This is a Message Board Post that is gatewayed to this mailing list. Author: waroper Surnames: Roper, Fincher Classification: queries Message Board URL: http://boards.rootsweb.com/surnames.roper/1903.4.1.1.1/mb.ashx Message Board Post: I want to take a moment to expressly AGREE with the post of researcher David STRICKLAND shown above who contacted me earlier this past week about the ERROR in my post showing Joseph F. ROPER's middle name as "Fletcher." Even absent the specific PRIMARY SOURCE information David cites showing rather conclusively that Joseph F. ROPER's middle name was "Fincher," it is INAPPROPRIATE to simply GUESS at a middle name. There being NO KNOWN RECORD which supports the ascription as "Fletcher," at best any researcher (myself included) ought to have been content simply using the middle initial "F." had we not been alerted to the more thorough research showing "Fincher" as the middle name on the cited land certificate. But were we to STRAY from the KNOWN missle initial into conjecture or speculation at what the middle initial may have MEANT, the single best clue which might be at least suggestive of the given name (absent the land certificate cite by David) would be the maiden name of Joseph F. ROPER's mother. John ROPER is KNOWN to have married Sarah FINCHER. This marriage is shown within the Index to the Mecklenburg, NC, Marriage register, with Jonathan FINCHER, as bondsman, and Isaac ALEXANDER, the County Clerk, acting as witness. See: "North Carolina, County Marriages, 1762-1979 ," index and images, FamilySearch (https://familysearch.org/pal:/MM9.3.1/TH-267-11864-73441-74?cc=1726957 : accessed 23 Aug 2014), 004364137 > image 235 of 1483. Similarly, the actual marriage bond is also readily available at the LDS FamilySearch.org site: "North Carolina, County Marriages, 1762-1979 ," index and images, FamilySearch (https://familysearch.org/pal:/MM9.3.1/TH-267-12399-109563-49?cc=1726957 : accessed 23 Aug 2014), 004364141 > image 268 of 762. * * * While I would NOT support the ascription of a middle name based solely upon the bare speculation that the middle initial reflected the mother's maiden name, I woulld certainly agree that the correspondence of the middle initial to the mother's maiden name might support a WEAK INFERENCE that the mother's maiden name was in fact used as a given name. The strength of the inference would be wholly dependent upon WHICH LETTER OF THE ALPHABET was used as a middle initial. In my view, the inference would be exceptionally weak when the middle initial was something like a "J," which might readily reflect a number of very common given male names (e.g. "John," "James," "Joseph," "Jesse," "Jeremiah," etc.) and would be strongest when the middle initial was a letter for which both given names and surnames were uncommon (e.g. "Q," "U," "V," "X," "Y," and "Z"). Thus, if the Mother's maiden name had been JOHNSON and the middle initial was "J," this would seem to me to provide such weak support as to be essentially NO credible evidence supporting a conclusive ascription, though it might be further support of an ascription based upon another primary source. By contrast, if the mother's maiden name was UTLEY and the son's middle initial was "U" this would support a much stronger inference that the "U" reflected a given name memorializing the mother's surname. The middle initial "F" is somewhere in between, used in reasonably common male given names such as Francis and Frederick, but not nearly as common as "J." Thus the appearance of "F" as the son's middle initial probably supported at least a weak inference that the given name was "Fincher," but any ascription that the name was "Fletcher" would need to be supported by some strong primary evidence. Taken together with the primary record showing a Joseph Fincher ROPER to be the grantee of the parcel, this seems to me absolutely CONCLUSIVE of the matter and UNLESS someone can bring forward some DIRECT PRIMARY EVIDENCE supporting the ascription of the "Fletcher" versus "Fincher," I would encourage ALL researchers to CHANGE their records to reflect the name "Joseph Fincher ROPER" rather than "Joseph Fletcher ROPER." For those of you unfamiliar with honest genealogical proof standards, the appearance of the given name "Fletcher" in some secondary account or compilation, whether digital or in print, is NO EVIDENCE that the correct name is "Fletcher." Instead, this is only evidence that careless or dishonest persons have rushed to publish unsourced information. Those who cling to an ascription because they read it in some printed compilation they found in a library or because they found it online in an unsourced compilation distinguish themselves only by demonstrating at best their own gullibility and at worst their tendency to parrot the frequently unreliable accounts of careless and dishonest family historians! Many thanks to researcher David STRICKLAND for calling attention to MY MISTAKE and showing us a primary record which conclusively shows that "Fincher" is correct! 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>