Susan, I'll start by saying previously I would have agreed with everything you and others have said in comments about the unlikely hood of real "initials" in the cited deed. The names "William and Mary, his wife" do appear several times throughout the body of the deed without initials. The names appear with the initials at the end of the deed with each name followed by the customary mark "sealed" and the notation "mark" appearing under each name. However, earlier I came across the following from: Sussex County Orphans Court Extracts 1770 -1830, Complied and edited by Center for Historic Architecture and Engineering, College of Urban Affairs and Public Policy, University of Delaware, Newark, DE. _http://www.math.udel.edu/~rstevens/datasets/Sussex.txt_ (http://www.math.udel.edu/~rstevens/datasets/Sussex.txt) "VAUGHAN, WILLIAM (child-Mary W./Joseph M./Eliza/Sarah J.) M-403 (1822)Broad Creek Hundred ...One Dwelling House two Story high twenty eight by twenty four in good repair, One Cook Room adjoining fourteen by twelve in Good repair, One Barn twenty eight by twenty four with one shed fifteen by twenty four all in but reasonable repair One smoke House ten feet square, in good repair, One granery Sixteen by fourteen in Good repair One Old shop, twelve feet square, in Sorry repair, One hundred and twenty five Peach treez twenty Apple treez Nine Chery treez all the said treez appearz to be on the decline, Nineteen hundred and forty One pannels of fence in Sorry repair, Suppose to be five ralez to the pannel, one small Gardon in reasonable repair, the pailing round the yard in reasonable repair... annual value $70.00" Could the Vaughans just have been different than others in using initials? BTW, The source I cited might be of interest to other Sussex County researchers. It is a 122 page documents with hundreds of names familiar to many of us. George Bacon In a message dated 1/3/2009 6:31:36 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, susanwheary@emypeople.net writes: Hi George, Just thought to mention, as far as I know in the 1700s women did not use the maiden name as a middle name or to provide a middle initial. They lost their maiden names entirely upon marriage. In fact, some families still do this - including mine. Anyone else care to comment on this? When did the custom begin that a woman would use her maiden name as a middle name? Susan in Missouri (descended from Jethro Vaughan) **************New year...new news. Be the first to know what is making headlines. (http://www.aol.com/?ncid=emlcntaolcom00000026)

George, Thanks for sending that link; I've been trying to find more of the Orphan's Court information. The LDS only has to about 1797 or 1798 on microfilm. It does look as though the record you are citing is from a slightly later period, and I know that some of my folks were using middle names (implying initials) by 1817. I've seen middle names even earlier. The first Jonathan Cathell (d. 1782 I think) had a son James Walker Cathell. The main question, though, had been about the possibility of a wife using her maiden name AS a middle name, which I don't think was done until considerably later than the mid-1700s. It would be nice if they all did have middle names, though. Might eliminate some of the confusion for their descendents! :-) Susan -----Original Message----- From: lower-delmarva-roots-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:lower-delmarva-roots-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of GB415104@aol.com Sent: Tuesday, January 06, 2009 1:52 PM To: lower-delmarva-roots@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [LDR] William Vaughan Somerset County, Maryland Susan, I'll start by saying previously I would have agreed with everything you and others have said in comments about the unlikely hood of real "initials" in the cited deed. The names "William and Mary, his wife" do appear several times throughout the body of the deed without initials. The names appear with the initials at the end of the deed with each name followed by the customary mark "sealed" and the notation "mark" appearing under each name. However, earlier I came across the following from: Sussex County Orphans Court Extracts 1770 -1830, Complied and edited by Center for Historic Architecture and Engineering, College of Urban Affairs and Public Policy, University of Delaware, Newark, DE. _http://www.math.udel.edu/~rstevens/datasets/Sussex.txt_ (http://www.math.udel.edu/~rstevens/datasets/Sussex.txt) "VAUGHAN, WILLIAM (child-Mary W./Joseph M./Eliza/Sarah J.) M-403 (1822)Broad Creek Hundred ...One Dwelling House two Story high twenty eight by twenty four in good repair, One Cook Room adjoining fourteen by twelve in Good repair, One Barn twenty eight by twenty four with one shed fifteen by twenty four all in but reasonable repair One smoke House ten feet square, in good repair, One granery Sixteen by fourteen in Good repair One Old shop, twelve feet square, in Sorry repair, One hundred and twenty five Peach treez twenty Apple treez Nine Chery treez all the said treez appearz to be on the decline, Nineteen hundred and forty One pannels of fence in Sorry repair, Suppose to be five ralez to the pannel, one small Gardon in reasonable repair, the pailing round the yard in reasonable repair... annual