RootsWeb.com Mailing Lists
Total: 2/2
    1. [VA-SOUTHSIDE-L] Visitation of Gloucestor?? (Baughs)
    2. Hello Everyone: The source for the English ancestry of the Henrico Co Baugh lines that are "out there" on the web, seems to rely completely on: "The Visitation of Gloucestershire, 1623" Edited by Sir John Maclean, F.S.A. and W.C. Heane, M.R.C.S. Eng. published London, 1885 R929.06 qH28 1885 v.21" I would like to know whether this publication is considered a secondary source, primary source?? I have no doubt that the relationship exists, but I don't think the sons, cousins who emigrated to VA have been sorted out at all. If you are a Baugh researcher, William is sited as the progenitor of all us Henrico Co Baughs but that doesn't account at all for the John Baugh buying land on the Appomatox way before William Baugh is. And there is the unanswered question of who the Rowland and William Baugh of Accomac Co VA in the 1600s are, in fact I think I'm the only one who even realizes they are over there. Rowland Baugh is transported and a William Baugh is consistently on the tithe lists. Several Baughs appear now and again in court records. I only know this because I have a whole passel of other folks over there and was going through tithe lists looking for them, and was stunned to find William.) Thanks in advance, Janet Lee (Baugh) Hunter, formerly at Janmim@aol.com, focussing in on John (Thomas Baugh), sons of William Baugh as father of John Baugh d. 1761 in Chesterfield.

    04/14/2001 06:12:24
    1. Re: [VA-SOUTHSIDE-L] Visitation of Gloucestor?? (Baughs)
    2. Paul
    3. The "originals" of the "Visitations" (taken at numerous places during many different years, including those of the years 1630-1640 mentioned by you) are not available for review in London, except by recognized scholars or by special permission. The copies and abstracts of those into popular printed works, such as the 1885 edition you mention, are as "original" or "primary" (whatever that means) as are available to you. Unless there were typos and misinterpretations in the course of copying those records (and there surely were a few) these materials should be acceptable to all but the MOST finicky of reviewers. I have often quoted the printed copies - "abstracts" - of the "Visitations of London, 1633, 1634, 1635"; it too was published in 1885. Good luck. Paul

    04/14/2001 06:48:07