This is a Message Board Post that is gatewayed to this mailing list. Author: waroper Surnames: Roper, Goodwyn Classification: queries Message Board URL: http://boards.rootsweb.com/surnames.roper/1937.5/mb.ashx Message Board Post: One aspect of Charles ROPER's life has been repeatedly and consistently misrepresented by the ROPER family history Fictionalists. This is the date and year of Charles ROPER's birth. Ann GOODWYN's year of birth has been similarly misrepresented. If one examines various published accounts, whether in print or posted and distributed electronically, one finds it persistently represented that both Charles ROPER and Ann GOODWYN were each born about 1720. As will be further shown, while this date is NOT erroreous as to an order of magnitude, the description "abt 1720" implies a FALSE PRECISION which cannot be readily supported by extant data. The earliest mention of this Charles ROPER in ANY primary record identified to date is the mention in the Bristol Parish Register showing the birth of the eldest children, twins David and Laura or Laurell ROPER: David ROPER (b 29 Jun 1742 - Bristol Parish, VA) Larell ROPER (b 29 Jun 1742 - Bristol Parish, VA) This mention predates mentions in land records or court records by a couple of decades. Identification of Charles ROPER as the father of David ROPER (b 29 Jun 1742 - Bristol Parish, VA) in both the Bristol Parish record and the MOORE Family Bible would seem to suggest some upper bound to the year of Charles ROPER's birth. Since it was most common for young men of this era to marry after reaching majority (age 21), David ROPER's birth year would seem to implicitly support a reasonably strong inference that Charles ROPER was born BEFORE 1721 and a very strong inference and a VERY STRONG inference that Charles ROPER was born before about 1724. Even so, my criticism of the precise year 1720 as the year around which the estimates seem to be currently centered in NOT primarily predicated upon unease about the upper bound of the birth year. Rather, because young men sometimes defer marriage for some years after reaching majority, the given year 1720 suggests a very serious false precision about the lower bound of the year of birth. NOTHING about either the Bristol Parish Register record of the MOORE Family Bible supports any precision about the lower bound of Charles ROPER's year of birth, which might easily be years or decades earlier. Admittedly, with each year prior to about 1710, the likelihood that Charles ROPER was born earlier decreases as it is increasingly unlikely that Charles ROPER first married at an advanced age. What tends to contrain the lower bound of Charles ROPER's year of birth is his age of death about 1791. If Charles ROPER was born about 1720, he would have been about age 71 at death. While life expectancies in this period were not nearly as advanced as in modern times, it was certainly not unheard of for men to live into their late seventies or early eighties. Again, with each passing year of age, Charles ROPER's remaining life expectancy would have decreased. Thus, Charles ROPER's death in 1791 makes it MORE LIKELY that Charles ROPER was born in 1720 than in 1710. But stating that Charles ROPER was born in 1720 again implies a completely misplaced and false precision for which their is NO VALID SUPPORTING EVIDENCE. Sir William ROPER lived to age 86 almost two centuries earlier and the number of men who lived well into their nineties in the 1700s is sufficiently smalll that I would NOT advocate an expected birth year range that exceeds age 90. For that matter an upper bound to the age range of age 85 to 86 would seem to be reasonably defensible. * A word of further explanation is also in order about both the PURPOSE and the SUGGESTED CONCLUSION of the FALSE PRECISION implied by the false representations of the Fictionalists. The more precise birth year of 1720 has been repeatedly used to support the ascription of Charles ROPER as the son of another John ROPER, of Charles City, VA, to whom various speculative birth dates are also ascribed. Thus, the year 1720 is NOT chosen as the year of birth because this year of birth is supported by actual evidence. Rather, this year is chosen because it is consistent with speculative or fraudulent ascriptions for which their is simply NO OTHER EVIDENCE AT ALL. So FIRST the Fictionalists tell us that Charles ROPER was born about 1720 and then this year is used to support the specious ascriptions as to the identity of Charles ROPER's