value $70.00" Could the Vaughans just have been different than others in using initials? BTW, The source I cited might be of interest to other Sussex County researchers. It is a 122 page documents with hundreds of names familiar to many of us. George Bacon In a message dated 1/3/2009 6:31:36 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, susanwheary@emypeople.net writes: Hi George, Just thought to mention, as far as I know in the 1700s women did not use the maiden name as a middle name or to provide a middle initial. They lost their maiden names entirely upon marriage. In fact, some families still do this - including mine. Anyone else care to comment on this? When did the custom begin that a woman would use her maiden name as a middle name? Susan in Missouri (descended from Jethro Vaughan) **************New year...new news. Be the first to know what is making headlines. (http://www.aol.com/?ncid=emlcntaolcom00000026) *************************************** 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 LOWER-DELMARVA-ROOTS-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Hi George, That is good information on William. Have you been able to figure where he fits in the tree? I can not seem to find which William where the children names fit. Charles M. Vaughn 1802-1883 has all the children's names except for Joseph. Ed GB415104@aol.com wrote: >Susan, > > I'll start by saying previously I would have agreed with everything you and >others have said in comments about the unlikely hood of real "initials" in >the cited deed. The names "William and Mary, his wife" do appear several times >throughout the body of the deed without initials. The names appear with the >initials at the end of the deed with each name followed by the customary mark >"sealed" and the notation "mark" appearing under each name. > >However, earlier I came across the following from: Sussex County Orphans >Court Extracts 1770 -1830, Complied and edited by Center for Historic >Architecture and Engineering, College of Urban Affairs and Public Policy, University of >Delaware, Newark, DE. >_http://www.math.udel.edu/~rstevens/datasets/Sussex.txt_ (http://www.math.udel.edu/~rstevens/datasets/Sussex.txt) > >"VAUGHAN, WILLIAM (child-Mary W./Joseph M./Eliza/Sarah J.) M-403 (1822)Broad >Creek >Hundred > > ...One Dwelling House two Story high twenty eight by twenty four in >good repair, One Cook Room >adjoining fourteen by twelve in Good repair, One Barn twenty eight by twenty >four with one shed fifteen >by twenty four all in but reasonable repair One smoke House ten feet square, >in good repair, One granery >Sixteen by fourteen in Good repair One Old shop, twelve feet square, in >Sorry repair, One hundred and >twenty five Peach treez twenty Apple treez Nine Chery treez all the said >treez appearz to be on the >decline, Nineteen hundred and forty One pannels of fence in Sorry repair, >Suppose to be five ralez to the >pannel, one small Gardon in reasonable repair, the pailing round the yard in >reasonable repair... > > annual value $70.00" > >Could the Vaughans just have been different than others in using initials? > >BTW, The source I cited might be of interest to other Sussex County >researchers. It is a 122 page documents with hundreds of names familiar to many of us. > >George Bacon > > >In a message dated 1/3/2009 6:31:36 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, >susanwheary@emypeople.net writes: > >Hi George, > >Just thought to mention, as far as I know in the 1700s women did not use >the maiden name as a middle name or to provide a middle initial. They >lost their maiden names entirely upon marriage. In fact, some families >still do this - including mine. Anyone else care to comment on this? >When did the custom begin that a woman would use her maiden name as a >middle name? > >Susan in Missouri (descended from Jethro Vaughan) > > > >**************New year...new news. Be the first to know what is making >headlines. (http://www.aol.com/?ncid=emlcntaolcom00000026) >*************************************** >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 LOWER-DELMARVA-ROOTS-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message > > >

Hi Ed & Every other Vaughan descendant, Here is what I have for documentation for William Vaughan of Somerset County, Maryland for the time period 1686-1735. Most of this is unfortunately, from secondary sources but included in these records is my transcription of the first deed to William Vaughan in 1721 from Liber Ik 174 & 175.1686 William Vaughan son of William & Margaret Vaughan born 23 February 1686, from "Maryland Eastern Shore Vital Records, 1648-1725" by F. Edward Wright, [1982], page 150. From Somerset Land Records. 1715 Will of John Roberson from Somerset County Wills EB#9, 1710-1739, 52 abstracted by Leslie And Neil Keddie, page 27. Witnesses: Thomas Serman William Wilson Jr. William Vaughan Note: Thomas Serman, William Wilson Jr. & William Vaughan were no doubt neighbors. 