We are in the process of cleaning up and restoring an old family cemetery (first known burial in 1796) in southeastern Patrick County.  Within the rock wall enclosing the cemetery there are several tree stumps.  Two of these had pushed two headstones (husband & wife buried beside each other) out of alignment and very uneven.  Prior to correcting this situation we decided to remove the two stumps which both had the centers completed decayed to below the surface of the ground (as much as 2/3rd or possible 3/4th).  Both stumps were cutoff by a saw at 10 inches above the ground (prior to a 1974 picture of the cemetery that he have) and one stump measured 20 inches across at its narrowest point and 23 inches at the widest at the cutoff point.  The larger stump measured at the same point 26 inches at the narrowest and 31 inches at the widest.  OUR SURPRISE WAS THAT BOTH WERE CEDAR TREES.     I would like some information on the following:        1). How prevalent in Patrick County were cedar trees in Patrick County in the nineteenth century?  Today?        2). How common were cedar trees in cemeteries, and if very, why?        3). Is the diameter of the tree stumps cited above large for this type of tree (Eastern Red Cedar)?  What diameters have you seen?        4).  Can any estimate or guess of age of tree when cut be made from the diameter of the stumps? Larry

I can but speak for custom and tradition here in TN, and our mountain folk feel that cedar is the only ever-green and life appearing of the non-deciduous trees, and is so long-lived and insect resistant that it should be in cemeteries. In fact, virtually all of our country and private burial grounds have several and often one VERY large and VERY old specimen. Your cedars stumps reveal great age. Paul

>> An ancestor surveyed land in southern Virginia in 1706. That is documented, but I don't know where he was before that time. Do you know who would have hired a surveyor and whether or not there would be a record of such hiring?<< If this is documented then you must have the name of the county where the land was located, right? If the Court records for that county are still in existance it will be found in there, in my opinion.. In 1706 it would be Norfolk co., Nansemnond Co. or Surry co.. Norfolk co. records exist. Nansemond co. records were totally destroyed. Some Surry Co. records exist.. Good Luck! G. Lee Hearl Authentic Appalachian Storyteller Abingdon, Va.

Dear All, As usual Paul Drake gave us sterling advice. I would like to add something I learned from My professional historian cousin Dr. Barry Hayes which he wrote in his Carter manuscript and that is the concept of "Community Network Analysis" which was first introduced by professors Darrett and Anita Rutman in their publication "A Place in Time:Middlesex County,Virginia 1650-1750" published New York 1984. This research methodology allows insights to be made on individuals relationships and their kinships through their locally recorded societal network activities which of course can then be extended to other neighbouring societal networks and if done carefully the genealogist can get some good individual ,family and clan information.. John Size Of Hertfordshire in The UK. ---------- > From: Paul <martee@citlink.net> > To: VA-SOUTHSIDE-L@rootsweb.com > Subject: [VA-SOUTHSIDE-L] evidence > Date: 21 April 2001 21:08 > > Thanks for the dozens of splendid comments > about evidence sent to me, all of you. I > found in almost everyone on the list > agreement that labels serve no useful purpose > and should be ignored, except perhaps by > newcomers (and even they learn nothing from > such words as primary, indirect, > preponderance, and the like). I also fully > agree that all researchers should examine > EVERY source (clear or equivocal, reliable or > not so much so) that in any way whatever > tends to prove any measure of kinship or > lineage and should ignore all labels applied > by anyone. Almost all of you agreed that any > single bit of evidence might be called by > several of the catch-words, yet nothing is > learned by using those descriptions. One of > you commented that describing some source as > secondary tells us NOTHING except that such > evidence may not be as reliable as some other > source; how true that is !!! In conclusion, > you seem universally in agreement that we > MUST seek to discern whether the author or > creator of every bit of evidence, now or in > the past, had good reason to know and to be > honest in stating the facts or creating the > memento or writing; that all evidence may be > reliable as to some facts, yet unreliable as > to other facts; that we all should seek every > bit of evidence that tends to prove kinship; > and that conflicting facts must be examined > and weighed in light of human experience and > good genealogical practice, and not because > someone else has called such evidentiary fact > by some of the many labels. Thanks for the > many responses. Paul > > > ==== VA-SOUTHSIDE Mailing List ==== > USGW Archives Pension Project > http://www.rootsweb.com/~usgenweb/pensions/ > > > ============================== > Search over 1 Billion names at Ancestry.com! > http://www.ancestry.com/rd/rwlist1.asp >

