Please bear with this somewhat lengthy post to the question at the bottom. The 1840 Haywood Co., NC. Census shows: John Queen 1 male 10-15, 1 male 30-40, 1 female 0-5, 1 female 10-15, 1 female 15-20, 1 female 20-30 (I believe that this is John R. Queen the son of Samuel Queen of 1759. There are a number of Coward families on the same page. That John R. married Mary Coward is further evidence that this is the correct John Queen.) William B. Queen 1 male 10-15, 1 male 30-40, 1 female 0-5, 1 female 5-10, 1 female 40-50 (I believe that this is Wm. Brown Queen, another son of Samuel of 1759.) Finally we have: Samuel Queen 1 male 15-20, 1 male 20-30, 1 male 70-80, 1 female 5-10, 1 female 40-50, 1 female 70-80. Assuming that the above assertions are correct, I am still left with one question. The original census image appears to have the letters Jr. or Sr. following Samuel Queen's name. I cannot tell which. However, the problem is that I have Samuel as a son of old William and I have no record of a Samuel Jr. as a son of Samuel of 1759. So it would seem that neither Sr. or Jr. would apply to this Samuel if he is indeed the Samuel of 1759 as believed. As I read the recent roll call postings, I see a number of you descend from Samuel and John R. Queen. So my question is, do I have this above relations correct on the 1840 Haywood Census and can anyone shed some light on these "mystery" letters at the end of Samuel Queen census entry? Regards, Charlton Queen

http://www.electricscotland.com/history/scotreg/intro.htmWhile passing through the Isle of Skye ("The Isle of Skye has, within the last forty years, furnished for the public service, twenty-one lieutenant-generals and major-generals, forty-five lieutenant-colonels; six hundred majors, captains, lieutenants, and subalterns; ten thousand foot soldiers; one hundred and twenty pipers ; four governors of British colonies; one governor-general; one adjutant-general; one chief-baron of England; and one judge of the Supreme Court of Scotland. The generals may be classed thus :-eight Macdonalds, six Macleods, two Macallisters, two Macaskills, one Mackinnon, one Elder, and one Macqueen. The Isle of Skye is forty-five miles long, and about fifteen in mean breadth. Truly the inhabitants are a wonderous people. It may be mentioned that this island is the birth-place of Cuthullin, the celebrated hero mentioned in Ossian's Poems. "-Inverness Journal). in the autumn of 1783, he met a man of great age whose shoulder had, through a recent fall, been dislocated. This condition was speedily rectified by our traveller. "As there seemed to be something rather uncommon about the old man, I asked if he had lived all his life in the Highlands? No :-he said he made one of the FORTY-SECOND when they were first raised; then had gone with them to Germany; but when he had heard that his Prince was landed in the North, he purchased, or had made such interest that he procured his discharge; came home, and enlisted under his banner. He fought at Culloden, and was wounded. After everything was settled, he returned to his old regiment, and served with it till he received another wound that rendered him unfit for service. He now, he said, lived the best way he could, on his pension."

This is how I see it. I read the 1840 census record of Samuel as "Samuel Sr". The earlier census records of Samuel Queen indicate to me that he had other sons that we have not identified and/or did not live to adulthood. Possibly one of the them was Samuel Jr. He did have a grandson Samuel, but that Samuel was not born until 1842. Samuel Queen household, 1810 Federal Census, Buncombe County, North Carolina, p. 95. 22101-11201 (2 males under 10, 2 males 10-15, 1 male 16-25, 1 male over 45; 1 female under 10, 1 female 10-15, 2 females 16-25, 1 female over 45). Samuel Queen household, 1820 Federal Census, Buncombe County, North Carolina, p. 108. 101211-00211 (1 male under 10, 1 male 16-18, 2 males 16-25, 1 male 26-45, 1 male over 45; 2 females 16-25, 1 female 26-45, 1 female over 45). Samuel Queen household, 1830 Federal Census, Haywood County, North Carolina, p. 363: 0010100010000-0000020010000 (1 male 10-14, 1 male 20-29, 1 male 60-69; 2 females 30-39, 1 female 60-69). Samuel Queen Sr. household, 1840 Federal Census, Haywood County, North Carolina, p. 122: 0001100001-0100001001000 (1 male 15-19, 1 male 20-29, 1 male 70-79; 1 female 5-9, 1 female 40-49, 1 female 70-79). (Actually, Samuel was over eighty. He lived near sons John R., and William B. Queen.) ------------------------------------------------------ John Queen household, 1840 Federal Census, Haywood County, North Carolina, p. 122: 1 male 10-14 (son John Lewis "Luke"), 1 male 30-39 (John R Queen.), 1 female under age 5 (daughter Martha), 1 female age 10-14 (daughter Nancy), 1 female age 15-19 (unknown), 1 female age 20-29 (wife Mary "Polly" Coward, age 29). ( This is John R. Queen.) Regards, Drew ----- Original Message ----- From: Charlton Queen To: QUEEN-L@rootsweb.com Sent: Wednesday, July 04, 2007 1:53 PM Subject: [QUEEN] Samuel Queen 1759Q Please bear with this somewhat lengthy post to the question at the bottom. The 1840 Haywood Co., NC. Census shows: John Queen 1 male 10-15, 1 male 30-40, 1 female 0-5, 1 female 10-15, 1 female 15-20, 1 female 20-30 (I believe that this is John R. Queen the son of Samuel Queen of 1759. There are a number of Coward families on the same page. That John R. married Mary Coward is further evidence that this is the correct John Queen.) William B. Queen 1 male 10-15, 1 male 30-40, 1 female 0-5, 1 female 5-10, 1 female 