In a message dated 12/3/2002 6:04:18 AM Pacific Standard Time, [email protected] writes: > Have you actually looked at the original records? The only thing I > have seen is the transcription done by Chamberlayne and I have never been > convinced that "Mary" and "Marg." actually referred to a woman. I have > felt > that it may have been a misreading of the name "Amer, Amor" by the > transcriber. Particularly since Amor Via does appear later in 1716. I do > not have any record of Amer being referred to as "estate of". Edna, I have not seen the original ledger for St. Paul's Parish processioning records. I'm not sure if they can be photo copied but I will ask. I did get a photocopy of the actual records for St. Peter's showing the baptism of the daughters so maybe the Parish register can also be copied. After reading the information in Men of Matadequin I reread the info in the Parish register. Combing the two it appears as though the processioning order for 1711 listed the land as Marg Via but when the overseers sent in the returns they referred to it as the land of Amor Via. If the estate had not been distributed because there were children not of age this makes sense. In name the land still belonged to Amer even though he was deceased. The thing that does bother me and I do not have enough knowledge on the subject to know why...is why is a Mary or Marg Via listed and she is not referred to as widow. Several entries for other women list them as Widdow Thompson, etc. What would the reason be that IF Marg was the widow of Amer why would she not be listed as Widow? This is one of those questions that nag me. Judy