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/1937.6/mb.ashx Message Board Post: Another of the misleading "facts" about Charles ROPER posted by the ROPER Family History Fictionalists is the assertion that Charles ROPER is the "son" of a John ROPER, of Charles City County. This John ROPER is also usually given a fictitious date or year of birth to support the misleading conclusion that there is some actual basis for the fiction. This ascription is based upon an exceptionally tenuous and strained reading of an extant Inventory of a John ROPER dated 08 Nov 1759 which Inventory was recorded on 03 Sep 1766. While it is TRUE that a Charles ROPER is mentioned in this Inventory, it is completely FALSE that Charles ROPER was anywhere therein described as a "son" of this John ROPER. To the contrary, Charles ROPER is simply described as a co-executor of the Estate of the deceased John ROPER, together with Jean or Jane ROPER and David ROPER. NO RELATIONSHIP IS GIVEN. While this record is certainly consistent with the possibility that Charles ROPER is a son of John ROPER, it is also consistent with a variety of other possibilities. Charles ROPER could also have been this John ROPER's brother, nephew or cousin. For that matter, Charles ROPER could also have been John ROPER's FATHER since we have very little indication as to this John ROPER's actual age. The relationship of both Jean/Jane ROPER, as well as David ROPER is also UNCLEAR from the Will. It seems MOST LIKELY that Jean/Jane ROPER was this John ROPER's WIDOW, since it was generally somewhat uncommon to name a daughter as an executrix in those times, unless the daughter was well educated and an only child. Moreover, a daughter who had reached majority had usually been already married for one or more years and would likely to have appeared under a married name. It seems UNLIKELY that John ROPER would have named an unmarried sister or a sister-in-law as a co-executrix, more likely trusting his brother's to deal fairly with their sister. One other possibility would be that Jean/Jane ROPER could be a widowed mother of a younger John ROPER. Though perhaps more plausible than naming a sister, sister-in-law or unmarried daughter, this possibility suffers from the necessity of assuming that John ROPER had a surviving mother who was a widow and that John predeceased his mother. This construction also suffers from a couple of other practical considerations. To the extent that John ROPER trusted his sons, brothers, nephews or cousins, naming his mother would have been unnecessary and also somewhat unusual given the tendency to rely on males for business and legal matters. The same is actually true if David ROPER and Charles ROPER were John ROPER's SONS. It was far more common in those days to make express bequests by Will to include a life interest in some parcel of land in favor of the widow and some household furniture with the bulk of the estate and especially the remainder to pass to the sons. One of the greater perils to be protected against in probate was the remarriage of the wife and an estate coming under the control of the widow's subsequent husband and the children's step-father. For this reason, the choice of the widow as an executor was usually DISFAVORED in favor of another immediate relative or trusted friend. Upon remarriage, the widow would tend to come under control of her new husband and the children's step-father. When the children were adults, this was somewhat less problematic. The sons could be named directly, but naming the widow then still tended to be UNNECESSARY, EXCEPT in an instance where the decedant had remarried, as the sons could usually be trusted to take care of their own mother. There are two common instances where a decedent might name the widow as a co-executor. One is where the widow was a second (or subsequent wife) and naming the widow might be necessary to protect her and the interests of younger children against the interests of her older stepsons. In this case, naming a widow and one or more older sons might strike the appropriate balance. A second instance would be presented when the decendent left a widow and only minor children. In this instance, the care of both the widow and the orphaned children would be the primary concern of the decedent. In this instance, naming the widow would give her some direct control over the disposition of the estate, while naming brothers, uncles, or cousins would secure the estate against a grasping stepfather upon the widow's remarriage. * * * The Factionalists have done NO MEANINGFUL ANALYSIS WHATSOEVER as to the corrent meaning or interpretation of the Charles City County probate records. They simply CONLCUDE that Jean/Jane is the widow, which is probably not an altogether unreasonable assumption, though far from certain, and then also posit that both David ROPER and Charles ROPER are SONS of this John ROPER, which conclusion seems to be almost completely SPECIOUS. An examination of John ROPER's Inventory gives other unexamined and unanalyzed clues. This John ROPER is shown to have one slave, two horses, eleven head of cattle, one hog, twelve head of sheep, three feather beds, three tables, five chairs. The Inventory is interesting because it shows that this John ROPER had accumulated some material things during his lifetime. He has a reasonable and manageable herd of livestock. But he has ONLY ONE SLAVE. The 16 Jun 1714 Charles City County Patent to John ROPER was for 554 acres. Most of that plantation seems to have come down to David ROPER (b 13 Nov 1744 - Charles City, VA, d 16 Apr 1808 - Charles City, VA). David ROPER's father is identified in the family