This is a Message Board Post that is gatewayed to this mailing list. Author: waroper Surnames: Roper, Ainsworth, McLemore Classification: queries Message Board URL: http://boards.rootsweb.com/surnames.roper/1925.1.1.1.1.2.1/mb.ashx Message Board Post: I want to explicitly add what ought to be already implicit from a careful reading of my prior posts, but especially my recent post: "The John S. ROPER Mentioned in the Prior Post is Probably John S. RAPER" (9 Aug 2014 7:29PM) http://boards.ancestry.com/surnames.roper/1925.3/mb.ashx I had previously taken the 1850 Census data at FACE VALUE and inferred that the Mary ROPER shown in James and Margaret ROPER's household was their ROPER surnamed daughter-in-law rather than assuming either (a) that Mary ROPER was UNMARRIED and had conceived the children John and Margaret out of wedlock OR (b) that there was an ERROR in the identification of the surname of Mary ROPER and her children. However, the discovery that the marriage record I had taken to be that of James and Margaret ROPER's otherwise unidentified son seems likely to be that of John S. RAPER, it is very important to understand that there is essentially NO OTHER EVIDENCE identified to date that would seem to conclusively establish that James ROPER's son married and had any children at all. This is NOT to say that there is any conclusive proof that he didn't leave James ROPER's household a little early and, perhaps, marry elsewhere. See my post: "Possible Candidates To Be James ROPER's Unidentified Son (b abt 1821-5 - TN)" (9 Aug 2014 11:37PM) http://boards.ancestry.com/surnames.roper/1925.4/mb.ashx Various candidates to be the unidentified son should be carefully assessed and correctly ascribed, where possible. It is even possible that John S. RAPER is even a ROPER, though given the persistence of the showing in the Census, this seems to me to be UNLIKELY. But IF John S. RAPER WAS to be a ROPER, it actually DOES NOT GREATLY ALTER the dynamic as to the correct identity of the Mary ROPER living in the James ROPER household in 1850. * * * The seeming mis-ascription of John S. RAPER as a ROPER gave us TWO now seemingly erroneous clues as to Mary ROPER's possible ascription. First, John S. RAPER married a "Mary Ann". Thus, the appearance of a Mary ROPER in James ROPER's hosuehold could be readily explained as a widow of the now seemingly mis-ascribed son. Second, I couldn't find this John S. ROPER in the subsequent Census enumerations, though I probably wasn't looking for him hard enough given the ex ante suggestion that he had probably died leaving a widow and small children. Thus, based upon these two false clues, I had suggested that Mary ROPER was John S. "ROPER"'s widow and then concluded that the young James ROPER shown to be age 8 had probably exagerated his age. This latter conclusion was necessary in order to explain away the seeming anomaly that James ROPER, age 8, seemed to be TOO OLD to be explained by the marriage of John S. ROPER and Mary Ann ROBESON. However, since James A. ROPER is shown to be age 18 in 1860, we are presented with a second piece of primary evidence which would seem to CONFIRM the age given in 1850 rather than affording us a basis to discount it. We are left with essentially NO EVIDENCE that Mary ROPER was James ROPER's daughter-in-law and several clues, including the presence of Margaret ROPER in the McLEMORE household in 1860, which are far more consistent with Mary being James and Margaret's daughter. There are still a couple of other discordant notes seemingly inconsistent with this construction. One of these is the misascription of the surnames of the children in BOTH the 1850 and 1860 Census returns. One mistake seems easy to explain. Two mistakes seems hard to explain. Possibly more troubling is the marriage record showing the marriage of a Margaret ROPER to Richard BROWN on 24 Sep 1869: "Marriage of Margaret ROPER to Richard BROWN on 24 Sep 1869 Noted" (10 Jun 2014 10:47AM) http://boards.ancestry.com/surnames.roper/1925.1/mb.ashx Even if the Census enumerator were to incorrectly record Margaret as a ROPER rather than an AINSWORTH, it seems far less likely that this error would also appear within a more deliberately prepared marriage record. * * * There seem to be several possible explanations, none of which is conclusive, but each of which gives us an additional avenue for inquiry. It should be initially noted that the gap between the ages of James ROPER, age 8, and Margaret ROPER, age 1, as shown in the 1850 Census seems a little large for those times. Children tended to appear with some regularity and in other circumstances a gap of this size very often suggested a death of a previous wife and the remarriage of the father. Given the seeming