I am more than a little disturbed that I THINK I have found some very sloppy work by the late Mrs. Frank Gheesling and need some input from those interested so the record on our WEBSITE may be corrected. William's (Surrey County) great grandson Henry Hunt b. about 1700 m. Agnes_____?? and had five sons listed as William , Henry, John, George, James and Elizabeth, in that order of birth in the Gheesling papers. I have recently come across (details if you ask) the following court paper "Bond, March 4, 1756, of James Hunt, gd'n of Henry, son of Henry Hunt, dec'd". ... "Same; ward, William, son of Henry Hunt".... Acc't ret by James, gd'n of William and Henry, to Ct March 7, 1758" This appears to be a bond of James Hunt guardian of Henry and William. It follows logically that James was probably the eldest son, not the youngest as listed by Gheesling. I have also spotted two cases whre Mrs. Gheesling was quoting from the 1750 Will of Henry Sr. (I have an unproved copy) she changed the words DWELL to LIVE and further quoted material that was NOT in the will, as I have it, that James and Elizabeth were under 21. It wouild appear now that the children may have been born in this order: James b. prob 1732 Under age 21?. Elizabeth uinder age 20? John George Henry (required a guardian- 1756) William (required a guardian - 1756) (The exact arragement has not been proved.. YOUR COMMENTS PLEASE. This is going to upset a lot of people I am sure! Sandy in Lubbock