Bible of Rev. David ROPER as John ROPER (b 1709). David ROPER (b 13 Nov 1744 - Charles City, VA, d 16 Apr 1808 - Charles City, VA) would have been only AGE 15 at the date of the 08 Nov 1759 Inventory of John ROPER and therefore CANNOT reasonably have been the executor named David ROPER. Thus, we are immediately presented with a couple of pieces of dissonant information. First, we are presented with the possibility that the John ROPER who died leaving a widow was NOT the principal of the ROPER parcel patented in 1714. He MIGHT have been a DIFFERENT John ROPER, a son, nephew, uncle or cousin. Second, but more importantly, IF this John ROPER WAS the owner of the land patented in 1714, then the David ROPER named as his co-executor must NOT have been his SON, since the land came down to David ROPER (b 13 Nov 1744 - Charles City, VA, d 16 Apr 1808 - Charles City, VA), who would have been a MINOR in 1759. Thus, IF we accept arguendo that the John ROPER who died was the owner of the Chickahominy plantation, we must necessarily begin our inquiry with the assumption that the David ROPER named was NOT a son, but rather a brother, uncle, nephew or cousin of the decedant. But if David ROPER was merely another immediate or collateral relative OTHER THEN A SON, then WHY would we ASSUME that the Charles ROPER named was CLOSER in relation than David ROPER?? There is simply NO VALID BASIS to make such an assumption and more than a little reason to suspect otherwise. * * * Part of the reason that Charles ROPER has been given the rather specific date of birth of abt 1720 by the Fictionalists is in support of the specious conclusion that this Charles ROPER was a son of the John ROPER who is known to have died before the 08 Nov 1759 Inventory. Once one retreats from the ERRONEOUS ascription of false precision in Charles ROPER's year of birth and admits that Charles ROPER (b abt 1705-21), of Dinwiddie, was actually born within a wider range of plausible years, other constructions of the data become much more intutive. It is SOLELY because of the DECEPTION as to Charles ROPER's year of birth that other family historians are so easily misled by the Fictionalists. * * * I would submit that there are two other very reasonable and plausible constructions of the admittedly sparse Charles City County data that are each MORE LIKELY than the construction urged by the Fictionalists. First, John ROPER (d bef 08 Nov 1759 - Charles City County, VA) might have been the father of David ROPER (b 13 Nov 1744 - Charles City, VA, d 16 Apr 1808 - Charles City, VA), in which case he died leaving a somewhat younger widow and minor children. In this case, the David ROPER and Charles ROPER named as co-executors were probably trusted brothers, uncles, or cousins who were named to protect the interests of the minor children in case of the remarriage of Jean/Jane ROPER. Second, John ROPER (d bef 08 Nov 1759 - Charles City County, VA) might have been a much younger John ROPER who died as a young man, leaving an even younger widow and infant children. In this case, John ROPER (d bef 08 Nov 1759 - Charles City County, VA) might have been an older brother of David ROPER (b 13 Nov 1744 - Charles City, VA, d 16 Apr 1808 - Charles City, VA) who died before he came into his father's inheritance. In this case, the David and Charles ROPER could again be uncles, or cousins. The David ROPER named as executor would NOT have been a brother IF David ROPER (b 13 Nov 1744 - Charles City, VA, d 16 Apr 1808 - Charles City, VA) was this John ROPER's brother. * * * The trouble with this John ROPER being David ROPER's (b 13 Nov 1744 - Charles City, VA, d 16 Apr 1808 - Charles City, VA) father is the very small number of slaves. One slave simply wouldn't have been enough to cultivate and harvest a 554 acre plantation. The furniture also seems to be somewhat more consistent with a SMALLER family. Admittedly, in those days children and even adults often slept more than one to a bed. Even so, with three feather beds it is hard to see how this family had more than about five to seven members in the household. The number of chairs is similarly telling. Five chairs is hardly enough to seat more than five family members at meals. If there were more than five residing in this household, some must have been infants. Once again, one might ascribe this as an older "empty nest" couple with most of the children having departed, perhaps taking chairs with them as they formed new households. But I remain troubled by the single slave. To me, the John ROPER Inventory seems somewhat MORE consistent with a younger couple set up as a household within the previous few years with a single slave and a small parcel of land. The size of the herd of livestock is consistent with what a couple might have after five to ten years of marriage. The bottom line here though is that we are left to puzzle over VERY SPARSE DATA. Rather than urging a particualr conclusion, I am instead ONLY urging that the conclusion that (b abt 1705-21), of Dinwiddie, VA, is a SON of the John ROPER (d bef 08 Nov 1759 - Charles City County, VA) is simply NOT SUPPORTED by the available evidence. This is NOT to say that this possiblity is completely EXCLUDED by the evidence, but rather that this is neither CONCLUSIVE nor even the most likely construction. It is simply at best a SPECULATIVE ascription, but due to the misrepresentation of so much of the underlying factual data could be better described as a DISHONEST ascription. Any HONEST researcher would certainly REFRAIN from showing such an ascription absent a showing of valid supporting evidence. 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>