This is a Message Board Post that is gatewayed to this mailing list. Author: JosephAHittle Surnames: Classification: queries Message Board URL: http://boards.rootsweb.com/surnames.claypoole/66.2.1.2.1.1.1.1.1.1.1/mb.ashx Message Board Post: Barry, I'm not sure what your arguement with me is, and it seems rather pointless. However, in one of your replies, you made mention of the idea that James Jr. (son of James Sr. and Helena Mercer) had not came to America and had remained in England as a bookkeeper for the Society of Free Traders. Then you offered a citation that I haven't been able to follow, and would like clarification. However, it's highly unlikely that James, son of James and Helena, would have been left in England for a very long time at all. In 1681, in a letter to his brother in the West Indies, James Sr. attempts to send son James (then 17 according to both his father's letter and according to Sr.'s journal in which he gives Jr.'s birthdate as 1664) to Edward. The jist of the letter is that Jr. is longing for an "adventure" before settling down to his lifework. It is not clear from that letter whether or not Sr. is expecting (I believe it's Edward that he's writing to) his brother to accept/approve his request. The letter is complementary to Jr's ability and intellegence, and is basically a testament to a caring father's regard for a son who he hopes is in the final stages of becoming a worthwhile man. However, the math of the logs of the ship Concord also imply that Jr is still with Sr on its arrival in Philadelphia in 1683. While the "7 children" of Sr. are not named, I struggle to find a more likely candidate than James to be one of the 7. The previous year Sr. had sent a "servant" by the name of Cole to Philadelphia to accomplish building a dwelling for himself and his admittedly large family. Your contention is that eldest son John was also sent at that time with Cole. That is somewhat correct, and there are those publications which credit John with being the family "overseer" of the project. However, John's specific role, and appointment by William Penn himself, was to be an assistant to surveyor Thomas Holme, and therefore did not come to America on his father's terms. It is unlikely that Holme would not have availed himself of this appointment, and likely kept John Claypoole more busy with government work than would have allowed him to have much more than a cursory oversight of his father's building project. More likely is that as I suggested, "family legend" which suggests that James Jr. was that on-site representative is probably correct. This does present a problem for those who would hold that, if indeed the math of the Concord's record is correct. However, Sr. refers to the on-site representative as "my attorney," a reference which would fit Jr's later roles in government in New Castle more closely than it would John's in Philadelphia. The problem then becomes, if Jr. was that "attorney" how did he leave Philadelphia in time to return to England, and subsequently return with his parents on the Concord in 1683? The answer to that would nearly have to be that James left early after ice out in 1683, and that his brother John did indeed fill in for him with cursory visits which subsequently were interpreted as him being the sole family representative It may well be that "family legend" is not correct. On the other hand, I'm not seeing a smoking gun yet which would suggest that it cannot be. In either case, from the Pennsylvania Archives, we know that James Jr. WAS in Pennsylvania by 1688, when, a year after his father's death he was appointed as the Clerk of Court in Philadelphia with this commendation recorded in the Archives minutes: Series 1, Volume 1, page 251 as found at http://www.footnote.com/image/23848182/#23848182 Friday, 9th day of 1 month, 1688 (actually 9 March 1688) "The Goverr acquainted ye board that David Lloyd, then County Clark [sic] of Philadelphia, haveing not made and submission or acknowledgement of his offence, and was ordered, there was a necessity some other person should be Commissioned, the County Court being to sitt in a ffew dayes, and it was not fitt to Suffer such Contempts of Authority as began too ffrequentt, through ye Continuance of a Councill without doors, &c., and that therefore he Should grant a Commission to Some other ffitt person, and desired that ye members at ye booard would advise him who was ye ffittest person to Succeed him therein. James Claypoole was named by ye Secretary, seconded by Griff. Jones, Robt Turner and Wm. Darvall, and it was said he had been some time a Clark of ye Assembly: the Goverr moved ffor ..." [moving on to further business] That this would not have been Norton's son James is evident that he had not yet reached the age of majority, regardless of whether a 1673 or 1677 birthdate is accorded to him. James Jr, having been born in 1664, and acknowledged by his father as a capable young man as early as 1681, would have qualified. This citation also confirms that James Jr. had been there long enough to gain the confidence of his father's contemporaries. This is very likely to be the interpretation of more than one late 19th history historian who expressed that caution was needed to keep father (Sr.) and son (Jr.) identified correctly in early Philadelphia records. You're probably correct in pointing out that I had confused John and James Jr. as Sheriff of early Philadelphia. I'm not coming up with the reference I thought I had on hand, but am not absolutely ruling out that I may still have it and am simply not able to lay my hands on it at the moment. Take care, and Happy New Year! Joe Important Note: The author of this message may not be subscribed to this list. If you would like to reply to them, please click on the Message Board URL link above and respond on the board.