Ann, Thanks so much. . . >Yes, I have your Chapman's back toThomas in Eng. born 1590 married to >Ann in England,, married 1618. Son Thomas II born Jourden's Journey >VA 1619, Thomas III born 1642 Stafford, Va. married Eliz. Craxon >1689, >Thomas IV b Mar. 26,1690 Charles City, MD, son Isaac born 1716, >married 1736 Culpepper, d. 1747, son John married to Sallie Abbott >hope you can help with more wives, etc. my son of John is George >married to Patience Clay. [email protected] . . .but I believe you're mistaken. Your info probably comes (ultimately) from George Braden Roberts' Genealogy of Joseph Peck. I'll admit to retaining a fervent wish that Thomas CHAPMAN IV (b. 1690 in Charles Co. MD.) was really the father of Isaac CHAPMAN, my great-times-six grandfather. I grew up in Tidewater VA, and having been told since my adolescence that I descended from Thomas III, son of Thomas II, son of Thomas (b. 1590 England) who sailed to the Virginia colonies in 1610 aboard the Tryall, I would travel up and down the Chesapeake Bay and imagine that I was in my rightful place, in resonance with my distant ancestors. The idea of Thomas IV and sons Isaac, Nathaniel, John and George making their way up the Rappahanock River Valley to the foothills of the Shenandoah in Orange Co. was a source of delightful speculation for me. But when I began my attempts to flesh out the real person of Isaac and to somehow connect him with a Thomas, any Thomas, I began to encounter difficulty. Apparently, the first mention of Isaac being the son of Thomas IV was contained in George Roberts' Genealogy of Joseph Peck (1955). Says Roberts "We now turn to Johnson's History of the Middle New River Settlements in which he mentions that Isaac Chapman was born in Charles County, Maryland." (p. G-4-5) In fact, Johnston (the correct spelling) makes no mention of Isaac being born in Maryland. He actually says "The Chapmans were English people, and some of those who emigrated to this country came from Connecticut to Charles County, Maryland, long prior to the American Revolution. After the settlement in Maryland, and before the beginning of the Revolution, some of them came to Culpeper County, Virginia, and settled. Among those who came was Isaac Chapman, who married, in Culpeper County, Miss Sara Cole, by whom he had three sons and one daughter. The sons were Isaac, John, and Richard, the daughter, Jemima." (History of Middle New River Settlements, 1906, pp. 389-90) Roberts continues: "The records of Charles County reveal no Isaac, therefore, we are convinced that the father of Isaac was born in Charles County, not Isaac himself." But, there is no evidence of this. And further: "Mr. Culbertson, in his Hunter Genealogy and Related Families. . . mentions the children of Thomas Chapman as: Nathaniel, George, John and a girl who married Johnson. To this we would add Isaac." Again, no reason given. Finally, "We are certain that Isaac was a son of Thomas IV" is stated by Roberts, no justification offered. So Roberts claims the following: Children of Thomas Chapman IV: Nathaniel Chapman, b. ca. 1712; m. Constantia Pearson, 1732. John Chapman, b. ca. 1714; he settled in Orange Co. Isaac Chapman, b. ca. 1716; m. 1739; d. 1746-7. George Chapman, died prior to 1760. A girl who married Johnson. But then Roberts states "We have no recorded evidence that the other members, as shown above, were brothers of Isaac and John, therefore, they shall not be considered further in this work." So - we have no Isaac born in Charles Co., but he must be the son of Thomas born in Charles Co. in 1690, who is probably the same Thomas who died in Culpeper in 1782. And although there is apparently evidence that Thomas had children Nathaniel, George, John and a daughter, there is no evidence of Isaac being brother of George and Nathaniel. My conclusion would be that Isaac is unlikely to be a sibling of these Chapmans, or a son of Thomas. But Roberts goes on to state that because there is no evidence that the other Chapmans (i.e., Nathaniel and George) were brothers of Isaac and John, they warrant no further consideration. I find this very sloppy reasoning. Does it strike you as odd that, in a family with four consecutive generations of Thomas, Thomas IV does not name any of his sons Thomas V? Or that not one of Isaac's sons, grandsons, or great grandsons appears to be named Thomas? The strongest evidence against Isaac being a descendent of Thomas Chapman is contained in an 1857 letter by Isaac's grandson Henley Chapman to James David Johnston which reads "My grandfather was named Isaac Chapman; he emigrated to Virginia from England, the year unknown; he settled in Virginia, perhaps in Culpeper County." (Giles County Virginia, History - Familes, Vol. 1, p. 225) In 1927, a Ms. W. P. Miller spoke at the unveiling of a D.A.R. marker in the Chapman graveyard of Giles County. The Perisburg Virginian of March 15, 1928 printed the text, which included the following: "The Chapmans are of English origin who many years prior to the Revolution immigrated to Connecticut, thence to Charles County Maryland. Before the Revolution some of them came to Culpepper County and settled. Among these was Isaac Chapman, who married Sarah Cole. . ." So, I believe I see a developing story about Isaac. First, his grandson Henley says in 1857 that he was an English emigrant. In 1906, Johnston adds Connecticut and Charles County Maryland into the path to Orange County, but cites no evidence. Miller essentially paraphrases Johnston in her address. But suddenly, in 1955, Roberts connects Isaac to the established family of Thomas Chapman in Charles County, disregarding the previous historical notion that Isaac came from England, perhaps through Connecticut, and providing no justification. It leads me to suspect that Roberts felt compelled to graft Isaac Chapman's family tree onto Thomas', thus erroneously stretching his lineage back to 1610. As a result, I've eliminated these Thomas Chapmans from my database of Chapman ancestors. My line starts with Isaac. I've gone searching for his wife Sarah Cole, but can find her nowhere before their marriage or after his death. I hate to challenge a lineage in which you probably took some satisfaction, but I'm rather confident Isaac was essentially no relation to Thomas. Rees PS: I descend through Isaac, John, Isaac, William, Isaac, Rees Cecil. . .