This is a Message Board Post that is gatewayed to this mailing list. Author: waroper Surnames: Roper Classification: queries Message Board URL: http://boards.rootsweb.com/surnames.roper/1932.13/mb.ashx Message Board Post: Frank: At Dave ROPER's website there is a brief mention of ABSTRACTS of Dinwiddie Probate records. Here is what the ABSTRACT SAYS: "Will Book: Rev. Devereux Jarratt: 1790 Wit: Joel Roper & Dennis Marshall Charles Roper estate 1791-1792 Wit: Joel Roper; Charles Roper 1799-1801 Wit: Goodwyn Roper" See: http://www.roperld.com/rva17.htm There are two significant things to realize about these references. First, the Abstracts are BADLY GARBLED. Second, a careful analysis of these ABSTRACTS shows that the really SIGNIFICANT Dinwiddie information has been IGNORED and SUPPRESSED to conceal the mischief associated with fictional ancestors and fraudulent ascriptions! * The FIRST abstracted record mentioned makes NO SENSE WHATSOEVER, UNLESS the "1790" date reflects the DATE OF REV. JARRATT's WILL rather that the DATE of Probate, which is precisely what it MUST MEAN. Rev. JARRATT is KNOWN to have died on 29 Jan 1801. However, given that it is KNOWN that BOTH Joel ROPER and Dennis MARSHALL were residing with Rev. JARRATT in 1790 (see the Dinwiddie Personal Property Tax records), it seems quite plausible that Rev. JARRATT called upon each of these KNOWN adult members of his household as witnesses to the Will. But if this is the case, the Abstract has OMITTED the other critical information as to WHEN the Will was proved and at which Book and Page the Will can be found. Rev. JARRATT's Will might actually have some significant information in it as he MIGHT BE A ROPER COUSIN. Rev. JARRATT was BORN in New Kent County and is KNOWN TO BE A GRANDSON OF JOSEPH BRADLEY. The BRADLEY FAMILY were NEIGHBORS of the ROPER in Charles City County. It seems UNLIKELY that Rev. JARRATT would have made bequests to first or second cousins. But we simply DO NOT KNOW of his bequests, because NO ONE wants to examine the PRIMARY RECORDS. Instead, everyone just keeps INVENTING FICTIONAL ANCESTORS and making FRAUDULENT ascriptions. * * The Abstracts given in the following line are even more APPALLING. The entry MAKES NO SENSE as a SINGLE RECORD: "Charles Roper estate 1791-1792 Wit: Joel Roper; Charles Roper 1799-1801 Wit: Goodwyn Roper" This can ONLY reasonably mean that there is an EXTANT Probate record for Charles ROPER's Estate. More importantly, WHAT CAN POSSIBLY BE MEANT BY "Witness", UNLESS there is a WILL for Charles ROPER. I suppose that Joel ROPER could be a witness to Charles ROPER's DEATH. But typically probate administrations of that era almost NEVER INVOLVE A NAMED WITNESS EXCEPT TO PROVE A WILL. If there IS an extant Will, WHY NOT obtain a copy, TRANCRIBE IT and POST IT for the benefit of other researchers? * Even if the ONLY thing that is available is an Inventory, Inventory Sales Record and Settlement and distribution, these would be ENORMOUSLY IMORTANT records for the ROPER family. But there are NO REFERENCES to a Book or Page and NO ONE SEEMS TO HAVE EVER BOTHERED TO HAVE LOOKED FOR OR OBTAINED THESE RECORDS. * * Similarly, WHAT CAN IT MEAN to have an abstract which says: "Charles Roper 1799-1801 Wit: Goodwyn Roper" Again, WITNESS implies the existence of a WILL. The DATES GIVEN, 1799-1801 are completely INCOMPATIBLE with the idea that Charles ROPER, Jr. continued to live for more than two more decades. So once again, the dates (though TWO ARE GIVEN) would seem to suggest a date of the WILL rather than the date of probate. So there are a couple of possibilities. One is that this is a grandson of Charles and Ann Goodwyn ROPER. The other possibility is that there is a Will DATED 1799 or 1801 which was probated two decades later. * * * * * The KEY IDEA that I have been trying to get across for a couple of years is that NONE OF THE PRIMARY EVIDENCE IN DINWIDDIE HAS EVER BEEN PROPERLY OBTAINED AND EXAMINED. Instead, the Fictionalists simply INVENTED various fictional ancestors and devised various fraudulent ascriptions, thereafter publishing this FALSE FAMILY HISTORY and then declared the problem SOLVED. To DISCOURAGE further inquiry, the critical references have been obfuscated and/or withheld. It is particularly APPALLING the extent to the dishonesty of these Fictionalists has not only obscured and misled serious research, but has wasted an enormous amount of time by sending people down false paths. This is WHY it is ESSENTIAL that all serious researchers REJECT and REPUDIATE the unsourced FICTIONAL accounts which continue to wash around the Internet. It seems to me that one of the critical things that needs to inform our understanding of Charles ROPER and Elizabeth BUTLER is WHAT CHARLES ROPER's WILL or other probate information actually says. That is really how serious genealogy is done. I think you did a very nice job of lacing together the readily available data. But there has been NO MEANINGFUL PROGRESS advancing the family history of Charles ROPER's family for more than two decades because NO ONE HAS BOTHERED TO LOOK. This is largely a consequence of the continous publication and re-publciation of inherently DISHONEST genealogical information. 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>