Three weeks from today is the annual and ever-popular LDS all-day (free) workshop in Baltimore. Registration form and course rundown at: http://www.baltimorefamilyhistoryworkshop.org/ Something for everyone who can get there, and the price is right. Upwards of 300 sign up for this well-organized affair. I'm doing three lectures, and John Polk and I will be available in the afternoon for the described consulation sessions. Early signup is recommended. John

Drat, too. I "assumed" the wrong John as Ann's uncle. Hm. I actually recall doing this very tract's title history some years ago and getting confused then, but having to move on. Well, I'll take another look, but I'm not sure I have enough on all the family threads here to resolve anything without a deeper dive than I'd be able to sign on for. Alas, ten minutes just isn't enough time for some puzzles ... But we do at least have the several 1723-25 Judicial references to draw from, connecting Ann then directly to Alice and the neighboring Walkers in Mount Vernon, etc., as well as to Ellis. Probablility is still high that she was Thomas', I'd think. By the way, I made a couple of thoughtless typos in my earlier rundown of those Judicials. The final two entries, where I'd entered "Alice", should have read "Ann": f. 121 Nov court 1723. Ann Shiles appeared against the parties from f. 85 above, in compliance with her bond. f. 137 Mar court 1723/4. Ann Shiles was paid 150 lbt *by the defendants* in the action from f. 85 above for 3 days in evidence for the prosecution. (Even so, the parties were no-billed by the Grand Jury.) John -----Original Message----- From: Miller's Choice <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Sent: Fri, Aug 20, 2010 4:59 pm Subject: Re: [LDR] Ann the fornicator From: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> <whereby Ann Shiles had morphed into Ann Huggins, wife of Benjamin Huggins and niece of John Shiles, ergo the daughter of Thomas Shiles.> Not quite that simple.  Despite the helpful land records references posted by John, all of which I have pulled and since read, Ann Shiles of the fornication case did not morph into Ann Huggins. Ann Huggins was the daughter of Thomas Rencher who wrote his will in 1764, probated 28 April 1772 (EB5:2), wherein he named his daughters Ann Huggins and Bridget Chapley.  Those two daughters were the ones in the deeds.  Rencher married Bridget Shiles, daughter of John Shiles, d. 1714 and sister of the well landed John Shiles who died intestate c1760.  Thomas Rencher had part of Erlindy and Rencher's Security in now Mt. Vernon.   My thought at the time I initially responded was that I questioned why two of the three daughters of Thomas Rencher and none of his sons inherited John Shiles' land as that was impossible by operation of law.  It's looking like Bridget Shiles was mother only to Ann (m. 1) Wm Waller; 2) Benj. Huggins) and Bridget Rencher (m. Solomon Chaplain) and that Thomas Rencher's other children were by a now unknown wife.  Drat.  Of course I don't like this, because I lose my Shiles line, but the records tell us what they tell us.  I'll have to dig for a new mommy for William Rencher (d. 1803), son of Thomas, unless I can figure out why on 7 July 1764 William Rencher and Benjamin Huggins deeded to Alice Waller and William Waller for £80 all the lands which descended to Ann Huggins, wife of Benjamin Huggins and mother to said Alice and William on the death of John Shiles, dec'd, Ann being the niece of Shiles; the land lying and being on the north side of the Wicomico River near the lower ferry on the condition that the land stay in the possession of Ann Huggins for her natural life; and also sell 100 acres lying on the creek where Robert Crockett formerly lived (C:224).   John, how do you think my boy William Rencher weighs in on the above deed?   Back to Ann Shiles:  In Ann's fornication case, which John graciously shared with us, Merrick Ellis, gentleman, put up the surety of 600 pounds of tobacco so the county would not be burdened with the maintenance of the child.   Merrick Ellis was wealthy, landed and within the family unit of Ann Shiles, as his wife, Alice Elzey, daughter of Col. Arnold Elzey of Almodington, was an older, half first cousin to Ann if I've got it figured correctly.  John is absolutely correct in that we have to rely upon what the records actually say.  It is folly to impose interpretations from other locales on Somerset County actions, particularly New England, which I consider the polar opposite. Becky *************************************** QUESTIONS about POSTING GUIDELINES, SUBSCRIBING or UNSUBSCRIBING? Visit The Lower DelMarVa Roots Mailing List FAQ: http://www.tyaskin.com/handley/ldrfaq.htm ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Legit depends on where the record's from. This looks like a "legit" Virginia case to me. It even looks suspiciously like the prominent Quaker George Johnson who was impelled into Somerset along with the rest of the dissenters when VA began to punish them for their beliefs.. Torrence's long rundown on George, though, fails to mention such an (aborted) marriage, and has him marrying Katherine Butcher in England. Curious. It would be interesting to see if this case came from Northampton (e.g.) in the late 1650s, which Torrence's little admitted uncertainties on his movements might permit. John -----Original Message----- From: Glenn Major DVM <[email protected]> At least some prosecutions for fornication were not legit: "Whereas Mary Gouldsmith was sumoned to this Court to answere the Crime of Fornicacon; and forasmuch as George Johnson and Mary Gouldsmith being called to answere,alledged that they were married according to their Custome and manner [Quaker Ceremony] and did acknowledge they ware not married according as the Law enjoynes...[each was fined 500 pounds of tobacco]."^5

Yes, this did happen on occasion.  I've also seen a few instances where a man and woman who were married in Virginia were accused and had to prove they were married according to the canons of the Church of England somewhere else.  What was the date on the George Johnson-Mary Goldsmith case?  I would be interested in who reported them, as well. Becky ________________________________ From: Glenn Major DVM <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Sent: Fri, August 20, 2010 6:23:15 PM Subject: Re: [LDR] Ann the fornicator At least some prosecutions for fornication were not legit:       "Whereas Mary Gouldsmith was sumoned to this Court to answere the       Crime of Fornicacon; and forasmuch as George Johnson and Mary       Gouldsmith being called to answere,alledged that they were married       according to their Custome and manner [Quaker Ceremony] and did       acknowledge they ware not married according as the Law       enjoynes...[each was fined 500 pounds of tobacco]."^5 *************************************** QUESTIONS about POSTING GUIDELINES, SUBSCRIBING or UNSUBSCRIBING? Visit The Lower DelMarVa Roots Mailing List FAQ: http://www.tyaskin.com/handley/ldrfaq.htm ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

