This is a Message Board Post that is gatewayed to this mailing list. Author: waroper Surnames: Roper, Goodwyn, Butler Classification: queries Message Board URL: http://boards.rootsweb.com/surnames.roper/1932.14/mb.ashx Message Board Post: Frank: In considering the possibilities and likelihoods as to the disposition of Charles and Elizabeth (Butler) ROPER's son Joseph ROPER, it occurs to me to also mention alternative paradigms presented by a disposition towards an intergenerational rule of primogenitor versus gavelkind. Of course, primogenitor was the predominant English rule for centuries with vast landed estates mostly kept intact and passed from generation to generation with descent to each barony passing to the eldest son. One place in England where there was an early deviation from this rule was in Kent, where a different rule of gavelkind prevailed. In America, the rule of primogenitor was abandoned from a relatively early time. One unique characteristic of Colonial America that tended to discourage over-reliance on a primogenitor rule was an abundance of land, which was coupled with Colonial policies that made settlement and occupation of larger areas, both along the coast and in the interior attractive. As sons came of age, rather than lingering on the father's plantation, policy and tradition tended to favor setting out to seek one's one fortune. This, in turn came to favor a practical tradition in some families of passing the father's legacy plantation not to the eldest son, but rather to the youngest. This seemingly can be seen to an extent in the family of Charles and Ann Goodwyn ROPER with almost all of the elder sons setting out to find their fortunes elsewhere, but with the youngest son Joel ROPER (b 26 Jun 1766) seemingly coming into possession of his father's plantation. Charles ROPER, Jr. (b 19 Apr 1758), lingered in Dinwiddie. It is unclear whether Charles ROPER, Jr., had acquired his own separate plantation in Dinwiddie during his father's lifetime independently, with his father's help or with the help of an indulgent father-in-law (or by way of an inheritance in favor of Elizabeth BUTLER). It matters little as to my core point, as Charles ROPER, Jr., apparently had a separate, independent plantation well before his father's death. I have seen numerous other similar legacies in favor of the younger or youngest sons in the ROPER family including in my branch of the family. When David ROPER (b 1744, d 1808), of Charles City County, died, his eldest sons were already abroad elsewhere and David bequeathed his Charles City County plantation to younger sons George ROPER and David ROPER, Jr. (my ancestor). The latter, though, elected to move into Richmond, where he worked in a bank, assisted in the management of an estate and served as the pastor for the Second Baptist Church, selling his interest in the Chickahominy plantation. I mention the alternative traditions of disposition of family real property by way of a cautionary note as to WHERE to look for Charles ROPER's son Joseph ROPER. You have suggested that Joseph ROPER might have settled nearby and have identified Nancy ROPER, of Dinwiddie, as a plausible candidate to be Joseph ROPER's widow. While this is not an unreasonable argument and cannot be refuted without reference to facts not yet examined and not in evidence (e.g. the Dinwiddie Personal Property Tax Lists and the Dinwiddie probate records), an examination of the model of Charles and Ann Goodwyn ROPER's sons might tend to suggest otherwise. Sons David ROPER (b 29 Jun 1742) and William ROPER (b 26 Jun 1753) seem to have settled first in adjacent Brunswick County, possibly near an uncle or cousins, and then seemed to move to the South Carolina frontier (Edgefield). Son Jesse ROPER (b 31 May 1751) also seemed to settle a little farther away in Northampton, NC, and then migrated to Cumberland, NC, South Carolina, and Mecklenburg, NC. Some secondary sources seem to indicate that Charles and Ann Goodwyn ROPER's son Josiah ROPER (b 26 Apr 1760) might have settled in Brunswick, Virginia, as well. Possibly of relevance to our inquiry into Joseph and Martha ROPER, of Lincoln, Tennessee, some secondary sources indicate that Josiah ROPER married a Patsy WILSON, possilby a Martha WILSON nicknamed "Patsy", on 23 Dec 1785 in Brunswick. I am NOT AWARE of any primary evidence supporting this assertion, but it is interesting if Joseph and Martha ROPER, of Lincoln, TN, are older rather than younger and certain bears some further investigation. There seems to be essentially no information about the disposition and whereabouts of Charles ROPER's son Allen ROPER (b 03 Apr 1756). Perhaps Allen died young. Perhaps Allen had more than one given name. The WILL of Charles ROPER and/or Charles ROPER, Jr., would seem to be of enormous significance to any investigation of this ROPER family, but while a large portion of the family, especially the branches seated in upper South Carolina, continue to bemoan the dearth of evidence everyone is either TOO LAZY or TOO DISHONEST to even look at the extant Dinwiddie probate records. Overall, my core point is simply that to the extent that Goodwyn ROPER was the youngest son of Charles and Elizabeth Butler ROPER, it may very well be that Joseph ROPER set out to seek his own fortune. Where that adventure took him remains unclear. Maybe he ventrued to North Carolina, maybe South Carolina, perhaps Kentucky or Tennessee. But this also bears on another different ASSUMPTION you seem to make in support of your ascription of Nancy ROPER as Joseph ROPER's widow and this is the ASSUMPTION that Joseph ROPER PREDECEASED his father Charles ROPER. While it is certainly true that the disposition of Charles ROPER's Dinwiddie plantation in favor of Joseph W. ROPER might seem to suggest that Joseph ROPER was "out of the picture", this does NOT imply that Joseph ROPER was DEAD. To the contrary, there is evidence that Goodwyn ROPER lingered in Dinwiddie. He may have been the INTENDED beneficiary of the Charles ROPER plantation. Then, Goodwyn ROPER DIED YOUNG, perhaps altering the intended disposition of the plantation. If Joseph ROPER was then still LIVING, but elsewhere, it might be impractical or less desirable to uproot his family to return to Dinwiddie. And thus the passing of the plantation to a member of the next generation might have been the preferred strategy. There is yet one other clue which you have cited in your argument that I think you may be MISREADING. The letter you cite stated: "Cousin Joe is in good health and BOUGHT the land the old lady lived on." Cousin Joe did NOT INHERIT the Charles ROPER plantation, he BOUGHT IT. The extant probate records may show not only the OTHER Estate purchasers, but also the DISTRIBUTION of the proceeds of the Estate to various legatees or heirs. Probate records have ALWAYS BEEN the primary means of doing genealogy. Only since the widespread acceptance within the ROPER family of fraudulent, unsupported claims by the Fictioanlists have these traditional tools come to be IGNORED or suppressed. Nancy ROPER certainly MIGHT have been Joseph ROPER's widow. She also might have been the widow of Allen ROPER or any other of a number of Charles and Ann Goodwyn ROPER's grandsons. The Tax Lists and the probate records are likely to tell. Until someone from this family takes an interest in FACTS instead of fiction, they will continue to wring their hands and wonder where they came from. 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>