Hello all, I wrote this to the theorygen list on yahoo, which is a group of professional researchers across the US and in Canada. It is open to anyone, but much of it is of technical nature and case studies, not general genealogy on surnames and families. Recently, one person shared a " report" done for her by a firm in Salt Lake City that was extremely careless and uninformative. Part of that report stated that deeds were not consulted as they "rarely include any genealogical information." Needless to say, I was ahast! The rest of this message is a copy of what I sent to the theorygen list. Since it includes records in Essex and Middlesex County, I thought they would be appropriate to post here as well. ______ Hello all, Back to the "report" that we are talking about, and the statement within it that "deeds rarely provide genealogical information" at which I was shocked, I thought I'd provide two completely random samples found within the course of one afternoon at a local court house (Essex County, VA). I was there this past Thursday with a long-term out of town client who happened to be in town on business. When these two documents came up, I had an extra copy made to share with this list. 1. 31 March 1757. Deed Book 28, p 16. Bond. William Kidd of Essex County to Theophilus Faver of the same. "Whereas Mary now wife of the above bounden William Kidd hath Equal Right with her sister Sarah Charles to the half of that land and plantation that John Cooke (Great Grandfather to the said Mary Kidd & Sarah Charles) Lived on which said Land being measured & found to contain eighty acres..." The purpose of the bond is explained because Mary, "now wife" of William Kidd, was not of lawful at this time, but that they had agreed to convey their one-half interest in the property to Theophilus Faver. The bond was the sum of the purchase price, and was to ensure that General Warranty Deed would be executed when Mary Kidd became of lawful age. >From this learn that the "now wife" Mary implies (but does not prove) she was his second wife. We learn that Mary is under age 21, and her sister is Sarah Charles. We don't know if "Charles" is the maiden name or not. We do learn that their great-grandfather was John Cooke. Plenty of good clues to work from on this one. 2. 15 December 1794. Deed Book 34, p. 91-93. Deed. Grantors: John Kidd & Lucy his wife, William Kidd, John Brown and Mary his wife of the county of King & Queen , Benjamin Kidd and Sarah his wife of Caroline County Grantee: Thomas Roane of Essex County This deed conveys 275 acres of land (in two tracts) on Piscataway Creek in South Farnham Parish, Essex County "being those tracts whereon Henry Kidd lately lived and of which he died seized" and to which the grantors are entitled under the last will and testament of the said Henry Kidd." Witnessed by William Wood, John Allen, Philemon Purkins, James Allen. Besides their signatures (all signed with signature) is a wonderful but curious little post script: "P.S. two graveyards Excepted with half an acre of land around the one where the white People are buried and the Privilege of carrying any corps to the same." No further description of the 2nd graveyard but one can infer it was for the black people. It has been several years since I've worked on the Kidd records in Essex County, and my mac whereon all the research is stored is currently at the repair shop. I frankly do not remember if the will of Henry Kidd had previously been found that would have named his children. For purposes of this exercise, let's pretend that Henry Kidd died intestate and that the probate records were few. This deed would have identified his four children, and three of their spouses, and that all of them had moved to adjacent counties and were no longer living in Essex County. In this case, both King & Queen and Caroline counties are "lost record counties." Likewise, marriage bonds for Essex County for this period are not extant. This deed would provide valuable clues for other replacement records to be examined in the case of the spouses. I will here add yet a third example we found the following day in Middlesex County. It was in 1806. This was found in the deed books. It was a deed of trust from one Benjamin Kidd, Jr. & Frances C. Kidd his wife to one Mr. George (probably her brother) of Lancaster County for land, a number of slaves and itemized personal property items. It was due to the "recent unhappiness" of the parties with one another and was basically the equivalent of a divorce settlement. Divorce during this period required an act of Assembly and was thus practically impossible, so this was the next best thing. When this couple married in Lancaster County, Frances C. Tapscott was a WIDOW. We believe from this record she may have been nee George. Naturally, marriage bonds of Lancaster County will be examined for a marriage of a Tapscott to a Frances C. [surname, hopefully George]. Later, in another deed, Benjamin Kidd and wife Frances C Kidd conveyed land he had inherited from his father James Kidd in Middlesex County. We had the will of James Kidd where he had named his son Benjamin but had not heretofore connected as the same Benjamin Kidd who had married the widow Tapscott in Lancaster County (The two counties rare separated by the Rappahannock River.) In conclusion, here are three examples of why deeds are so very important to examine. They do not always include such useful genealogical information, but there is no way of knowing unless they are examined. Even if they do not give direct evidence of relationships, they will almost always give you indirect evidence in one way or another. Deed work should NEVER be excluded from any meaningful research plan. Craig Kilby