Dear List Members: Does anyone know the early 1700s connection between the Phillips families of Bristol Parish, Prince George Co. and the Mason families? Particularly John Mason, who actually lived in Prince George or on a north-reaching branch of Warwick Swamp, and the Masons i(including Col. Francis Mason) in the western part of Surry Co. Thank you. Mary Jane Phillips-Matz

Here is southwest Va. very old cemeteries were marked by old hemlock trees.. When I was about eleven years old I read "Tom Sawyer" and "Huckleberry Finn". There was an old cemetery about a mile from my house which people told me was an old Indian cemetery and there were giant hemlocks growing in it.. I talked my younger brother and my cousin into going down there and digging up some Indians.. When we got within sight of the cemetery I decided we should leave our mattocks and shovels in a fence row and check it out first before we got caught digging.. We walked on to the cemetery and I could read the names on some of the tombstones and I "knew" Indians didn't write in english! We didn't dig into the graves! Some of the stones were for people named Ingle and date about 1779.. The last of the old hemlock trees has now fallen and decayed...the fence which was no good when I was eleven has disappeared and the cattle have tramped the tombstones into the ground.. A Real Shame! I would guess there were 20 or more graves in that cemetery... G. Lee Hearl Authentic Appalachian Storyteller Abingdon, Va.

> | Following the seal (no signature since this > was a copy) where the names of > | the witnesses usually appear it said > "Assigned in the presence of ...." The > | names included Littleberry Bowen, eldest > brother and heir, David Bowen, Wm > | Bowen, Alexander Bowen, John Bowen > (Hughberry), John Thomerson and Mary his > | wife, Matthew Millsass & Agness his wife, > William Drumright. > > How do you know these are witnesses? Does > the entry or record say so? That's the point. I THOUGHT these were witnesses since their names appeared where the names of witnesses usually appear, but the it doesn't say "Witnesses" or "Witnessed by" or "Teste" or even "Signed in the presence of". It says "Assigned in the presence of". Does that mean they were witnesses or that they were potential heirs who were assigning their rights to the heirs that Hicks had named? > If they were witnesses, it may simply be that > all those folks were present at his death. It > may also be that it was a true assignment > before the court of the total rights of the > God-children (I can not tell from your note > here who all were the G-kids and their > spouses). There were only three godchildren named. William Ladd Hicks, Eldridge Bowen, and Polly Thomerson. But there are no commas, so the three names might be William Ladd, Hicks Eldridge Bowen, and Polly Thomerson. Hick's eldest brother Littleberry Bowen was the father of Eldridge Bowen. There were no spouses mentioned for the godchildren. They were probably young and unmarried. The spouses appeared in the list that started with "Assigned in the presence of..." The wives of only the non-Bowen's were given, which might suggest that Hicks' sisters and their husbands as well as Hicks' brothers were assigning their rights of inheritance to the widow Elizabeth Bowen and the three godchildren. I don't KNOW that that's the case. That's what I'm trying to determine. If it was an assignment, then a > deed should appear sometime, perhaps many > years later, for the land that was so > assigned (check the description and the > subsequent deed records). Hicks Bowen's estate remained on the tax lists for many years. We think widow Elizabeth remarried but there's no marriage record. The land seems to have eventually been sold to a Pennington, most likely indicating that Elizabeth had died. This from the tax records. Then, finally, it > may simply be that, since the land was to be > sold with the g-kids gaining the proceeds, > that the land had been sold to those who > received the assignment, thus fulfilling the > wishes of the dead man. You have really not > given us enough facts to be sure what was > happening, however I think the above may be > the core of it all. Interesting!! Paul What I'm trying to do if possible is prove the siblings of Hicks Bowen. I'm not sure if these folks who signed were witnesses to what they knew were Hicks' wishes, or his siblings assigning any rights of inheritance they might have had to the widow and then the godchildren after her death. Littleberry Bowen was certainly a brother, but I'm not sure if the record indicates that the others were probable sisters and brothers or not. I've never seen this "Assigned in the presence of ...." notation before. There was no one noted as a witness to the signature - probably because there was no signature. Where the witnesses usually appear was this "Assigned in the presence of" notation with the long list of names. Farther down and clearly not part of this list of names, John Bugg, Samuel Kirks, and Bressie Bowen deposed that the copy presented to the court was an exact copy of the original will that was burned. I guess in some ways, this is similar to a nuncupative will, but it's not quite the same. A scan of the entire will and all the notations with it from the will book is at http://members.nbci.com/fcharper/hicksbowen.html I wish I could give you more information, but I can't give any more than the exact wording of the record and a scan of the entire record.

