Excellent examples, Rick. I'll bet we all have plenty of similar examples. Here's mine, very similar to your examples. When assembling kinship evidence, all versions of the record and associated records need examination. Your example (which you resolved) is exactly what happened in the "official" 1829 Scott County, Virginia, will of John Henry. His will--as recorded by the clerk--states all his assets were to be divided equally among his children and then proceeds to name each child. Unfortunately, the will book copy omits one child, and the original will is no longer available. But loose probate records establish that the "omitted" heir inherited an equal share in the estate with other children of the deceased and those probate papers identify him as "son of the deceased." The Henry researchers were in dispair because of the official will record, but they had not pursued the estate through its probate. Follow the Money; in this case it was both money and land. Kathy On 2/9/2013 7:32 PM, Fredric Z. Saunders wrote: > One thing I've noted in comparing the original loose will with the recorded > copy is that the clerk often corrected spelling and grammar, especially if > the original was a holographic will. One of my ancestors had such a will, > and made a bequest in the original to "Loues" which I know from other > records was Louisa/Louise. The recorded copy (which is what was used in > published abstracts) clearly says "Loves" so many online trees add a child > "Loves." > > I also have at least two wills where the recorded copy skipped a phrase of a > bequest to one child that is in the original. Of course, all the published > abstracts omit that child, and lots of theories have evolved over the years > as to how the family relates--- all solved with a simple examination of the > original will. One such will is in my personal ancestry. The other was for > a client, that the original will broke down a brick wall where they had been > unable to identify the parents of an ancestor. > > Rick Saunders > >