At least some prosecutions for fornication were not legit: "Whereas Mary Gouldsmith was sumoned to this Court to answere the Crime of Fornicacon; and forasmuch as George Johnson and Mary Gouldsmith being called to answere,alledged that they were married according to their Custome and manner [Quaker Ceremony] and did acknowledge they ware not married according as the Law enjoynes...[each was fined 500 pounds of tobacco]."^5

Thank you, John. That was a magnificent answer. Jim Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] Sender: [email protected] Date: Fri, 20 Aug 2010 10:58:10 To: <[email protected]> Reply-To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [LDR] Ann the fornicator -----Original Message----- From: Dave & Jane Kearney <[email protected]> John, I found the Plymouth Colony paper on the broad subject matter we're discussing "imaginative," but in a positive way. The paper obviously doesn't address the specific laws, interpretations, judgments, or customs involved in connection with the ancient Somerset case involving "Ann," but yet might provide some additional interesting perspective on some of the issues. _____________________ But the question the other day was “Who was Ann Shiles?” On taking a quick look *at the records* I made an initial quick note that the basis of the quoted secondary source citation was a bastardy action, and suggested one plausible course of action for looking further *in the records*. I did not instantly chase other avenues, but when Becky responded with her own helpful post on the family, I took a look at other *records*. Voila! Somerset Deeds C:224 et seq., whereby Ann Shiles had morphed into Ann Huggins, wife of Benjamin Huggins and niece of John Shiles, ergo the daughter of Thomas Shiles. Q.E.D. Well, almost Q.E.D., but that's the bet I'd take. I didn’t mention other *records* on Ann Shiles almost juxtaposed with the original bastardy case, but here they are, all from Somerset Judicials 1723-1725: f. 85 Aug court 1723. Ann Shiles, recognizance bond of £50 for appearance in Nov court to provide evidence in action v. Mary Cavanaugh, Sarah Walker, Sr., Sarah Walker, Jr., Susanna Walker and Mary Walker in re the felonious stealing of certain clothing, the goods of Merrick Ellis and John Banister. f. 85 Aug court 1723. Elizabeth Hust, identical bond to above. f. 114 Aug court 1723. Timothy Adkinson v. Ann Shiles of Stepney Parish. Debt of £2.19.11 from Jul 1722, for soft goods (various textiles, handkerchief, etc.), with inventory attached. She was acquitted of his “false clamour” and awarded 718 lbt from Adkinson for her costs. f. 117 Aug court 1723. Ann Shiles ordered to pay Alice Shiles, Elizabeth Dorman and Nicholas Farley each 60 lbt for 2 days in evidence v. Adkinson. f. 121 Nov court 1723. Alice Shiles appeared against the parties from f. 85 above, in compliance with her bond. f. 137 Mar court 1723/4. Alice Shiles was paid 150 lbt *by the defendants* in the action from f. 85 above for 3 days in evidence for the prosecution. (Even so, the parties were no-billed by the Grand Jury.) Now, this is admittedly the output of the slow and plodding so-called “Records System” applied to answering questions like “Who was Ann Shiles?”. It does not have the dramatic appeal of Professor Harold Hill’s “Think System” for imagining answers without doing the work, or the “Revealed Wisdom System” of relying on prayer, or the Alchemist’s Stone whereby someone’s analysis of Puritan records can be transmuted into interpretive insights in the mid-Atlantic province of Maryland without ever having referred to those records themselves. But the old Socratic tools, actually reading the sources, sometimes actually address questions, as opposed to dithering in some other part of the universe on questions unasked, letting imagination run in free-associative mode, and finally forgetting what the actual question was. Most of the bastardy cases in Somerset are probably best “imagined” (yes, I do it, too, but based on reading many hundreds, or even thousands of them) as the result of a lack of hobbies and other outlets among the illiterate poor, and, well, the lack of a pill (and common sense). The hayloft had a prominent place in their social life. It’s really just that simple. Of course, you're still invited to present a specific case in which you have other facts to sustain your skepticism on a Somerset court action as not reflecting the real situation. Or to identify Ann Shiles, which was the question. John *************************************** QUESTIONS about POSTING GUIDELINES, SUBSCRIBING or UNSUBSCRIBING? Visit The Lower DelMarVa Roots Mailing List FAQ: http://www.tyaskin.com/handley/ldrfaq.htm ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

From: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> <whereby Ann Shiles had morphed into Ann Huggins, wife of Benjamin Huggins and niece of John Shiles, ergo the daughter of Thomas Shiles.> Not quite that simple.  Despite the helpful land records references posted by John, all of which I have pulled and since read, Ann Shiles of the fornication case did not morph into Ann Huggins. Ann Huggins was the daughter of Thomas Rencher who wrote his will in 1764, probated 28 April 1772 (EB5:2), wherein he named his daughters Ann Huggins and Bridget Chapley.  Those two daughters were the ones in the deeds.  Rencher married Bridget Shiles, daughter of John Shiles, d. 1714 and sister of the well landed John Shiles who died intestate c1760.  Thomas Rencher had part of Erlindy and Rencher's Security in now Mt. Vernon.   My thought at the time I initially responded was that I questioned why two of the three daughters of Thomas Rencher and none of his sons inherited John Shiles' land as that was impossible by operation of law.  It's looking like Bridget Shiles was mother only to Ann (m. 1) Wm Waller; 2) Benj. Huggins) and Bridget Rencher (m. Solomon Chaplain) and that Thomas Rencher's other children were by a now unknown wife.  Drat.  Of course I don't like this, because I lose my Shiles line, but the records tell us what they tell us.  I'll have to dig for a new mommy for William Rencher (d. 1803), son of Thomas, unless I can figure out why on 7 July 1764 William Rencher and Benjamin Huggins deeded to Alice Waller and William Waller for £80 all the lands which descended to Ann Huggins, wife of Benjamin Huggins and mother to said Alice and William on the death of John Shiles, dec'd, Ann being the niece of Shiles; the land lying and being on the north side of the Wicomico River near the lower ferry on the condition that the land stay in the possession of Ann Huggins for her natural life; and also sell 100 acres lying on the creek where Robert Crockett formerly lived (C:224).   John, how do you think my boy William Rencher weighs in on the above deed?   Back to Ann Shiles:  In Ann's fornication case, which John graciously shared with us, Merrick Ellis, gentleman, put up the surety of 600 pounds of tobacco so the county would not be burdened with the maintenance of the child.   Merrick Ellis was wealthy, landed and within the family unit of Ann Shiles, as his wife, Alice Elzey, daughter of Col. Arnold Elzey of Almodington, was an older, half first cousin to Ann if I've got it figured correctly.  John is absolutely correct in that we have to rely upon what the records actually say.  It is folly to impose interpretations from other locales on Somerset County actions, particularly New England, which I consider the polar opposite. Becky