Any good legal minds out there? I am trying to understand a rather unusual will. The will was written by Hicks Bowen in 1787 Mecklenburg Co and evidently was kept at the house of William Drumright, one of the extrs. But Drumright's house burned with the will in it and a copy of the will had to be made (from memory? or was another handwritten copy kept elsewhere?) and presented to the court. This Hicks Bowen had no children. He named his wife Elizabeth to inherited his entire estate, and at her death, the estate was to be sold and divided between 3 godchildren. Following the seal (no signature since this was a copy) where the names of the witnesses usually appear it said "Assigned in the presence of ...." The names included Littleberry Bowen, eldest brother and heir, David Bowen, Wm Bowen, Alexander Bowen, John Bowen (Hughberry), John Thomerson and Mary his wife, Matthew Millsass & Agness his wife, William Drumright. Wills don't usually have so many witnesses, but maybe this was different since this was a copy and not the original. The wives for the non-Bowens are given except for Drumright, but none of the wives for the Bowens are given. At first, I thought it said "Signed in the presence of" and these were witnesses either to the original signature or to the fact that they had seen the original will. But the phrase is clearly "Assigned in the presence of...." There were other witnesses who testified as to the accuracy of the copy. What does this mean? Could this be interpreted to mean that these were siblings who otherwise might have inherited and they were assigning their rights to the widow Elizabeth and the godchildren? We know Littleberry was the eldest brother and heir-at-law, but what about the others? You can see a scan of the will from the will book at http://members.nbci.com/fcharper/hicksbowen.html Ignore the part at the top where I noted these folks as witnesses. That's what I thought they were, but I'm not so sure now. The scan with the actual wording is below that. I don't want to read too much into this, but at the same time, I don't want to miss what could be a very important notation. Can anyone give me a legal interpretation of this? Thanks!! Cookie

