[This is a bit long, but there is a valuable lesson here] All of are accustomed to using other people's versions of what the original records say. Few of us have the luxury of checking out their accuracy by consulting the original record. And even those of who--like me-- do have that luxury rarely feel compelled to so. Well, I was compelled to so in the case of Anthony Sydnor (Fortunatus-2, Fortunatus-1) and his wife Elizabeth Taylor. Why? Because the published abstracts were clearly not adding up. What led me to conclude that "something was not right" was transcribing an original deed from William & Catherine Sydnor to Anthony & Elizabeth Sydnor. The deed is quite clear in stating that Catherine was the widow of John Taylor and that she had remarried to William Sydnor, and that Elizabeth Sydnor was the daughter of John Taylor (same John Taylor, deceased) and the wife of Anthony Sydnor, and William & Catherine are deeded her dower interests to this property, the remaining ownership being vested in Elizabeth upon the death of her brother Joseph Taylor (who had died.) The deed is even kind enough to tell us that Anthony & Elizabeth were living in Wicomico Parish in Northumberland County, and that William & Catherine were residents of St. Mary's White Chapel Parish in Lancaster County, where! the land was located [and one presumes where they were then living] What was NOT clear were the published records for these people. Talk about fuzzy math. Let's review the published versions of this story: (1) Ida J. Lee, Abstracts of Lancaster County Wills 1663-1800. Will of John Taylor. Names wife Catherine, son Joseph, daughter Ann and "unchristened child." John Taylor's will was dated 20 Mar 1721/2. [I found his original will and this is indeed what it says]. This "unchristened child" turns out to be Elizabeth Taylor wife of Anthony Sydnor. (2) Catherine (-----) Taylor, widow of John Taylor, married William Sydnor in Lancaster County, bond dated 1 Mar 1724/5 (Nottingham, 72). Nottingham's abstract does not call her a widow. Since this was not in dispute or question by me, I have not looked up the original bond. (3) Lee, ibid. Division of Estate of John Taylor 10 July 1737. Joseph Taylor, William & Catherine Sydnor, Anthony Sydnor & Elizabeth his wife "part of HER FATHER'S estate." That was the flag to look more deeply. Here is where it gets tricky--the published version of the marriage of Anthony Sydnor to Elizabeth Taylor: (1) Stratton Nottingham (p. 71). "Sydnor, Anthony SON OF WILLIAM & CATHERINE SYDNOR m. Elizabeth Taylor 3 Jan 1736/7, Thomas Edwards, sec." Keep in mind, Nottingham was abstract bonds, not ministers' returns. The purpose of the marriage bond was to ensure there was no legal impediment to the marriage. Thomas Edwards the clerk of the court, and he would certainly not have been the security for an illegal marriage, which if Anthony Sydnor was really the son of William and Catherine Sydnor here would have been. It would mean that Anthony was the half-brother of his bride Elizabeth Taylor. Further, this William (William-2, Fortunatus-1) had no son named Anthony. (2) Robert K. Headley in _Married Well AND Often--, (p. 340): "SYDNOR, Anthony & TAYLOR, Elizabeth. b [bond] 3 Jan 1736/37. Thomas Edwards (sec.), GROOM WAS A SON OF WM. AND CATHERINE SYDNOR WHO GAVE THEIR CONSENT. REALLY???????? Headley does give a caveat by adding, [The Chinn Book, p. 274, gives groom's father as Fortunatus Sydnor" And yes, in this case--and I know I have not always found this book to be reliable--The Chinn book is correct. Or, at I least I agree with it, and they did apparently look at the ORIGINAL CONSENT, which I did too, which says this (my transcript): "Sir, I desire you grant license for a marriage intended between Anthony Sydnor & [INTERLINED "OUR DAUGHTER") Elizabeth Taylor you'll Oblige your Humble Serv'ts" and signed by both William Sydnor and Catherine Sydnor (not by mark.) and dated 2 January 1736 (1737 N.S.) Thomas Edwards, clerk of the court, countersigned it. William Sydnor was the step-father of Elizabeth Taylor, not her biological father, hence the reason his wife Catherine--Elizabeths biological mother--also gave her consent. Since Elizabeth was born in 1722, she was only 15 years old (barely) at this time, but of marriageable age. Had she been only 14, there would have been a lawful impediment to the marriage. All of which just goes to show, just because something is in print does make it true. And in all of our research, we should always strive to get the originals of ANYTHING. Or, Elizabeth Shown Mills, one of America's most renowned genealogists says, "TRUST NO ONE!" Your Humble Servant, Craig Kilby