-----Original Message----- From: Dave & Jane Kearney <[email protected]> John, I found the Plymouth Colony paper on the broad subject matter we're discussing "imaginative," but in a positive way. The paper obviously doesn't address the specific laws, interpretations, judgments, or customs involved in connection with the ancient Somerset case involving "Ann," but yet might provide some additional interesting perspective on some of the issues. _____________________ But the question the other day was “Who was Ann Shiles?” On taking a quick look *at the records* I made an initial quick note that the basis of the quoted secondary source citation was a bastardy action, and suggested one plausible course of action for looking further *in the records*. I did not instantly chase other avenues, but when Becky responded with her own helpful post on the family, I took a look at other *records*. Voila! Somerset Deeds C:224 et seq., whereby Ann Shiles had morphed into Ann Huggins, wife of Benjamin Huggins and niece of John Shiles, ergo the daughter of Thomas Shiles. Q.E.D. Well, almost Q.E.D., but that's the bet I'd take. I didn’t mention other *records* on Ann Shiles almost juxtaposed with the original bastardy case, but here they are, all from Somerset Judicials 1723-1725: f. 85 Aug court 1723. Ann Shiles, recognizance bond of £50 for appearance in Nov court to provide evidence in action v. Mary Cavanaugh, Sarah Walker, Sr., Sarah Walker, Jr., Susanna Walker and Mary Walker in re the felonious stealing of certain clothing, the goods of Merrick Ellis and John Banister. f. 85 Aug court 1723. Elizabeth Hust, identical bond to above. f. 114 Aug court 1723. Timothy Adkinson v. Ann Shiles of Stepney Parish. Debt of £2.19.11 from Jul 1722, for soft goods (various textiles, handkerchief, etc.), with inventory attached. She was acquitted of his “false clamour” and awarded 718 lbt from Adkinson for her costs. f. 117 Aug court 1723. Ann Shiles ordered to pay Alice Shiles, Elizabeth Dorman and Nicholas Farley each 60 lbt for 2 days in evidence v. Adkinson. f. 121 Nov court 1723. Alice Shiles appeared against the parties from f. 85 above, in compliance with her bond. f. 137 Mar court 1723/4. Alice Shiles was paid 150 lbt *by the defendants* in the action from f. 85 above for 3 days in evidence for the prosecution. (Even so, the parties were no-billed by the Grand Jury.) Now, this is admittedly the output of the slow and plodding so-called “Records System” applied to answering questions like “Who was Ann Shiles?”. It does not have the dramatic appeal of Professor Harold Hill’s “Think System” for imagining answers without doing the work, or the “Revealed Wisdom System” of relying on prayer, or the Alchemist’s Stone whereby someone’s analysis of Puritan records can be transmuted into interpretive insights in the mid-Atlantic province of Maryland without ever having referred to those records themselves. But the old Socratic tools, actually reading the sources, sometimes actually address questions, as opposed to dithering in some other part of the universe on questions unasked, letting imagination run in free-associative mode, and finally forgetting what the actual question was. Most of the bastardy cases in Somerset are probably best “imagined” (yes, I do it, too, but based on reading many hundreds, or even thousands of them) as the result of a lack of hobbies and other outlets among the illiterate poor, and, well, the lack of a pill (and common sense). The hayloft had a prominent place in their social life. It’s really just that simple. Of course, you're still invited to present a specific case in which you have other facts to sustain your skepticism on a Somerset court action as not reflecting the real situation. Or to identify Ann Shiles, which was the question. John

> Ancient Somerset court actions record "fornication" in cases between > two consensual (my word) unmarried parties resulting in issue. They > record "adultery" for a married person discovered in liaison with > someone else. They record "rape" upon a complaint of the victim. > These were three distinct violations of three distinct laws. > While anyone is welcome to project Puritan Plymouth sensibilities upon > the Somerset court, or their own modern belief matrix on the ancients, > or imagine that the court treated, say, non-Anglican marriages as > criminally invalid, the records themselves give no breath of credence > to any of these imaginative extrapolations. The actions as documented > make sense as they stand. Unless one has explicit additional evidence > to the contrary, it is simply best practice to read the document as > written. > > When one says: >>>>This is yet another reason to take our ancestors' > recorded deeds with a healthy bit of skepticism at times. It is often > impossible to say for sure what really happened 100s of years ago.<<<< > one is venturing into fictional overlays of one's own prejudices or > wishes onto a recorded set of evidence. At this point, you're on your > own recognizance. Here, you're entering Groucho Marx territory, > essentially asking "Who're you gonna believe: me or your lying eyes?" > For myself, I have more skepticism about armchair opinions from three > centuries remove than about stated records from the moment. > > Men and women violators of the bastardy laws were, indeed, treated > differently and more harshly. If a woman refused to identify her > correspondent she was often subjected to flogging, along with her fine. > This did not happen to the man. > > In general, I can easily imagine a vast spectrum of situations in which > "consensual", as I used it above, is probably not a term that really > applied. But, in effect, it's what the woman was concurring to by not > claiming anything else. And that's the data we have to go on. > > Of course, you're invited to present a specific case in which you have > other facts to sustain your skepticism on a Somerset court action as > not reflecting the real situation.. _____________ John, I found the Plymouth Colony paper on the broad subject matter we're discussing "imaginative," but in a positive way. The paper obviously doesn't address the specific laws, interpretations, judgments, or customs involved in connection with the ancient Somerset case involving "Ann," but yet might provide some additional interesting perspective on some of the issues. As for entering Groucho Marx territory, the line ... "Well, who you gonna believe, me or your own eyes?" ... appears to be properly attributed not to Groucho, but to Chico (as Chicolini in Duck Soup). Of course, I'm generally gonna believe my own eyes (although I also know that sometimes I should not). I think we've all seen and heard and read and experienced enough in our lives to know that at least SOMETIMES "the word" as given to us, or as passed down to us, even as determined in ancient trials, can be off, at least with respect to the underlying circumstances and biases. This is part of history, too. Dave PS: You might enjoy William Poundstone's Psychology Today blog post from earlier this year, "Who Are You Going to Believe, Me or Your Own Eyes?: How to Convince People that Black is White" at http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/priceless/201001/who-are-you-going-believe-me-or-your-own-eyes.

