Regarding Kathleen's message: I have a copy of both the Will Richmond Co. Va Will Bk 5, pg. 338-9 of John Tarpley dated 23rd day of November 1738, which was admitted to record upon motion of John Tarpley one of the executors... Oct. 1, 1739 and also a copy of the distribution Richmond Co. Account Bk - Part 1 pg 227.... Oct. 8th 1745. You are correct both sons John are mentioned... one as Junior..... the other as Second son of the deseased. John the elder was paid in cash along with each of the other four (4) boys... to wit: Travers, Edward, James and John..... and ALSO to John Tarpley second son of the deceased the sum of Eight pounds ten shillings and nine pence for the slaves that mom decided to keep that were to have gone to son Tertius but he had died. Janean -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Craig Kilby Sent: Monday, September 05, 2011 2:16 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [VA-NORTHERN-NECK] Tarpleys I am pasting two portions of Kathleen's message: On Sep 5, 2011, at 1:11 PM, Kathleen Much wrote: > > Richmond County Will Book 5 (1725-1753) p. 338, > "Item. I give My Grandson John Tarpley the Plantation whereon I Now Live > with all the Appurtenances thereto belonging to him and the Male heir of his > Body Lawfully begotten, and for want of Such to his Eldest Daughter & the > heirs Male of her Body Lawfully to be begotten and for want of Such heir to > My Grandson James Tarpley & the heirs Male of his Body Lawfully to be > Begotten and for Want of Such heir to My Grandson John Tarpley Jr & the Male > heirs of his Body lawfully to be Begotten & so on to the World's End. > John Tarpley Jr was married to 2 Elizabeths. First to Elizabeth Travers, by > whom he had Travers (b. ca 1717) and twins John and Elizabeth (b. 28 May > 1720, NFPR). Second to Elizabeth Ripping, by whom he had Edward Ripping (b > 19 Apr 1727), Elizabeth (b 4 Mar 1728/9), James, John, and Tertius Quintus. This clause clearly shows there wereTWO grandsons both named John. The first (elder) John is given the land and then a line of succession to grandson John, Jr. The John I whose will this is only had one child, John II, the father of all the grandchildren named in this will. > Newman Hall says: " Since the distribution of the entire estate of John > Tarpley does not mention his son John by his first wife, this implies that > this older son John did not survive--very possibly, being a twin, he died at > birth. This observation is in conflict with the statement by King that both > sons, John, by both wives, survived. There is no specific evidence cited, > however, to support this proposition nor any resolution of the > incompatibility it would imply with the above stated references." Newman Hall is wrong about the division of the estate. Both Johns ARE mentioned in it. John the Elder was paid in cash instead of slaves, if I recall the record correctly. Scott has a copy of it. > > Kathleen Much > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message > ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message