1721 Somerset County, Maryland Deeds IK: 174-175 Benjamen Nesham to William Vaughan This Indenture made the 17th Day of November in the 6th year of the Dominion of Charles Absolute Lord and Proprietor of the Province of Maryland and Avalon Lord Baron of Baltimore Anno Domini 1721 Between Benjamin Nesham and Mary his wife of the one part and William Vaughan Carpenter of the other part they all being of Stepney Parish in Somerset County and Province of Maryland. Witneseth that whereas the Lord Baltimore by his deed of grant bearing date the 2nd day of November in the year of our Lord 1668 did for the consideration therein mentioned grant to Thomas Meech a parcel of land Meeche's Hope lying on the East side of Cheasapeake Bay in the County of Somerset on the River called Nantecoke on the southernmost side of the said River in a Creek called Nantecoke Creek on the easternmost side of the said Creek. Beginning for breadth at a marked Gum standing at the head Watipman aforsaid and from thence running down the easternmost side of the said Branch and Creek to the mouth of a small Gut or Creek near wihich there is a marked White Oak and from thence running East North East 308 perches bounded on the South with a line drawn from the ends of the former line south southeast 150 perches bounded on the West with a line drawn from the end of the former line West South West 360 perches to a marked Gum which is the first bounds laid out for 300 Acres of land more or less. To have and to hold these same to him the said Thomas Meech and unto his heirs and assigns forever as is more fully expressed in the recited deed of grant recours being thereunto had, and the said Thomas Meech of the above land and premises so as aforsaid being possessed upon the 18th of Februaru Anno Domini 1670 by his certain deed of sale indented and signed and sealed with the hand and seal of him the said Thomas Meech did make over alienate confirm and conve the said 300 Acres of land & premises called Meech's Hope to a certain Alexander Jemison of Somerset County aforsaid and the said Alexander Jemison so as aforsaid of the land and premises being possessed did leave and bequeath the same viz. {namely} the said 300 Acres of land and premises to his two lawfully begotten daughters viz. Elizabeth the wife of Benjamin Nesham and Margaret the wife of Thomas Sherman. And they the said Elizabeth and Margaret the daughters of the said Alexander Jemison so as aforsaid being possessed jointly of the above 300 Acres of land did in their lifetime agree and consent to a divisive moiety of the said land between them wherewith they were well satisfied and contented viz. that a small Gut or Creek mentioned in the Patent and Meeches' alienation running up between the dividing plantations of the said Nesham and Sherman to be the division so made until it comes to a marked Gum standing on the east side of ___ near the road that leads to Stepney Parish Church and from thence East Northeast until it intersects the head line and that the land so bounded as said is lying upon the southernmost side of the said Branch said line regard being had to the original grant is the one half moiety or these belonging to the said Elizabeth of the 300 Acres of land as more fully and amply will appear by a certain instrument of writing indented sealed and signed under the hands of Benjamin Nesham husband unto the said Elizabeth and Margret Surman Widow her sister bearing date the 12th day of July 1706. Now the said Benjamin Nesham and his wife being so as aforsaid possessed of the moiety or one half of the said land and premises and both being dead Benjamin Nesham their lawfully begotten son and heir became possessed of the sia dland bounded as said computed to be 150 Acres of land or onbe half moeity of Meeche's Hope. This Indenture likewise witneseth that the Lord Baltimore by his deed of grant under the great seal of this Province of Maryland bearing date the 29th day of November Anno Domini 1679 for the consideration therein mentioned granted unto Joseph McClester and Isaser Maclester a parcel of land called Rich Swamp lying on the East Side of Cheseapeke Bay and on the Easternmost Side of Nanticoke River in Somerset County bounded as followeth: Beginning at a marked Gum standing on the head of a creek called Wetipquin and on the easternmost side of the said Creek being the first boundary of a tract of land called Meeche's Hope and ___ in the line of a tract of line called meeches' Desart thence southeast 150 perches along the line of the aforsaid Meeches Desart to a marked White Oak thence East by North 80 perches thence North 14 degrees 30 Minutes and 182 perches till intersects the line of Meeches' Hope thence running down the said line to the first bound containg 100 Acres of Land more or less together with all rights, benefits, priviliges thereunto any wife belonging royal mines excepted. To have and to hold the same unto him the said Joseph and Isabell their heirs and assigns and the said Joseph MacClester and Isabell McClester of the said 150 Acres of land called Rich Swamp and premises so as aforsaid being possessed the same for a valuable consideration did alienate, confirm and convey unto him the above named Benjamin Nesham lawful son and heir of Benjamin Nesham and Elizabeth his wife above named which will more largely and better appear by a deed of sale indented and signed and sealed under the hands of the said Joseph and Isabell bearing date the 11th of June Anno Domini 1718 whereby the said Benjamin Nesham likewise became possessed of the said land called Rich