This is a Message Board Post that is gatewayed to this mailing list. Author: waroper Surnames: Roper, Butler Classification: queries Message Board URL: http://boards.rootsweb.com/surnames.roper/1932.11/mb.ashx Message Board Post: Frank: I want to share another further thought with you regarding my misgivings relating to the meaning and inferences which might be reasonably drawn from the Dinwiddie Real Property records, as well as some background observations on what may have been taking place with Charles and Elizabeth (Butler) ROPER. First, it seems to me that the data supports the conclusion that of the sons of Charles ROPER and Anne GOODWYN, ONLY Charles ROPER and Joel ROPER had remained in or near Dinwiddie in the decade preceeding the elder Charles ROPER's death. I haven't discussed Joel ROPER in great detail, but I can tell you that within my notes I have references to primary records putting Joel ROPER in Powhatan County for at least some interval prior to his death. I will have to find, transcribe and post those notes. Joel ROPER seems to have been studying under the leading Anglican minister in Virginia of that era. One thing that is UNCLEAR is whether Ann Goodwyn ROPER was still living when her husband died, and this UNKNOWN fact, in my view, colors any further discussion about the disposition of the Dinwiddie property and also what might be reasonably inferred from the records, even the Personal Property Tax records, as further elaborated below. It was not at all uncommon for a man vested with an estate to leave either a life interest to his wife or, at least, to provide that the wife was to be permitted to continue to reside at the primary estate/residence at least until her death. Such provisions protected the widow against the premature sale of the property or disruption to her lifestyle for her remaining lifetime. Depending upon the size and layout of the plantation house, the location, life stage and disposition of the beneficiary of a bequest of the primary plantation, etc., it might or might not be appropriate, desirable or practical for the legatee to also move onto the property. Given the presence of slaves to work the plantation and care for an aging widow, uprooting one's family to immediately relocated back to the family seat might have been unnecessary, though it would usually be necessary for there to be at least some overseer of a plantation of any size if the son did not immediately return. If the land was directly vested upon conclusion of probate in a particular legatee, such as Charles ROPER, Jr., he might very well have appeared on the tax roles after the conclusion of the probate whether or not he occupied the property. Interestingly, he might have also found himself subject to Personal Property Tax liability in respect of continued ownership and operation of the property, whether or not he actually resided there IF HE WAS LIVING OUT OF STATE. While Virginia Personal Property Tax laws seemed to preclude the imposition of Personal Property Taxes in more than one county, it is less clear that an out of state resident with taxable personal property would have been completely exempted. For example, if slaves and livestock was taxable, should a non-resident be completely exempt from payment simply because he was residing in another state? What I am basically saying is that if Charles ROPER was the OWNER of the Dinwiddie plantation and operated the plantation as nominee for his mother or for her benefit during the final years of her life, he might very well appear both as the owner of record in the land records and also have been the subject of Personal Property Tax whether or note actually a resident. Moving to a second background fact to be considered in conjunction with the former analysis, while Joel ROPER was LIVING and residing adjacent to his elderly mother (IF Ann Goodwyn ROPER was still alive), any urgency in Charles ROPER returning to Dinwiddie might have been de minimis. With a good plantation overseer and a son living nearby, Charles ROPER might very well have maintained a pleasant life ELSEWHERE out of state. Even if Ann Goodwyn ROPER was then already dead, IF Charles ROPER was primarily seated ELSEWHERE, he probably could have relied on his brother to at least look in on the overseer to assure that the plantation was profitably operated. However, upon Joel ROPER's death, Charles ROPER would have been presented with at least two problems, and possibly even a third. First, Charles ROPER might have needed to return to oversee the operation of the Dinnwiddie plantation once he could no longer rely upon his brother to look in on its operation. Second, Charles ROPER might have needed to come to the aid and assistance of his widowed sister-in-law who still had young children. Third, Charles ROPER might have needed to come to the assistance of another widowed niece by marriage, such as Nancy ROPER, if Nancy were married to a nephew rather than Charles ROPER's son Joseph, etc. Fourth, Joel ROPER may very well have attended to the spiritual needs of the Dinwiddie Four Forks area after completing his religious training. Joel ROPER's death may have also created a vacuum at the ROPER Church. At some juncture, following Ann Goodwyn ROPER's death, Joel ROPER's death or just with the completion of some life stage, Charles and Elizabeth (Butler) ROPER may have simply decided "it's time to go home to Dinwiddie". To this, I will only ADD that it is UNCLEAR where HOME was for Elizabeth BUTLER because NO ONE HAS EVER BOTHERED TO INVESTIGATE Elizabeth BUTLER's line. BUTLER is a very prominent family name in South Carolina. I haven't made any inquiry or investigation of the BUTLERs. But it would not at all surprise me to discover that South Carolina was HOME for Elizabeth. * * * I am NOT asking you or anyone else to reach any firm conclusions based upon this analysis. Rather, I am simply pointing out that there are some considerations that ought to at least be weighed in assessing the data. IF Charles and Nancy Butler ROPER were continuously residing in Dinwiddie, this ought to have been reflected in OTHER extant records. Based upon my own anecdotal observations, what I see is mostly an ABSENCE of the sorts of records which would seem to refelct that continuous presence. Instead, I see some indications that Charles ROPER might have lived elsewhere and then returned to Dinwiddie. Most problematic is the appearance of a Charles ROPER in Pendleton, SC, who was born before 1766. This Charles ROPER is shown in the 1800 and 1810 Census data and then simply DISAPPEARS with seemingly no extant probate record. The fictionalists explain this sort of problem away by simply declaring that the records must be lost. This is simply LAZY and DISHONEST genealogy. If the Charles ROPER in Pendleton, SC, living near a Joseph ROPER who looks suspiciously LIKE his son, is someone OTHER than the Charles ROPER born to Charles ROPER and Ann GOODWYN, someone needs to EXPLAIN WHERE HE CAME FROM BEFORE 1800 and WHERE HE WENT AFTER 1810. Until someone can EXPLAIN AWAY this Charles ROPER, there will remain some lurking doubts about Charles ROPER's presence in Dinwiddie, since there is NO OTHER KNOWN Charles ROPER except for David ROPER's son Charles. It is very easy to construct various ascriptions by OMITTING and EXCLUDING certain inconvenient facts. It is much harder to construct a paradigm that explains ALL of the extant and readily available data. Your thoughts on the identity and relationship of the Charles ROPER found in Pendleton, SC, is solicited and appreciated. If you know or suspect where he fits in, I would welcome your insight! Important Note: The author of this message may not be subscribed to this list. If you would like to reply to them, please click on the Message Board URL link above and respond on the board. <br>