-----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

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

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