father. * For these reasons, I would encourage HONEST researchers to use a broader range as to Charles ROPER's birth year which is actually objectively defensible based upon known primary evidence. I would suggest that this age range be set to about 1705-21. This represents an implict expectation that Charles ROPER was probably at least age 20 at marriage and no more than about age 85 at his death. There is admittedly nothing particularly magic about either the upper or lower bound given. Charles ROPER could have been a year or two younger at marriage (e.g. age 18) and could have been a year or two earlier at death (e.g. age 86 to 90, etc.). I would NOT think it inappropriate to broaden the range I suggest by one or more years. However, I would think it would be inapproriate to NARROW this range by more than a year or two, especially at the upper end of the year range. * * * Similar analysis might be applied to Ann GOODWYN's implict year of birth, with a couple of exceptions. First, NO ONE has ever bother to obtain and transcribe Charles ROPER's Dinwiddie Will and it is currently UNKNOWN whether Ann Goodwyn ROPER predeceased or survived her husband. Since we do NOT know whether Ann Goodwyn ROPER was still living, we have NO VALID BASIS to limit the lower bound of Ann's age based upon longevity. By contrast, Ann Goodwyn ROPER's continued fertility and the birth year of her youngest son -- Joel ROPER (b 26 Jun 1766) -- probably gives us some sense of the earliest plausible birth year for Ann. I would suggest that the LATEST age at which Ann Goodwyn ROPER, the mother of twelve children, would have given birth is probably about age 55 (with an earlier year MORE LIKELY). Thus, I would suggest that Ann GOODWYN would have been born at earliest about 1711, with later years much more likely. However the upper year of Ann GOODWYN's birth is AFTER 1720. It was not at all uncommon in those days for a woman to marry at age 16 and even, occasionally, sooner. Since David ROPER (b 29 Jun 1742 - Bristol Parish, VA) was born in June 1742, he must have been conceived in 1741. Ann Goodwyn ROPER might therefore easily have married in earliy 1741 or in some year previous. If Ann was age 16 at marriage, this would make a birth year of 1725 plausible. Thus, I would suggest that Ann Goodwyn ROPER's year of birth can most honestly be shown to be about 1711-25, with the upper end of this age range abt 1720-5 most likely. To this I would also add that by showing a FALSE PRECISION about Ann GOODWYN's year of birth the Fictionalists have also discouraged any honest inquiry into the identity of Ann GOODWYN's parents. * * * * * In conclusion, I would encourage ANYONE who values honesty and integrity to DISCONNECT Charles ROPER from any of the various specious lineages widely published based upon NO EVIDENCE and to show Charles ROPER's and Ann GOODWYN's years of birth as: Charles ROPER (b abt 1705-21) Ann GOODWYN (b abt 1711-25) I am very receptive to the idea that these suggested age ranges might be narrowed or otherwise altered based upon actual evidence rather than for the convenience of the proponents of dishonest lineages. * * * * * Finally, I want APOLOGIZE to ALL for having myself republished the clearly MISLEADING 1720 date during an interval when I gave misplaced reliance on the integrity and competence of other researchers. At one time, I imputed to others a level of care and honesty which clearly was never merited. The 1720 figure for Charles ROPER's year of birth is not so much inaccurate as it is erroneously precise. The 1720 figure for Ann GOODWYN is probably both erroneous as well as falsely precise. In seeking to better understand these enormously important ROPER ancestors, the very first thing that needs to be done is to obtain the extant Charles ROPER Will. Those who continue to pretend to be genealogists by making speculative or fanciful ascriptions, while failiing to obtain the very most basic of primary evidence, simply distract honest and serious researchers from a thoughtful and deliberate inquiry, which is probably precisely the point. Having published hopelessly erroneous data, the Fictionalists seem more interested in frustrating further progress which will show the falsity of their published accounts, rather than leading members of the ROPER family to the truth. I am VERY SORRY that my previous republication of the misleading dates for Charles and Ann Goodwyn ROPER served to confuse and mislead others! 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>