Mattingly Researchers: I have had both Thomas and James married to a Doyne for several years. Not too long ago I corrected James wife to Mary rather than Ann, mainly on evidence produced by Linda. I suppose 40 to 50 pages of 150 receive corrections each year, and the number of children given by Msgr HEM, while often correct, are subject to correction when documentary evidence is produced. I'll add Elizabeth, and, If documentation disproves her existence, I'll remove her. The field of Genealogy, over the last ten years, seems to be keyed to the idea that if enough people repeat an error published by another, it must be correct, so it gets published again. I just read yesterday that Robert Clarke, the Surveyor, who has been adopted by many Clarke descendants, many with no documentation, feel that all that is needed is for B to cite A and C to cite B & A, etc. etcetera. You may be interested to know that many documents in Charles County Court records pertaining to Catholics were never indexed. If you don't believe that, try to find when Cezar sold Mattinglys Hope in 1919. His name never appears in the Index. And, I believe the 2d sale is only indexed under Cole, the buyer: not Mattingly or Turner. Charley In a message dated 10/21/2003 7:32:46 PM Eastern Daylight Time, matt374@bellsouth.net writes: > I believe that the information in HEM's book pretty much documents that > the Dorothy and Ann Mattingly that are named in Ignatius Doyne's will > are children of James. This was confirmed by Edward Mattingly's will of > 1778 where he names "Joseph Mattingly, son of my brother James, > deceased" and later he mentions Ann Gardner, sister to the said Joseph". > > > I think the confusion came because both Thomas and James had daughters > named Dorothy. But the granddaughters that he names Dorothy and Ann > were definitely children of James, brother of Thomas. He does not name a > second daughter married to a Mattingly. > > This is not to say that both Thomas and James weren't married to Doynes > but it unlikely based upon the information that we have. > > The interesting thing about this land deed of 1753 is that it mentions > an Elizabeth Doyne Mattingly. We really need to get a hold of the > original deed because I'm sure that it was mis-transcribed, i.e. it > probably named granddaughters Dorothy and Ann Mattingly daughters of my > late daughter, Elizabeth Doyne Mattingly. But, I'm speculating at this > point. > > Does anyone have access to the Charles County land deeds for 1756? > > Paul