This is a rare incident, I think. | The will was written by Hicks Bowen in 1787 Mecklenburg Co and evidently was | kept at the house of William Drumright, one of the extrs. But Drumright's | house burned with the will in it and a copy of the will had to be made (from | memory? or was another handwritten copy kept elsewhere?) and presented to | the court. "Wills" containing memories of prior will documents are not true wills in the eyes of the law, and such result in intestate death. Still, however, where possible courts do and have for centuries given credence to the wishes known to have been contained in a destroyed will or writing. | | This Hicks Bowen had no children. He named his wife Elizabeth to inherited | his entire estate, and at her death, the estate was to be sold and divided | between 3 godchildren. He seems to have conveyed to her a life estate (women could not inherit land in VA in those times) and left the legal remainder to the God-children. | | Following the seal (no signature since this was a copy) where the names of | the witnesses usually appear it said "Assigned in the presence of ...." The | names included Littleberry Bowen, eldest brother and heir, David Bowen, Wm | Bowen, Alexander Bowen, John Bowen (Hughberry), John Thomerson and Mary his | wife, Matthew Millsass & Agness his wife, William Drumright. How do you know these are witnesses? Does the entry or record say so? | Wills don't usually have so many witnesses, but maybe this was different | since this was a copy and not the original. The wives for the non-Bowens are | given except for Drumright, but none of the wives for the Bowens are given. If they were witnesses, it may simply be that all those folks were present at his death. It may also be that it was a true assignment before the court of the total rights of the God-children (I can not tell from your note here who all were the G-kids and their spouses). If it was an assignment, then a deed should appear sometime, perhaps many years later, for the land that was so assigned (check the description and the subsequent deed records). Then, finally, it may simply be that, since the land was to be sold with the g-kids gaining the proceeds, that the land had been sold to those who received the assignment, thus fulfilling the wishes of the dead man. You have really not given us enough facts to be sure what was happening, however I think the above may be the core of it all. Interesting!! Paul | | At first, I thought it said "Signed in the presence of" and these were | witnesses either to the original signature or to the fact that they had seen | the original will. But the phrase is clearly "Assigned in the presence | of...." There were other witnesses who testified as to the accuracy of the | copy. | | What does this mean? Could this be interpreted to mean that these were | siblings who otherwise might have inherited and they were assigning their | rights to the widow Elizabeth and the godchildren? We know Littleberry was | the eldest brother and heir-at-law, but what about the others? | | You can see a scan of the will from the will book at | http://members.nbci.com/fcharper/hicksbowen.h tml | Ignore the part at the top where I noted these folks as witnesses. That's | what I thought they were, but I'm not so sure now. The scan with the actual | wording is below that. | | I don't want to read too much into this, but at the same time, I don't want | to miss what could be a very important notation. Can anyone give me a legal | interpretation of this? | | Thanks!! | | Cookie | | | ==== VA-SOUTHSIDE Mailing List ==== | USGenWeb Archives Digital Maps Project | http://www.rootsweb.com/~usgenweb/maps/ | | | ============================== | Ancestry.com Genealogical Databases | http://www.ancestry.com/rd/rwlist2.asp | Search over 2500 databases with one easy query! |

Thanks for the dozens of splendid comments about evidence sent to me, all of you. I found in almost everyone on the list agreement that labels serve no useful purpose and should be ignored, except perhaps by newcomers (and even they learn nothing from such words as primary, indirect, preponderance, and the like). I also fully agree that all researchers should examine EVERY source (clear or equivocal, reliable or not so much so) that in any way whatever tends to prove any measure of kinship or lineage and should ignore all labels applied by anyone. Almost all of you agreed that any single bit of evidence might be called by several of the catch-words, yet nothing is learned by using those descriptions. One of you commented that describing some source as secondary tells us NOTHING except that such evidence may not be as reliable as some other source; how true that is !!! In conclusion, you seem universally in agreement that we MUST seek to discern whether the author or creator of every bit of evidence, now or in the past, had good reason to know and to be honest in stating the facts or creating the memento or writing; that all evidence may be reliable as to some facts, yet unreliable as to other facts; that we all should seek every bit of evidence that tends to prove kinship; and that conflicting facts must be examined and weighed in light of human experience and good genealogical practice, and not because someone else has called such evidentiary fact by some of the many labels. Thanks for the many responses. Paul

