I am belatedly replying to Gene's note, regarding whether the Samuel Queen living next to Joseph H. Queen could be his brother, and a son of WL Queen, Sr. I don't think so, at least assuming that I know who WL Sr.'s 4 sons, listed on the 1790 Rutherford Co. NC federal census are. Same for the 5 males in WL, Sr.'s household in 1800. So I'll add this to the mix. (By the way, there's LOTS of room for naming WL's daughters, and I'll take a stab at that later). I postulate that the four young males (presumably WL's sons) in WL Sr.'s household in 1790 were: Meredith Queen, b. abt 1775 William Lewis Queen, Jr. b. abt 1776 James Queen, b. abt 1777, and Moses Queen b. abt 1781. [I don't know now but believe that this is from Maisie Queen Young] Joseph H. Queen was b. abt 1794, and thus not listed on the 1790 census, but is definitely WL's son, identified as such both in WL's pension application, and in Joseph's pursuit of that application after WL Sr. died. By 1800's census in Rutherford Co., WL's household contains one M 0-9 (this would be Joseph H.), no males 10-15, and 3 16-25. Meredith, the eldest son, is married now, and named in his own household nearby, with two young daughters and a wife (Jane Newton Queen). Although I show WL Jr. as marrying by 1797 (no source, so could be wrong, or a bad guess), he's NOT listed on the census, and may still be living in his father's household. James and Moses presumably are the others in this group. If the above is true, there is no 'room' here for Samuel to be WL's son. Sadly there's no room for my George here either, destroying another hope for both Gene and me. THIS ALL HINGES ON JAMES AND MOSES REALLY BEING W.L. SR.'S SONS - DOES ANYONE HAVE STRONG EVIDENCE TO PROVE THIS FOR EITHER OF THEM? Thanks, Reiley Kidd ----- Original Message ----- From: O Eugene Queen <EQueen@lexcominc.net> To: <QUEEN-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Sunday, July 02, 2000 11:54 AM Subject: [QUEEN] William Lewis, Sr....Children - Haywood Co., NC > Hi all, > > I've never been bashful about turning left when everyone else turns > right or going down a road where others choose not to trod. But, y'all > know that. So, what's new? I also know how to get back on the trail > with others, when evidence points me in that direction. > > Recent evidence now leads me to the same conclusion others reached years > ago; that the Joseph Queen of the 1830 Haywood County, NC census was > probably the younger man in the household...and the older man was > probably William Lewis Queen, Sr. I have absolutely no clue regarding > the identification of the older woman. > > The evidence known to me seems to suggest that Joseph Queen came to > Haywood County (date unknown) and by the 1830 census was living beside > Samuel Queen (not Dicey's husband). Perhaps these two Queens were > living in or near the Wayehutta Creek area, just "outside" the Caney > Fork area; and on the Haywood County side of the Tuckesegee River. By > 1832 Joseph appears to have moved, with his dad, across the Tuckesegee > River into Macon County where, on October 8, 1832, Wm Queen, Sr. > appeared in Macon County Court and applied for a pension. > > Further, it appears probable that he was the same Joseph Queen who's > name appears in the "Culliwhee Election Precinct" of Macon County in > 1835. More research will prove, I hope, that the Cullowhee Creek (and > Bryson Branch near Speedwell which feeds into it) areas were included in > that precinct. > > It is believed that this is the Joseph Queen whose name next appears on > the 1840 Census of Habersham County, GA. A Samuel Queen's name also > appears on that census. Old news? Okay. > > Next, what about the Samuel Queen who was in Haywood at least by Jan > 1820, was on the 1820 census and on the 1830 census with Joseph Queen > (and probably Wm. Sr.) living next door? This Samuel has largely been > ignored by researchers, including one who at last report refused to > acknowledge his existence. Since, from my perspective, his existence no > longer poses a "threat" to any research concerning Joseph and Wm. Lewis > Queen, Sr., perhaps we can bring him out of the closet, consider various > possibilities and open some new doors for some who are at "brick walls" > with their line. > > Was this Samuel a brother to Joseph and a son of Wm. Queen, Sr.? I do > not know. Did this Samuel provide support and housing for his brother, > Joseph, and father in 1830? Again, I do not know. But, I cannot > mentally accept a theory which suggests that it was an accident that > Joseph and Wm. were next-door neighbors to Samuel in 1830....and > apparently some distance from Caney Fork and Johns Creek. > > I would also like to re-visit the question of the identity of the > parties in the 1816 Haywood County marriage: Timothey Queen to Mary Ann > State (or Slate?) on 12-4-1816 with a Saml. x Queen as bondsman. > > Why should anyone but me be interested in this Samuel Queen (b. ca > 1776-1780)? Because he had lots of children, with only two tentatively > identified. Further, we know that he was the only Queen male on the > 1820 Haywood census. He was one of the first Queens in Haywood County. > > The 1820 census lists the following: > Samuel Queen > Male, 26<44 (Samuel, the birth year has been narrowed to 1776-1780) > Female, 26<44 (Probably wife of Samuel) > .........................(Possibly other child or children between 1798 > - 1803) > Female 16<25 (Unidentified, born ca 1795-1804) > Male 16<18 (Unidentified, born ca 1802-1804) > Female 10<15 (Unidentified born ca 1805-1810) > Male 10<15 (Probably James H. Queen of 1808 who married Isabella > Bryson) > Male 10<15 (Probably Alfred of 1810 who married Mary Ann) > Male <10 (Unidentified, born ca 1810-1820) > Female <10 > Female <10 > Female <10 > Female <10 > > Who were these unidentified Queens? Next: More Queens Into Haywood > > Gene > > > > ==== QUEEN Mailing List ==== > To unsubscribe from Queen-L: > Send an email to Queen-L-request@rootsweb.com with the word unsubscribe > in the body of the letter. Same for D list. Just substitute the D for the L. > >