Hey Ren - Thanks for such a prompt response to my querie about the legitimate inclusion of James as a son of John. As a descendant of General John, this question is as important to you as it is to us descendants of General Joseph. I hope others will join in the discussion. I trust I am not offending anyone by pursuing this question. I am not challenging anybody's expertise and certainly not their manhood or womanhood. I am just laying out the basis for my conclusions about James to see if they will stand the scrutiny of this group on the merits of the evidence. So fire away. I have no problem about changing those conclusions on the basis of superior evidence. Isn't this what a Nevill Heritage Society is all about? Ren, you did your usual masterful job of laying out most of the questions about James with which I am familiar, and a couple of more. I should have quoted Boogher a little further. He also said: "The name of James Neville, Sr. does not appear in the records of Virginia after the purchase of the 100 acres of land for his son, John, in 1674, so far as this writer is able to find out. It is believed that he was killed by Indians about 1680, as we find no no will of either said James or his wife." Clearly his statement about James being killed by Indians was just a guess as he offered no evidence what-so-ever. Of course Boogher did not find later records for James in VA because we now know he moved to North Caroline. Joseph B. Neville gave a blow by blow description about how and why SoJUND updated their view on James as new evidence came to light (370 Year History, p 6 footnotes). These recognized Jeanne Barton's discovery of him living in 1698, Dr. Dickenson's finding him on Neville's Creek in NC and further that he was killed by Indians in 1711. This last was supported by Major Christopher Gale's letter, written on Nov. 2, 1711 of his gory findings of the Nevill family (Ren mentioned some of the details in his reply to me). Much of SoJUND's conclusions about James were based on these later findings incorporated in Hugh Floyd's "The Neville Family of Bullock Georgia," to whom J.B.N. gave full acknowledgement in his footnotes. Maybe I am worng, but It seems to me that each of those later findings justified updating SoJND's "database" -- that we should no longer be confused by all these James sightings. Admittedly, new evidence may cause another updating. Until then, however, we can only stick with the latest and best evidence as we know it. To me that was responsible management of a database. SoJUND reached what I consider to be a valid conclusion on all the evidence, but they also pointed out all the reasoning for their conclusion in footnotes so that others could disagree with their conclusions if the so chose. The older conclusions were given the deep six, but not hidden from later researchers. As for James's children, I can't vouch for all of them, but it seems to me that our ancestor, John, who married Elizabeth Bohannon, and who was born in Virginia still looks good to me -- and his descendants.. Thanks again for your response, Ren. I hope others will join in, whether they agree or disagree. Jim Walker