First, re: the will of Alexander Mattocks in 1659, proved 1660. You commented that "from this we concur that Thomas, the son of this Alexander is of legal age ...". Actually, I can't concur with that. Notice the will says "... or until my eldest son shall be of age..." and "... my sons shall be of age at eighteen years old and to be possessed of their estates at that age." The will names Richard Bayly guardian of Thomas, and Arthur Upshur guardian of Alexander. I also said "see note below" wherein Thomas choosing a guardian comes in. I am offering a hodge podge of odds and ends, you were looking for data. Thomas is not my interest. I agree that because of the Bell Maddux folk have assumed Mary was a Bell which is why I included Mark's reference to a marriage which I have never found. There is a Bell/Riggan/Maddox cluster that first appears in Halifax Co NC records simultaneously in the 1750's. This is the only reason I even had Thomas in my data. Pat