Swamp and the said Benjamin Nesham and Mary his wife of both the said tracts or parcels of land vizt. of Meeches Hope and Rich Swamp so as aforsaid possessed. Now this indenture further witneseth that the said Benjamin Nesham Mary his wife for divers good causes and considerations them thereuno moving but more especially for 100 pounds to them in hand paid or secured to be paid before the ensealing and delivery of these presents the receipt whereof and of every part and parcel thereof the said Benjamin Nesham and Mary his wife doth hereby acknowledge and thereof doth freely and absolutely acquit exonerate and discharge the siad William Vaughan his heirs executors administrators forever. Have by these presents given granted bargained sold enfeoffed and confirmed and do hereby give grant bargain sell make over convey enfeoff and confirm unto him the siad William Vaughan his heirs and assigns forever all the above said two tracts or parcels of land vizt. the one called Meeches Hope and the other called Rich Swamp bounded as above described together with all and singular the rights profits benefits privilges unto the said above named two tracts of land any wise appertaiining or belonging [Royal Mines and the rights of the Lord or Lordds of the fee always foreprized and excepted]. To have and to hold the same and every part and parcel thereof the siad two tracts of land unto him the said William Vaughan his heirs and assigns forever without any mortgage condition redemption use or limitation to recall alter change or determine the same clearly acquited and discharged & and from all manner of ___ and other gifts grants troubles and other charges whatsoever. And that the said Benjamin Nesham and Mary his eife shall and will forever warrant and defend the same unto him the said Wm. Vaughan his heirs and assings against all manner of persons claiming any lawful title and right unto the siad two tracts of land from by and under the said Benjamin Nesham and Mary his wife or either of their heirs executors adminstrators likewise the said Benjamin and Mary their heirs & assigns shall and will from time to time and at all times when reasonably required and at the cost of him the said William or his heir make do and suffer or cause to be made due and __ all such further divises and assurances as by their council learned in the law shall be deviced advized or requested for the better confirming settling and more sure making and conveying the said two tracts and premises unto the said Wm. Vaughan his heirs and assigns. In Testimony whereof the said Benjamin and Mary have hereunto set their hands and seales. Benjamin his B mark Nesham Mary her M mark Nesham Signed sealed and delivered in presence of us. Jos. Wailes Thos. his T mark Fowler Recorded this 19th xbre [December] 1721. Alexr. Hall Clerk Memorandum That this day vizt. the 17th of November in the 6th year of his Lordships Dominion Anno Domini 1721 before us the subscribors two of his Lordships Justices of the Peace for Somerset County came Benjamin Nesham and Mary his wife who being ____ according to an Act of Assembly in that case made and provided did acknowledge that the within two tracts of land the one called Meeches Hope and the other called Rich Swamp both being by computation 300 Acres to be the right and interest of him the within named WIlliam Vaughan his heris and assigns forever and for this quit claim and agreement the said Wm. Vaughan hath given to them. Coram Nobis. Benja. Wailes Jos. McClester Note: It occured to me while transcribing this document that the above mentioned Margaret Jemison, who married Thomas Shearman/Sherman/Shurman may have been the mother of William Vaughan but she is not because her marriage under the name of Jemison to Thomas Surnam on 18 May 1683 is recorded which was three years prior to the birth of William Vaughan son of William and Margaret Vaughan. 1723 The 1723 Tax List for Somerset County survives and is transcribed in "Citizens of the the Eastern Shore of Maryland, 1659-1750" by F. Edward Wright [1986] but there is no William Vaughan listed. 1725-1727 Tax Lists survive but have not been consulted by me as of yet. The Tax Lists for 1730-1740 for Somerset County, Maryland have been transcribed and published as "Tax Lists of Somerset County, Maryland 1730-1740" by J. Elliot Russo [1992]. I have copied the following data from these tax lists with the numbering used by Russo and show William Vaughan and his nearby neighbors. 1730 Nanticoke Hundred 1730-829 Shurman, Thos. Sr. 830 Vahan, Wm. 831 Deen, John 832 Collins, John 832 Shurman, Thos. 833 Dashiell, Wm. 1731 Nanticoke Hundred 1731-879 Surman, Thomas 880 Deen, John 881 Vaun, William 881 Ball, John 1733 Nanticoke Hundred 1733-967 Voyhn, William 968 Deen, John 969 Shirman, Thos. 1734 Nanticoke Hundred 1734-923 Shirman, Thos. 924 Dean, John 925 Vohan, Wm. 925 Bacond, Dudson 926 Collins, John 1735 Nanticoke Hundred 1735-966 Shurman, Thos. 967 Thorns, Alexr. 968 Vaughon, Wm. 968 Bacon, Dudson 969 Collins, John 970 Dashiell, Wm. _________________________________________________________________ Windows LiveTM Hotmail®: Chat. Store. Share. Do more with mail. http://windowslive.com/howitworks?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_t1_hm_justgotbetter_howitworks_012009