Inspired by Teresa Derrickson's transcribing and posting of the Parsons family Bible pages, I am posting these two family Bible record pages to the list.  The Bible is not from any of my families (Mills, Shockley, Welch, Emory), but was a surprise found in the bottom of a box of fabric bought at a yard sale in Milford in 1981.  It is now prized for the Bible itself by the person who bought it.  The large Bible was published in Philadelphia in 1850 by John B. Perry, "Perry's New Stereotype Edition."  I made color copies of the stained and faded pages of birth and death records over a year ago, and I have tried to decipher the names and dates in case they might be of interest to anyone on the list.  I have placed question marks where I am not certain of the letter or word or number.  I have made the entries all one line, but most were written on two lines because it was a double-column page.   Mary Jane Mallonee       Family Record Births   George H(?) Cline was born November 5th 1827(7 written over 8)   Mary Jane Cline was born October 6th 1830   George H(?) Cline and Mary Jane Sheldon was Married on 17th of February 1859    Mary Ella S. H(?) irkner was born February 29th 1852   John Wesley Cline the Son of George H(?) and Lydia Cline was born April the 27th 1852   Mary Jane S. Cline was born September 11th 1866   Harriett C. Cline was born May 12th1862   Julia Ann Cline was born April 13th 1864(?)   H(?)e(?)nry Thomas Cline was born October 12th 1867(7 written over 6)   Sarah Ann Cline was born February 17th 1871   Georgianna Cline was born June the 28(?)th 1873(?)   Mary Ella Cline was born October 2 _(?) 18--(?)   George C Magee was born July 6th 18--(?)   Fredrick H. Cline born April 22, 1893   --------(?) Son of George Ann(?) Weygrand Was Born the 27th of July 1893     Family Bible Deaths   Lydia Cline the Wife of George H(?) Cline Departed this Life February the 8th 1854(?)  Aged 21 years 10 mo 27 days   Jennie S. Magee Wife of Charles C Magee Departed this Life July 29th 1887  Aged 26 years 10 month 19 Days

Ancient Somerset court actions record "fornication" in cases between two consensual (my word) unmarried parties resulting in issue. They record "adultery" for a married person discovered in liaison with someone else. They record "rape" upon a complaint of the victim. These were three distinct violations of three distinct laws. While anyone is welcome to project Puritan Plymouth sensibilities upon the Somerset court, or their own modern belief matrix on the ancients, or imagine that the court treated, say, non-Anglican marriages as criminally invalid, the records themselves give no breath of credence to any of these imaginative extrapolations. The actions as documented make sense as they stand. Unless one has explicit additional evidence to the contrary, it is simply best practice to read the document as written. When one says: >>>>This is yet another reason to take our ancestors' recorded deeds with a healthy bit of skepticism at times. It is often impossible to say for sure what really happened 100s of years ago.<<<< one is venturing into fictional overlays of one's own prejudices or wishes onto a recorded set of evidence. At this point, you're on your own recognizance. Here, you're entering Groucho Marx territory, essentially asking "Who're you gonna believe: me or your lying eyes?" For myself, I have more skepticism about armchair opinions from three centuries remove than about stated records from the moment. Men and women violators of the bastardy laws were, indeed, treated differently and more harshly. If a woman refused to identify her correspondent she was often subjected to flogging, along with her fine. This did not happen to the man. In general, I can easily imagine a vast spectrum of situations in which "consensual", as I used it above, is probably not a term that really applied. But, in effect, it's what the woman was concurring to by not claiming anything else. And that's the data we have to go on. Of course, you're invited to present a specific case in which you have other facts to sustain your skepticism on a Somerset court action as not reflecting the real situation.. John -----Original Message----- From: Dave & Jane Kearney <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Sent: Wed, Aug 18, 2010 8:21 pm Subject: Re: [LDR] Ann the fornicator > Fornication and adultery were two different things. This Ann Shiles, > whoever she was, was a single woman. The county prosecuted fornication > yielding issue to guarantee that someone accepted responsibiliy for > raising the offspring. _____________________ I don't mean to question the clear line suggested between fornication and adultery in this particular matter, but, it's not clear to me that all sources in all situations agree the distinction is always entirely clear (mutually exclusive), either in common usage, or at law. See, for instance, "Sexual Misconduct in Plymouth Colony," a paper in the Plymouth Colony Archive Project, in which the author, Lisa M. Lauria of the University of Virginia writes, "Like Hebrew law, seventeenth century Puritans defined adultery as any act of fornication with a married or betrothed woman," thus clearly reflecting that adultery in Plymouth Colony was defined as a specific type of fornication. Yet, Ms. Lauria also distinguishes throughout her article between the two Plymouth Colony crimes of adultery and fornication. http://www.histarch.uiuc.edu/plymouth/Lauria1.html#I. Other sources attempt to clarify the differences between fornication and adultery, but acknowledge differences of interpretation. See, for example, "Fornication and Adultery (What's the Difference?)," which states that "Many Christians are seeking the 'Bible Definition' of these terms;" attempts to set out a clear distinction; but acknowledges that, "The definition of these two terms is often confusing ... ." http://www.rmsbibleengineering.com/Page2/Adultery/Page2_1.html. On a related note, I share Elizabeth's thought that the accused deed and the actual deed don't always necessarily match. This is yet another reason to take our ancestors' recorded deeds with a healthy bit of skepticism at times. It is often impossible to say for sure what really happened 100s of years ago. (The Plymouth Colony paper cited above discusses differences in how men and women were treated in Plymouth Colony in connection with sexual crimes -- sometimes in ways predictable and perhaps sometimes in ways a bit surprising.) Dave *************************************** QUESTIONS about POSTING GUIDELINES, SUBSCRIBING or UNSUBSCRIBING? Visit The Lower DelMarVa Roots Mailing List FAQ: http://www.tyaskin.com/handley/ldrfaq.htm ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Replies to various folks: John--Thanks for the clarification. Becky-- I was being facetious, glad we embrace the rogues in our family tree. Interesting find concerning "fornication" 17 th century Somerset Rates of prenuptial pregnancy in the Chesapeake colonies were as follows: Percent of First Births Within ------Place -------------Years -----_7 mos._----- _8 mos._ -----_8.5 mos._ -----_9 mos._ Somerset County, Md. 1665-95 ---23.7% -----32.9% -----34.2% -------36.8% Immigrants Somerset County, Md. 1665-95 -----9.5% -----19.0% -----19.0%------- 20.6% Natives Sources: Menard and Walsh, "Demography of Somerset County," 23 Bests, glenn