I am descended from the Motley family originally from Amelia County. My direct ancestors moved on to settle in Bedford (Moneta), Virginia; some of the descendants of the Amelia Motleys settled in Pittsyvlania County. I would like to hear from any Motley descendants interested in comparing notes. Wanda Wamsley Balducci in Virginia. My MOTLEY family: 1 Motley b: Bef. 1675 d: Aft. 1690 .... 2 Joseph Mottley, Sr. b: 1695 d: Bet. 1763 - 1787 ........ +Elizabeth Forrest b: 1700 d: Bet. 1796 - 1797 ........... 3 Abraham Mottley b: 1718 ........... 3 Joseph Mottley, Jr. (Motley) b: 1720 d: 1806 ............... +Martha Ellington b: Aft. 1720 d: Aft. 06 July 1783 .................. 4 Amy (Mottley) Motley b: Aft. 1750 d: Aft. 1797 .................. 4 Delilah (Mottley) Motley b: Aft. 1750 .................. 4 Elizabeth (Mottley) Motley b: Aft. 1750 .................. 4 John (Mottley) Motley b: Aft. 1750 d: Bef. 1821 ...................... +Elizabeth Dupuy b: Bef. 1774 d: Aft. 1821 ......................... 5 Martha Motley b: Aft. 1789 ......................... 5 John Henry Motley b: 1813 d: 1870 ............................. +Martha "Patsy" (Meador) Compton b: Abt. 1813 d: 08 February 1888 ................................ 6 Quince Motley b: Aft. 1832 ................................ 6 William Motley b: Aft. 1832 ................................ 6 Miles T. Motley b: 1834 d: Aft. 14 June 1865 ................................ 6 Henry C. Motley b: 1836 d: Aft. 1861 ................................ 6 Samuel M. Motley b: 1838 d: Aft. 1863 ................................ 6 John Q.A. Motley b: 1840 ................................ 6 Ferdinand D. Motley b: 1842 ................................ 6 Sarah J.A.V. Motley b: 1845 d: 1945 ................................ 6 Mary F. Motley b: 1848 ................................ 6 infant Motley b: 31 October 1853 ................................ 6 James Daniel Motley b: April 1855 d: 1928 .................................... +Mary Frances "Fanny" Foster b: October 1857 d: 16 November 1917 ....................................... 7 Daisey Motley b: November 1879 d: 19 October 1907 ....................................... 7 Martha (Matty) Motley b: 1881 d: 1931 ....................................... 7 Julia Frances Motley b: 17 July 1883 d: 14 September 1970 ....................................... 7 John Henry (Brud) Motley b: 07 January 1885 d: 25 February 1963 ....................................... 7 Richard Earnest (Keydom) Motley b: 18 October 1887 d: 30 November 1912 ....................................... 7 Mary Edna Motley b: 16 September 1891 d: 09 December 1976 ....................................... 7 Bessie Rosetta Motley b: 09 July 1895 d: 02 March 1964 ......................... 5 Obadiah Motley b: Bet. 1789 - 1821 ......................... 5 Polly Motley b: Bet. 1789 - 1821 ......................... 5 Robert Motley b: Bet. 1789 - 1821 .................. 4 Martha (Mottley) Motley b: Aft. 1750 .................. 4 Prudence (Mottley) Motley b: Aft. 1750 .................. 4 Sally (Mottley) Motley b: Aft. 1750 .................. 4 David James (Mottley) Motley b: Abt. 1760 d: 1826 .................. 4 Samuel (Mottley) Motley b: Bef. 1774 d: Aft. 23 November 1789 .................. 4 Obedience (Mottley) Motley b: Bef. 1775 d: Aft. 1790 .................. 4 Daniel ( Mottley) Motley b: 06 July 1783 d: Aft. 1798 ........... *2nd Wife of Joseph Mottley, Jr. (Motley): ............... +Elizabeth Irby ........... 3 Ann Mottley b: 1725 ........... 3 Elsie Mottley b: 1730 ........... 3 Mary Mottley b: 1734 ........... 3 Joice Mottley b: 1737 ........... 3 Martha Mottley b: 1739 d: Aft. 1775 ........... 3 Judith "Jude" Mottley b: Bef. 1745 ........... 3 Joel Mottley b: 1750 d: 1792 .... 2 Joel Mottley b: Unknown .... 2 John Mottley b: Unknown

