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

> 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