> Fornication and adultery were two different things. This Ann Shiles, > whoever she was, was a single woman. The county prosecuted fornication > yielding issue to guarantee that someone accepted responsibiliy for > raising the offspring. _____________________ I don't mean to question the clear line suggested between fornication and adultery in this particular matter, but, it's not clear to me that all sources in all situations agree the distinction is always entirely clear (mutually exclusive), either in common usage, or at law. See, for instance, "Sexual Misconduct in Plymouth Colony," a paper in the Plymouth Colony Archive Project, in which the author, Lisa M. Lauria of the University of Virginia writes, "Like Hebrew law, seventeenth century Puritans defined adultery as any act of fornication with a married or betrothed woman," thus clearly reflecting that adultery in Plymouth Colony was defined as a specific type of fornication. Yet, Ms. Lauria also distinguishes throughout her article between the two Plymouth Colony crimes of adultery and fornication. http://www.histarch.uiuc.edu/plymouth/Lauria1.html#I. Other sources attempt to clarify the differences between fornication and adultery, but acknowledge differences of interpretation. See, for example, "Fornication and Adultery (What's the Difference?)," which states that "Many Christians are seeking the 'Bible Definition' of these terms;" attempts to set out a clear distinction; but acknowledges that, "The definition of these two terms is often confusing ... ." http://www.rmsbibleengineering.com/Page2/Adultery/Page2_1.html. On a related note, I share Elizabeth's thought that the accused deed and the actual deed don't always necessarily match. This is yet another reason to take our ancestors' recorded deeds with a healthy bit of skepticism at times. It is often impossible to say for sure what really happened 100s of years ago. (The Plymouth Colony paper cited above discusses differences in how men and women were treated in Plymouth Colony in connection with sexual crimes -- sometimes in ways predictable and perhaps sometimes in ways a bit surprising.) Dave

For identifying what became of Ann Shiles (and who she was), you might want to consider this later stretch of deeds involving MIGHT HAVE HAD MORE: C:224 07 Jul 1764 (unspecified acreage, incl. 100 ac "lying on creek where Robert Crockett formerly lived") from William Rencher, Benjamin Huggins et ux. Ann Huggins (niece of John Shiles) to Alice Waller, William Waller [near Lower Ferry] D:029 04 Jun 1766 agreement on partition between Bridget Chapley (of Dorchester) (with Ann Huggins, heirs of John Shiles) and John Span Conway, citing also William Waller's component [land unnamed, and may include other unspecified properties] D:044 13 Sep 1766 (her moiety of interest) from Bridget Chapley to her daughter Susannah Conway [inferred: land unnamed] E:120 05 Feb 1771 (194 ac) from William Waller to John Crockett [cites B1 "running by" wharf of Lower Ferry] E:132 07 May 1771 ("remaining part", mortgage) from William Waller to Thomas Rencher and John Crockett, for £400 [including extensive other goods, incl. slaves] E:206 (citation, undated) (part) from William Rencher and John Crockett to Ann Huggins for life E:206 20 Apr 1772 (part) from Ann Huggins to John Crockett John -----Original Message----- From: Miller's Choice <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Sent: Wed, Aug 18, 2010 2:41 pm Subject: Re: [LDR] Ann the fornicator <To embarrassed to let it see the light of day.> Nothing at all to be embarrassed about, Glenn.  The activity occurred almost three centuries ago, so no one living had a thing to do with it.  I don't mind finding such incidents, as it surely trumps (at least in my view) the boring and mundane born, married (or not), had issue and died.  Period.  Plus, this provides opportunity for any surname-bearing Shiles descendant who can't seem to connect to this tiny family, to try a Bloodsworth possibility via DNA matching.  If Ann Shiles' child lived, it would surely bear the Shiles name.  We can all cite instances where that didn't happen, but I'm saying it's a better than even chance. Before John Lyon's very helpful post, either of your theories was plausible, as we had nothing further on which to build a case one way or the other.  Until reading your post, I didn't know about the 1773 sale of land in SC by Thomas and Ann Shiles, which is certainly interesting.  I had forgotten all about Ann as I don't have her entered as a child of anyone, merely having that reference to her under Merrick Ellis.  Thanks to John, I can limit my response as to whose child Ann might be and at least enter her with a question mark. Now knowing that Ann was single, thereby having to be a daughter of either Thomas or John Shiles, I think we may eliminate John (d. 1714). He had two known children, John and Bridget, with John dying intestate c1760 unmarried, so his sister Bridget Rencher's daughters, Ann Waller Huggins and Bridget Chapley/Chaplain, ended up with his land per a 1782 deed from John Crockett to Levin Gale (H:77).  Ann Huggins sold her half to William Rencher in 1760; I don't know what happened to Bridget's half as I didn't need to know for my investigation at the time I was researching.  Not that's this is germane in this discussion, but in this review, I'm wondering how two of Bridget Rencher's three daughters and not any of her three sons received John Shiles' considerable amount of land which included Might Have Had More. Having dispensed with John (d. 1714) as a father for Ann Shiles, that leaves Thomas (d. 1719), of whose six children only the three daughters' births (Alice 1689, Elizabeth 1692, Sarah 1694) were recorded, leaving sons Thomas and John to be placed as his children by tax list and other means, with son Edmund placed only because his daughter Elizabeth, who was baptized Stepney Parish, left a will and by identification of her devisees it can be fairly safely presumed that Edmund is Thomas' son.  There's a gap between Edmund b. c1708 and his brothers of almost a decade.  Ann, the subject of discussion, could easily fit within that gap but is speculation. Becky ________________________________ From: Glenn Major DVM <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Sent: Tue, August 17, 2010 10:31:45 PM Subject: [LDR] Ann the fornicator In a dark corner of our genealogy files all of us Thomas Shiles ancestor have this file hidden away. To embarrassed to let it see the light of day.     Levy list of Somerset County -- 1724     Merrick Ellis for Ann Shiles for fornication -- 600     (Citizens of the Eastern Shore of Maryland, 1659-1750 By F. Edward Wright) This leaves the questions: Who was Ann Shiles and did she really fornicate? Who was Ann? Lets assume it was MISS Ann Shiles: Merrick Ellis was married to Alice Elzey(1690-1740), Alice and her mother, Major Waller(1664-    ), were namesakes of Alice Elzey's grandmother Alice Major whose second marriage was to Thomas Shiles, the emigrant Shiles. Thomas Shiles left two sons, Thomas Shiles Jr. and John Shiles. If the age of fornication is roughly 16-30 years of age, Ann would be born in the ~1694-1708 range. This would make her a as of yet undocumented daughter of either Thomas Shiles Jr. or John Shiles. Lets assume it was Mrs. Ann Shiles: Then she and and her husband might have been Quakers. After 1700 the Church of England hijacked civic affairs, and Quakers were uncooperative. Ann may have been accused of fornication for not registering her marriage with the church. Her husband, of course, would not be accused. In 1660 Thomas Shiles, the emigrant grandfather, was apprehended as a Quaker and sentenced to receive 20 stripes on his bare back. Prospective husband---Thomas Shiles III, son Thomas Shiles Jr.. Thomas Shiles III was noted as " gone to Carolina" in the 1755 Worchester Debt Book. Thomas Shiles, acquires land in Chatham Co. NC in 1762. In 1773, Thomas Shiles and ANN SHILES sell land in Edgefield SC awarded by Gov. Charles Montagu conceivably for service during the Cherokee War. Captain Thomas Shiles returns to Somerset and in 1775 testified in court about a confrontation with a Loyalist militia. Bests, Glenn *************************************** QUESTIONS about POSTING GUIDELINES, SUBSCRIBING or UNSUBSCRIBING? Visit The Lower DelMarVa Roots Mailing List FAQ: http://www.tyaskin.com/handley/ldrfaq.htm ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message *************************************** QUESTIONS about POSTING GUIDELINES, SUBSCRIBING or UNSUBSCRIBING? Visit The Lower DelMarVa Roots Mailing List FAQ: http://www.tyaskin.com/handley/ldrfaq.htm ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