40-50 (I believe that this is Wm. Brown Queen, another son of Samuel of 1759.) Finally we have: Samuel Queen 1 male 15-20, 1 male 20-30, 1 male 70-80, 1 female 5-10, 1 female 40-50, 1 female 70-80. Assuming that the above assertions are correct, I am still left with one question. The original census image appears to have the letters Jr. or Sr. following Samuel Queen's name. I cannot tell which. However, the problem is that I have Samuel as a son of old William and I have no record of a Samuel Jr. as a son of Samuel of 1759. So it would seem that neither Sr. or Jr. would apply to this Samuel if he is indeed the Samuel of 1759 as believed. As I read the recent roll call postings, I see a number of you descend from Samuel and John R. Queen. So my question is, do I have this above relations correct on the 1840 Haywood Census and can anyone shed some light on these "mystery" letters at the end of Samuel Queen census entry? Regards, Charlton Queen When replying to a digest post, quote only the specific text to which you are replying, removing the rest of the digest from your reply. Also, remember to change the subject of your reply so that it coincides with the message subject to which you are replying. TO VIEW PREVIOUS EMAILS BY SUBJECT, GO TO THE THREADED ARCHIVES AT http://archiver.rootsweb.com/th/index/listowners TO VIEW PREVIOUS EMAILS BY DATES AND SUBJECT GO TO THE SEARCHABLE ARCHIVES AT http://archiver.rootsweb.com/th/index/listowners > http://webpages.charter.net/rlqueen/DNA/queenmarker.htm > > http://www.familytreedna.com/public/queenDNA/ ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to QUEEN-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Charlton, Based on the other names on the census, I too would believe that William B. Queen is William Brown Queen The children match the ones who may not have been old enough to move from the homestead. The John Queen listed also appears to be correct for John R. Queen I have gone over this census image for about 15 mintues. I compared all of the takers J's and S's to see if the Jr/Sr is indeed that. I believe that it is a Sr. Correct me if I have this wrong, but I have Samuel with a son Harmon Queen, who married Mary Brock. They had a sone Samuel Queen b. Nov 1826. This might be the reason for the Sr. in the name. Many times even though the child was a grandchild or even if there was a another person by the same name living in the town, one or the other would put an suffix to their name to distinguish them from each other. That's why we see Esquire/I/ etc. So, he may have used the Sr. title to distinguish himself between his grandson Samuel who would have been 14 at the time and old enough to be participating in community life. And that is just my opinion...lol. I am not related (at least as far as I know) to Samuel. HAVE A GREAT 4TH TODAY. Carol ----- Original Message ----- From: "Charlton Queen" <safetyman45@adelphia.net> To: <QUEEN-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Wednesday, July 04, 2007 12:53 PM Subject: [QUEEN] Samuel Queen 1759Q > Please bear with this somewhat lengthy post to the question at the bottom. > > The 1840 Haywood Co., NC. Census shows: > > John Queen 1 male 10-15, 1 male 30-40, 1 female 0-5, 1 female 10-15, 1 > female 15-20, 1 female 20-30 > > (I believe that this is John R. Queen the son of Samuel Queen of 1759. > There are a number of Coward families on the same page. That John R. > married > Mary Coward is further evidence that this is the correct John Queen.) > > William B. Queen 1 male 10-15, 1 male 30-40, 1 female 0-5, 1 female 5-10, > 1 > female 40-50 > > (I believe that this is Wm. Brown Queen, another son of Samuel of 1759.) > > Finally we have: > > Samuel Queen 1 male 15-20, 1 male 20-30, 1 male 70-80, 1 female 5-10, 1 > female 40-50, 1 female 70-80. > > > Assuming that the above assertions are correct, I am still left with one > question. > > The original census image appears to have the letters Jr. or Sr. following > Samuel Queen's name. I cannot tell which. However, the problem is that I > have Samuel as a son of old William and I have no record of a Samuel Jr. > as > a son of Samuel of 1759. So it would seem that neither Sr. or Jr. would > apply to this Samuel if he is indeed the Samuel of 1759 as believed. > > As I read the recent roll call postings, I see a number of you descend > from > Samuel and John R. Queen. So my question is, do I have this above > relations > correct on the 1840 Haywood Census and can anyone shed some light on these > "mystery" letters at the end of Samuel Queen census entry? > > > Regards, > > Charlton Queen > > When replying to a digest post, quote only the specific text to which you > are replying, removing the rest of the digest from your reply. Also, > remember to change the subject of your reply so that it coincides with the > message subject to which you are replying. > > > TO VIEW PREVIOUS EMAILS BY SUBJECT, GO TO THE THREADED ARCHIVES AT > http://archiver.rootsweb.com/th/index/listowners > > TO VIEW PREVIOUS EMAILS BY DATES AND SUBJECT GO TO THE SEARCHABLE ARCHIVES > AT http://archiver.rootsweb.com/th/index/listowners > >> http://webpages.charter.net/rlqueen/DNA/queenmarker.htm >> >> http://www.familytreedna.com/public/queenDNA/ > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > QUEEN-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes > in the subject and the body of the message > > > -- > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG Free Edition. > Version: 7.5.476 / Virus Database: 269.9.14/885 - Release Date: 7/3/2007 > 10:02 AM > >