One type of evidence I am using is what I guess would be called "evidence by elimination". One of my VA-southside names is Maget/ Magett/ Majett/ Magette/ Maggett/ Maggot. I have compiled an Excel file listing all data (census; wills; birth, death and marriage records; land and tax records, etc.) by location and then chronologically for individuals with that surname. I have files by county and/or state. My branch of the family did not produce the number of records that others did, but I can eliminate those who could not possibly be parents by the various records. At this point I have narrowed down the possibility of the father of Arthur Maget (born 180-1812) to probably Nicholas Maget (son of Nicholas Maget, died 10 Dec 1795 and listed children by name in will) and Mary Jane Carr. Hopefully, some day I'll get to VA to look at will records to increase the preponderence of evidence to confirm my theory. Even with more common names I've found it helpful to analyze data by this method to see where to look next. Gene Ann

I must have missed some mail on this subject, but I'll take the test: In a message dated 4/19/01 4:41:20 PM, martee@citlink.net writes: << Then too, suppose you are trying to prove your Grandmother's birth year. Surely, every one of us would consider ALL of the following bits of information as evidence. So, those of you who think that the labels "primary" and "secondary" please tell us which are which: 1) a Bible entry in her own hand saying 1899. A. Secondary. A person is not a witness to their own birth 2) her tombstone saying 1898 A. Secondary. Who knows who provided the information and the information was recorded long after the fact. 3) her obituary saying 1899 A. Secondary, same reason as Answer #2. 4) her daughter's recollection that it was 1898. A. Secondary, same reasons as above. The daughter has no personal knowledge of her mother's birth. 5) her son's family history saying that it was 1899 A. Secondary, same reasons as above 6) her death certificate saying 1898, A. Secondary. A death certificate is primary source for the date of death, but not the date of birth. 7) the church birth record showing 1899, A. Depends on when the birth record was entered into the church book. If at or shortly after the actual birth, then this is a primary source. 8) her driver's license showing 1899 A. Secondary Source. Not created by anyone with personal knowledge of the event at the time it happened. 9) her own notes showing 1898 A. Secondary, for same reason a person is not a witness to their own birth 10) her mother's Bible record revealing that 1899 Probably a primary source if entered at or near the time of birth. Judge by handwriting, ink used, and date of publication of bible. [11] and her marriage license stating that 1899 was the correct year. A. Secondary. It is a primary source for the date of marriage (or license) but not the date of birth. As the NGS Home Study course explains it, a primary source is a record created at or near the time of the event by a person with personal knowledge of the event with no reason to lie about it. A secondary source is a record created long after the event occured, either by someone who knew the facts or someone who did not have personal knowledge of the event, but was told that fact by someone else. In addition to primary and secondary SOURCES, both can be either direct or indirect evidence. Direct evidence specifically states a fact such as "John Smith married Mary Jones" where as indirect evidence simply implies such a marriage, such as the will of Sam Jones that names "my daughter Mary Smith wife of John Smith." Your best evidence is a primary source that gives direct evidence on the problem to be solved. This is not always available, however. One has to use all the sources one can, but make every effort to get to the "original" source of the information. Hope I passed the test! Craig Kilby

Hello Again Everyone, I completely forgot at TLC Geneaology's Website, they have their abstract (much more complete than Landon Bell's) of Lunenburg County, Virginia, Will Book No. 1, With Inventories, Accounts, Etc, 1746-1762 online here: http://www.tlc-gen.com/LunenburgWillBook1.cfm There is an index link right under the title. Janet (Baugh) Hunter http://www.tlc-gen.com/LunenburgWillBook1.cfm

Sue and others re VA GEnweb Archives resources: I realize you are interested in Lunenburg Co DEEDS, but I just wanted to let you all know that there is a tremendous amount of info in the Lunenburg Co archives at USGENWEB, including the entire text of Sunlight on the Southside, which has some 13 1700s Tithe Lists. There are also other tax lists there. The index for the county archives is here: http://www.rootsweb.com/~usgenweb/va/lunenbur.htm What I could not find linked there is the text of: Lunenburg County VA, Wills 1746-1825, by Landon C. Bell; Parts One: ABERNATHY - HATCHETT, http://searches.rootsweb.com/cgi- bin/ifetch2?/u1/data/va+index+372066902253+F PART Two: HATCHETT to End http://searches.rootsweb.com/cgi-bin/ifetch2?/u1/data/va+index+372167001620+F This is an alphabetized abstract of the will books (names only for the most part). I just doubled checked and those links work. The US Genweb Archives also have a separate by search mechanism, which is here: http://www.rootsweb.com/~usgenweb/ussearch.htm For a Query you can put in Lunenburg and whatever surname you wish. Then make sure that you check off the VA box or all you are going to get is Alaska! There are several volumes of the early William and Mary Quarterlies that are online in the archives, etc. Hope there's something here for you and others out there! I hope you all take the time to snoop around there if you haven't been for a while. Best Regards, Janet (Baugh) Hunter