There is also a possibility that this Ann was raped. For some reason, women took all the blame for everything in that sort of thing, while the men were just either "being boys" or "sowing their wild oats". Just a thought. Elizabeth In a message dated 8/18/2010 2:41:15 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, [email protected] writes: <To embarrassed to let it see the light of day.> Nothing at all to be embarrassed about, Glenn. The activity occurred almost three centuries ago, so no one living had a thing to do with it. I don't mind finding such incidents, as it surely trumps (at least in my view) the boring and mundane born, married (or not), had issue and died. Period. Plus, this provides opportunity for any surname-bearing Shiles descendant who can't seem to connect to this tiny family, to try a Bloodsworth possibility via DNA matching. If Ann Shiles' child lived, it would surely bear the Shiles name. We can all cite instances where that didn't happen, but I'm saying it's a better than even chance. Before John Lyon's very helpful post, either of your theories was plausible, as we had nothing further on which to build a case one way or the other. Until reading your post, I didn't know about the 1773 sale of land in SC by Thomas and Ann Shiles, which is certainly interesting. I had forgotten all about Ann as I don't have her entered as a child of anyone, merely having that reference to her under Merrick Ellis. Thanks to John, I can limit my response as to whose child Ann might be and at least enter her with a question mark. Now knowing that Ann was single, thereby having to be a daughter of either Thomas or John Shiles, I think we may eliminate John (d. 1714). He had two known children, John and Bridget, with John dying intestate c1760 unmarried, so his sister Bridget Rencher's daughters, Ann Waller Huggins and Bridget Chapley/Chaplain, ended up with his land per a 1782 deed from John Crockett to Levin Gale (H:77). Ann Huggins sold her half to William Rencher in 1760; I don't know what happened to Bridget's half as I didn't need to know for my investigation at the time I was researching. Not that's this is germane in this discussion, but in this review, I'm wondering how two of Bridget Rencher's three daughters and not any of her three sons received John Shiles' considerable amount of land which included Might Have Had More. Having dispensed with John (d. 1714) as a father for Ann Shiles, that leaves Thomas (d. 1719), of whose six children only the three daughters' births (Alice 1689, Elizabeth 1692, Sarah 1694) were recorded, leaving sons Thomas and John to be placed as his children by tax list and other means, with son Edmund placed only because his daughter Elizabeth, who was baptized Stepney Parish, left a will and by identification of her devisees it can be fairly safely presumed that Edmund is Thomas' son. There's a gap between Edmund b. c1708 and his brothers of almost a decade. Ann, the subject of discussion, could easily fit within that gap but is speculation. Becky ________________________________ From: Glenn Major DVM <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Sent: Tue, August 17, 2010 10:31:45 PM Subject: [LDR] Ann the fornicator In a dark corner of our genealogy files all of us Thomas Shiles ancestor have this file hidden away. To embarrassed to let it see the light of day. Levy list of Somerset County -- 1724 Merrick Ellis for Ann Shiles for fornication -- 600 (Citizens of the Eastern Shore of Maryland, 1659-1750 By F. Edward Wright) This leaves the questions: Who was Ann Shiles and did she really fornicate? Who was Ann? Lets assume it was MISS Ann Shiles: Merrick Ellis was married to Alice Elzey(1690-1740), Alice and her mother, Major Waller(1664- ), were namesakes of Alice Elzey's grandmother Alice Major whose second marriage was to Thomas Shiles, the emigrant Shiles. Thomas Shiles left two sons, Thomas Shiles Jr. and John Shiles. If the age of fornication is roughly 16-30 years of age, Ann would be born in the ~1694-1708 range. This would make her a as of yet undocumented daughter of either Thomas Shiles Jr. or John Shiles. Lets assume it was Mrs. Ann Shiles: Then she and and her husband might have been Quakers. After 1700 the Church of England hijacked civic affairs, and Quakers were uncooperative. Ann may have been accused of fornication for not registering her marriage with the church. Her husband, of course, would not be accused. In 1660 Thomas Shiles, the emigrant grandfather, was apprehended as a Quaker and sentenced to receive 20 stripes on his bare back. Prospective husband---Thomas Shiles III, son Thomas Shiles Jr.. Thomas Shiles III was noted as " gone to Carolina" in the 1755 Worchester Debt Book. Thomas Shiles, acquires land in Chatham Co. NC in 1762. In 1773, Thomas Shiles and ANN SHILES sell land in Edgefield SC awarded by Gov. Charles Montagu conceivably for service during the Cherokee War. Captain Thomas Shiles returns to Somerset and in 1775 testified in court about a confrontation with a Loyalist militia. Bests, Glenn *************************************** QUESTIONS about POSTING GUIDELINES, SUBSCRIBING or UNSUBSCRIBING? Visit The Lower DelMarVa Roots Mailing List FAQ: http://www.tyaskin.com/handley/ldrfaq.htm ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message *************************************** QUESTIONS about POSTING GUIDELINES, SUBSCRIBING or UNSUBSCRIBING? Visit The Lower DelMarVa Roots Mailing List FAQ: http://www.tyaskin.com/handley/ldrfaq.htm ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