conclusion that Mary ROPER's husband William AINSWORTH had either died or abandoned her, one is then left to wonder whether the death shortly followed the conception of James or whether William AINSWORTH also survived to conceive Margaret ROPER (b abt 1849). But if William AINSWORTH had died well before 1848, this would suggest that Margaret might have been conceived out of wedlock. But there is yet another possibility that is somewhat more harmonious with the extant data, which could also help explain the source of the confusion as to surnames in both the 1850 and the 1860 Census. This is the possibility that James and Margaret ROPER's son DID survive to have a child, but that he married a little later. Thus, John ROPER, age 8, could have been John AINSWORTH, son of William AINSWORTH and Mary ROPER, while Margaret ROPER, age 1, could have been the daughter of the as of yet unidentified ROPER son and a woman who died very young, probably in childbirth. If this were the case, James and Margaret ROPER would have had a Mary AINSWORTH, a James AINSWORTH and a Margaret ROPER residing in their household, certainly confusing for the Census enumerator. Within the McLEMORE household, there would have been present Mary (Roper) McLEMORE, James AINSWORTH, age 8, Margaret ROPER, age 18, and Margaret ROPER, age 55-60. Under this construction ONLY James AINSWORTH's name would have been erronoeusly given in the 1860 Census and again the identities would have been quite vexing for the Census enumerator. This also harmonizes the identification of Margaret ROPER in the marriage record to Richard BROWN. It should be borne in mind that even if Mary AINSWORTH had given birth to Margaret out of wedlock, after her marriage to William AINSWORTH, the child's name would have been more properly Margaret AINSWORTH than Margaret ROPER. Thus, the out of wedlock theory cannot explain how Margaret is shown to be a ROPER on the marriage record, while the theory that Margaret is NOT Mary (Roper) AINSWORTH's daughter does explain this anomaly. * * * I would further suggest some additional avenues of investigation (and these are very tentative and unresearched possibilities). There are several other Tennessee male ROPER marriages that might have produced a child named Margaret: Joseph ROPER m Elizabeth COX on 30 Dec 1840 in Carroll, TN Joshua ROPER m Nancy STEGALL on 20 Jun 1844 in Fayette, TN William D. ROPER m Mary E. HARRIS on 05 Jan 1842 in Lincoln, TN Marcus L. ROPER m Elizabeth M. ATKINS on 24 Dec 1844 in Marshall, TN George W. ROPER m Nancy SCOTT on 05 Jul 1845 in Williamson, TN John ROPER m Catty or Celly EDWARDS on 06 May 1847 in Carroll, TN James ROPER m Ann M. WEST on 25 May 1848 in Hardeman County, TN G. L. ROPER m. Margaret A. BOWDEN on 13 Jul 1848 in Henry County, TN Jediah ROPER m E. J. MASSEY on 17 Jul 1848 in Carroll, TN Secondary sources have ascribed and studied several of these contemporary ROPERs. However, you should NOT treat the work of ANY OTHER ROPER researchers with great deference, since there has been a shocking amount of sloppy, incompetent and dishonest work done by ROPER genealogists over the past two decades. I am NOT saying that any particular ascription as to any of these is known or believe to be in error. Rather, I am simply pointing out that if the ascriptions are correct, they can usually be quickly verified relying upon valid primary evidence, but when the ascriptions are unsupported or fraudulent, this often quickly become evident by simple verification. In respect of EACH marriage, the question would seem to me to be the presence of each couple in the 1850 Census. If the couple SURVIVED and the indicated groom is heading his own household, then he would NOT likely be Margaret ROPER's father. By contrast, ANY of these ROPER grooms who simply disappears might be a more viable candidate to be Margaret ROPER's father. * * * Finally, I would encourage you to FOLLOW Margaret Roper BROWN forward in time and try to track her family FORWARD. Margaret may be the very best lead to the correct ascription of members of the James ROPER family. Similarly, the youngest members of the McLEMORE family are seemingly children of Mary ROPER. Since Margaret ROPER lived in the McLEMORE household, Mary (Roper) McLEMORE would seem to be the best prospect at finding an extant family Bible, correspondence or some family lore that confirms the identity of members of Mary ROPER's family. Mary McLEMORE seems to have predeceased her husband, so she may NOT have left a Will. However, if Mary McLEMORE directly inherited some separate property from James or Margaret ROPER, it is at least possible that there is some probate record that bears on James AINSWORTH. 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>