quitclaim deeds. William Bradford, Jr.and William Davis were > already in possession of the tracts. In 1771 Solomon was simply > selling them his rights to the land, as eldest son of the eldest son > of John of Accomack, and therefore John's heir at law. Furthermore, in > Solomon's quitclaim to William Davis he is not referred to as the son > of John, but the grandson of John - meaning John of Accomack. > > Another error which has caused some confusion over Solomon is found in > a widely-viewed abstract of Pharoah Warren's will, namely the one > posted on the Ocean City Life-Saving Museum's website. The abstract > reads as follows: ". . . Wit: isaac Evans, Solomon Bradford, he is now > deceased, and Valentine Ryan. JW 13 202." But the actual record does > not refer to Solomon as deceased. Since only 2 of the 3 witnesses > appeared to prove the will, the abstractor must have extrapolated > Solomon's death. That is a misinterpetation of the record. As only two > witnesses were required for a will to be valid, Solomon's presence was > not necessary. Evans and Ryan were sufficient for probate. > > This information should be of assistance to all of us trying to sort > out these Worcester Bradfords. It's also more proof, if proof was > needed, that it's always a good idea to check original records - every > abstractor makes mistakes now and then. I'll eventually place full > transcriptions of both these records on a website I've just started > developing at www.delmarvabradfords.com. > > ______________________________