<To embarrassed to let it see the light of day.> Nothing at all to be embarrassed about, Glenn.  The activity occurred almost three centuries ago, so no one living had a thing to do with it.  I don't mind finding such incidents, as it surely trumps (at least in my view) the boring and mundane born, married (or not), had issue and died.  Period.  Plus, this provides opportunity for any surname-bearing Shiles descendant who can't seem to connect to this tiny family, to try a Bloodsworth possibility via DNA matching.  If Ann Shiles' child lived, it would surely bear the Shiles name.  We can all cite instances where that didn't happen, but I'm saying it's a better than even chance. Before John Lyon's very helpful post, either of your theories was plausible, as we had nothing further on which to build a case one way or the other.  Until reading your post, I didn't know about the 1773 sale of land in SC by Thomas and Ann Shiles, which is certainly interesting.  I had forgotten all about Ann as I don't have her entered as a child of anyone, merely having that reference to her under Merrick Ellis.  Thanks to John, I can limit my response as to whose child Ann might be and at least enter her with a question mark. Now knowing that Ann was single, thereby having to be a daughter of either Thomas or John Shiles, I think we may eliminate John (d. 1714). He had two known children, John and Bridget, with John dying intestate c1760 unmarried, so his sister Bridget Rencher's daughters, Ann Waller Huggins and Bridget Chapley/Chaplain, ended up with his land per a 1782 deed from John Crockett to Levin Gale (H:77).  Ann Huggins sold her half to William Rencher in 1760; I don't know what happened to Bridget's half as I didn't need to know for my investigation at the time I was researching.  Not that's this is germane in this discussion, but in this review, I'm wondering how two of Bridget Rencher's three daughters and not any of her three sons received John Shiles' considerable amount of land which included Might Have Had More. Having dispensed with John (d. 1714) as a father for Ann Shiles, that leaves Thomas (d. 1719), of whose six children only the three daughters' births (Alice 1689, Elizabeth 1692, Sarah 1694) were recorded, leaving sons Thomas and John to be placed as his children by tax list and other means, with son Edmund placed only because his daughter Elizabeth, who was baptized Stepney Parish, left a will and by identification of her devisees it can be fairly safely presumed that Edmund is Thomas' son.  There's a gap between Edmund b. c1708 and his brothers of almost a decade.  Ann, the subject of discussion, could easily fit within that gap but is speculation. Becky ________________________________ From: Glenn Major DVM <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Sent: Tue, August 17, 2010 10:31:45 PM Subject: [LDR] Ann the fornicator In a dark corner of our genealogy files all of us Thomas Shiles ancestor have this file hidden away. To embarrassed to let it see the light of day.     Levy list of Somerset County -- 1724     Merrick Ellis for Ann Shiles for fornication -- 600     (Citizens of the Eastern Shore of Maryland, 1659-1750 By F. Edward Wright) This leaves the questions: Who was Ann Shiles and did she really fornicate? Who was Ann? Lets assume it was MISS Ann Shiles: Merrick Ellis was married to Alice Elzey(1690-1740), Alice and her mother, Major Waller(1664-    ), were namesakes of Alice Elzey's grandmother Alice Major whose second marriage was to Thomas Shiles, the emigrant Shiles. Thomas Shiles left two sons, Thomas Shiles Jr. and John Shiles. If the age of fornication is roughly 16-30 years of age, Ann would be born in the ~1694-1708 range. This would make her a as of yet undocumented daughter of either Thomas Shiles Jr. or John Shiles. Lets assume it was Mrs. Ann Shiles: Then she and and her husband might have been Quakers. After 1700 the Church of England hijacked civic affairs, and Quakers were uncooperative. Ann may have been accused of fornication for not registering her marriage with the church. Her husband, of course, would not be accused. In 1660 Thomas Shiles, the emigrant grandfather, was apprehended as a Quaker and sentenced to receive 20 stripes on his bare back. Prospective husband---Thomas Shiles III, son Thomas Shiles Jr.. Thomas Shiles III was noted as " gone to Carolina" in the 1755 Worchester Debt Book. Thomas Shiles, acquires land in Chatham Co. NC in 1762. In 1773, Thomas Shiles and ANN SHILES sell land in Edgefield SC awarded by Gov. Charles Montagu conceivably for service during the Cherokee War. Captain Thomas Shiles returns to Somerset and in 1775 testified in court about a confrontation with a Loyalist militia. Bests, Glenn *************************************** QUESTIONS about POSTING GUIDELINES, SUBSCRIBING or UNSUBSCRIBING? Visit The Lower DelMarVa Roots Mailing List FAQ: http://www.tyaskin.com/handley/ldrfaq.htm ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Glenn, Although I am not related to 'Ann the fornicator' I want to thank you for posting your investigation of the possibilities for her being called fornicator. I'm sure many of us have ancestors we kind of 'sweep under the rug'. You have opened my eyes to a new way of thinking about these folks. Thanks to you, it's time for me to take a new look at some of these. With heartfelt thanks, Leona ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 17 Aug 2010 21:31:45 -0500 From: Glenn Major DVM <[email protected]> Subject: [LDR] Ann the fornicator To: [email protected] Message-ID: <[email protected]> In a dark corner of our genealogy files all of us Thomas Shiles ancestor have this file hidden away. To embarrassed to let it see the light of day. Levy list of Somerset County -- 1724 Merrick Ellis for Ann Shiles for fornication -- 600 (Citizens of the Eastern Shore of Maryland, 1659-1750 By F. Edward Wright) This leaves the questions: Who was Ann Shiles and did she really fornicate? Who was Ann? Lets assume it was MISS Ann Shiles: Merrick Ellis was married to Alice Elzey(1690-1740), Alice and her mother, Major Waller(1664- ), were namesakes of Alice Elzey's grandmother Alice Major whose second marriage was to Thomas Shiles, the emigrant Shiles. Thomas Shiles left two sons, Thomas Shiles Jr. and John Shiles. If the age of fornication is roughly 16-30 years of age, Ann would be born in the ~1694-1708 range. This would make her a as of yet undocumented daughter of either Thomas Shiles Jr. or John Shiles. Lets assume it was Mrs. Ann Shiles: Then she and and her husband might have been Quakers. After 1700 the Church of England hijacked civic affairs, and Quakers were uncooperative. Ann may have been accused of fornication for not registering her marriage with the church. Her husband, of course, would not be accused. In 1660 Thomas Shiles, the emigrant grandfather, was apprehended as a Quaker and sentenced to receive 20 stripes on his bare back. Prospective husband---Thomas Shiles III, son Thomas Shiles Jr.. Thomas Shiles III was noted as " gone to Carolina" in the 1755 Worchester Debt Book. Thomas Shiles, acquires land in Chatham Co. NC in 1762. In 1773, Thomas Shiles and ANN SHILES sell land in Edgefield SC awarded by Gov. Charles Montagu conceivably for service during the Cherokee War. Captain Thomas Shiles returns to Somerset and in 1775 testified in court about a confrontation with a Loyalist militia. Bests, Glenn ------------------------------