I should have explained that I'm only interested in some deeds that would have been done before the beginning of the 1800s. Therefore, the 1700s is my main interest. I have some general information on when the deeds were done, but in some cases, I'm not sure which film to order. For instance, if the time span includes 1777, but that year might involve two different films....... I would just like to know which one might be correct. So far, no one seems to own any Lunenburg Co. deed books..... but maybe someone will respond over the week-end. Thanks. Sue ----- Original Message ----- From: <Hdanw@aol.com> To: <VA-SOUTHSIDE-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Friday, April 20, 2001 8:36 PM Subject: [VA-SOUTHSIDE-L] Re: VA-SOUTHSIDE-D Digest V01 #128 > Sue wants to know about one single surname in Lunenburg Co. ca 1700. I don't > that Lunenburg Co. was around quite that early. > > Anyway, this is to let Southsiders know that TLC Genealogy, Miami Beach, FL > has many books (rather inexpensive, because they are spiral bound) on > Lunenburg Co. > Also, for about $5.00 a surname, they will do a surname search for you and > give you the references where that surname can be found--mostly films, but > perhaps also books. > > Their online address > > tlcgenealogy.com > > Look in the upper left for various links. > > E.W.Wallace > who does lots of armchair research > especially with the price of a gallon of gasoline in CA > > > ==== VA-SOUTHSIDE Mailing List ==== > USGW Archives Pension Project > http://www.rootsweb.com/~usgenweb/pensions/ > > > ============================== > Search over 1 Billion names at Ancestry.com! > http://www.ancestry.com/rd/rwlist1.asp > >

Sue wants to know about one single surname in Lunenburg Co. ca 1700. I don't that Lunenburg Co. was around quite that early. Anyway, this is to let Southsiders know that TLC Genealogy, Miami Beach, FL has many books (rather inexpensive, because they are spiral bound) on Lunenburg Co. Also, for about $5.00 a surname, they will do a surname search for you and give you the references where that surname can be found--mostly films, but perhaps also books. Their online address tlcgenealogy.com Look in the upper left for various links. E.W.Wallace who does lots of armchair research especially with the price of a gallon of gasoline in CA

Hi, Does anyone have any of the deed books of this county covering the 1700s? I'm only interested in one surname, and there were very few entries. If you have any of the deed books, could you email me at: shgill@bellsouth.net Thanks, Sue

How correct you surely are, Karen. Unfortunately, those who speak as you mentioned quite usually have never realized that to brand evidence, as "primary," "secondary" or whatever else folks use as labels, serves to prove absolutely nothing, does not convince anybody of anything, and wholly fails to assist any of us in our search. Good genealogists weigh, measure, test and consider ALL evidence, NO MATTER how small and insignificant it may seem to be or how it is labeled by anyone anyplace. Paul KAREN WROTE: ....I have a compatriot who keeps telling me | he doesn't have DEFINITIVE PRIMARY proof--and I keep arguing it sometimes | doesn't exist and we have to go with what DOES exist--whether it's primary, | secondary or whatever! (and sometimes it's just simple logic and a prayer). |

HI, am trying to find proof, that Robert Porter was married to Elizabeth Cox, daughter of William Cox, of Henrico County, Virginia, in the 1600's. I would try interlibrary loan, but need a book name and other infromation. Thanks. Jane McBride