Hi... I am having some trouble finding the location of property that Ezekiel McCready mentioned in his will of 6/1787 in Northampton Co., Va. He leaves property to his son Ezekiel and other items to daughters, Caty, Nancy, Sally and Elizabeth(Betsy). I have not found any mention of this land in Whitelaws. Any help with this would be greatly appreciated. Bev W

Fornication and adultery were two different things. This Ann Shiles, whoever she was, was a single woman. The county prosecuted fornication yielding issue to guarantee that someone accepted responsibiliy for raising the offspring. The original court action on this one is found at: Somerset Judicial Records 1723-1725, folio 46 (Jun court 1723). Presentment by Grand Jury (James Rownd, foreman) v. Ann Shiles and her admission of fornication resulting in a bastard child born 1 Jan past. She identified Timothy Bloodworth as her correspondent and was fined 30 shillings. Merrick Ellis, gent., undertook surety to indemnify the county against maintenance costs for the child.. It was fairly common in these cases to find a servant girl as the indictee, and her master providing the surety, getting (e.g.) additional indenture time from her for his trouble. Sometimes it's a relative who takes the responsibility. Nothing in the case description here states anything on the circumstances or the relationship. Looking for an earlier court record in which Ann might have been indentured by her father is one avenue to follow to try to identify her. The court records are populated with many, many such actions across the years. Only rarely is there any clear way to identify the child, by sex or name, as this was not documented in the original case. Sometimes later county or probate court actions allow this to be deduced, but not often. John -----Original Message----- From: Glenn Major DVM <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Sent: Tue, Aug 17, 2010 10:31 pm Subject: [LDR] Ann the fornicator In a dark corner of our genealogy files all of us Thomas Shiles ancestor have this file hidden away. To embarrassed to let it see the light of day. Levy list of Somerset County -- 1724 Merrick Ellis for Ann Shiles for fornication -- 600 (Citizens of the Eastern Shore of Maryland, 1659-1750 By F. Edward Wright) This leaves the questions: Who was Ann Shiles and did she really fornicate? Who was Ann? Lets assume it was MISS Ann Shiles: Merrick Ellis was married to Alice Elzey(1690-1740), Alice and her mother, Major Waller(1664- ), were namesakes of Alice Elzey's grandmother Alice Major whose second marriage was to Thomas Shiles, the emigrant Shiles. Thomas Shiles left two sons, Thomas Shiles Jr. and John Shiles. If the age of fornication is roughly 16-30 years of age, Ann would be born in the ~1694-1708 range. This would make her a as of yet undocumented daughter of either Thomas Shiles Jr. or John Shiles. Lets assume it was Mrs. Ann Shiles: Then she and and her husband might have been Quakers. After 1700 the Church of England hijacked civic affairs, and Quakers were uncooperative. Ann may have been accused of fornication for not registering her marriage with the church. Her husband, of course, would not be accused. In 1660 Thomas Shiles, the emigrant grandfather, was apprehended as a Quaker and sentenced to receive 20 stripes on his bare back. Prospective husband---Thomas Shiles III, son Thomas Shiles Jr.. Thomas Shiles III was noted as " gone to Carolina" in the 1755 Worchester Debt Book. Thomas Shiles, acquires land in Chatham Co. NC in 1762. In 1773, Thomas Shiles and ANN SHILES sell land in Edgefield SC awarded by Gov. Charles Montagu conceivably for service during the Cherokee War. Captain Thomas Shiles returns to Somerset and in 1775 testified in court about a confrontation with a Loyalist militia. Bests, Glenn *************************************** QUESTIONS about POSTING GUIDELINES, SUBSCRIBING or UNSUBSCRIBING? Visit The Lower DelMarVa Roots Mailing List FAQ: http://www.tyaskin.com/handley/ldrfaq.htm ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

In a dark corner of our genealogy files all of us Thomas Shiles ancestor have this file hidden away. To embarrassed to let it see the light of day. Levy list of Somerset County -- 1724 Merrick Ellis for Ann Shiles for fornication -- 600 (Citizens of the Eastern Shore of Maryland, 1659-1750 By F. Edward Wright) This leaves the questions: Who was Ann Shiles and did she really fornicate? Who was Ann? Lets assume it was MISS Ann Shiles: Merrick Ellis was married to Alice Elzey(1690-1740), Alice and her mother, Major Waller(1664- ), were namesakes of Alice Elzey's grandmother Alice Major whose second marriage was to Thomas Shiles, the emigrant Shiles. Thomas Shiles left two sons, Thomas Shiles Jr. and John Shiles. If the age of fornication is roughly 16-30 years of age, Ann would be born in the ~1694-1708 range. This would make her a as of yet undocumented daughter of either Thomas Shiles Jr. or John Shiles. Lets assume it was Mrs. Ann Shiles: Then she and and her husband might have been Quakers. After 1700 the Church of England hijacked civic affairs, and Quakers were uncooperative. Ann may have been accused of fornication for not registering her marriage with the church. Her husband, of course, would not be accused. In 1660 Thomas Shiles, the emigrant grandfather, was apprehended as a Quaker and sentenced to receive 20 stripes on his bare back. Prospective husband---Thomas Shiles III, son Thomas Shiles Jr.. Thomas Shiles III was noted as " gone to Carolina" in the 1755 Worchester Debt Book. Thomas Shiles, acquires land in Chatham Co. NC in 1762. In 1773, Thomas Shiles and ANN SHILES sell land in Edgefield SC awarded by Gov. Charles Montagu conceivably for service during the Cherokee War. Captain Thomas Shiles returns to Somerset and in 1775 testified in court about a confrontation with a Loyalist militia. Bests, Glenn