Hi Joyce: Regarding John WATSON m. Margaret DANCE in the year 1750 in Ryton, Durham, England; I also found a John WATSON (maybe the same John) who married a Margaret FAWCASS 1748 in Ryton England. To review, John WATSON was born in Newcastle, Northumberland England 5 Sep 1725. He married Margaret DANCE/DANSON, dau of John DANCE/DANSON on 29 Jul 1750 in Ryton, Durham, England. She was born 13 Dec 1724 in Cadgerway, Ryton, Durham, England. There were apparently two births recorded to John and Margaret: 1. John WATSON b. 26 Apr 1752 in Ryton, Durham, England 2. William WATSON b. 17 Feb 1754 in Ryton, Durham, England. I found the above at www.familysearch.org and at http://website.lineone.net/~pjoiner/genuki/DUR/Ryton/index.html#Census I began to wonder just how common this incidence would be in England: Having a John WATSON marrying a Margaret, having a son named John, and having the marriage year sufficiently close to our estimate of 1748-1750 for our John and Margaret WATSON of Albemarle VA, who allegedly came from England... Then I crunched some numbers: In 1853, WATSON was the 48th most popular surname in England, with a population of approximately 34,800. 1851 Population of England: 17.9 Million Population of England in 1750: 6.2 Million. Population of WATSON Surname in England 1750: I estimate to be 12000. Census records from 1800 show that males accounted for about 48% of the population. Therefore, we can calculate about 5760 males with the surname WATSON in 1750. Now, how many of these males would be about 20-30 years of age? Using the 1830 U.S. census as a guideline, this age group represents about 16% of all males, which results in 922 male WATSON's aged 20-30 living in England in 1750. How many were named "John"? Well, the best data I can find is a bit dated, but I think we can use it for this exercise - it states that between 1540 and 1700 a study of given names in England reveals that 29% of all males were named "John". Wow. So now we have 267 John WATSONs aged 20-30 living in England in 1750. How many of these married someone named "Margaret"? From the same name study as above, "Margaret" was named to 11% of females. If we consider all of the 267 John WATSONs aged 20-30 were to marry, we end up with about 25 John WATSONs marrying a Margaret in England circa 1750 - who are in the same age group as our John and Margaret of Albemarle VA. This is quite a small number, 25, and yet it includes all those aged 20-30, not just the 22-26 range (as of 1750) which is most likely for our John. So the number can be reduced further with the narrowing of the age range. And we can still reduce it further... but how much is hard to tell... For, how many of these John and Margaret WATSON's named their first son "John", as ours did with John "Hightop" WATSON. If we use the 29% figure (which is likely too low, given the popular naming patterns and the father already bearing that name) we get 7. If the father's name is John, then the likelihood the first son would be named "John" is probably quite a bit higher. Now, all of the above is a mathematical generalization, using data from inexact timeframes. However, I think that we can surmise that any John WATSON marrying a Margaret in England from say, 1745-1752 deserves our close scrutiny, given there would appear to be a very small number of possible matches - likely less than 25! When I have time I will look into the Ryton possibility as the genesis for our Colonial line. Happy New Year! Mark P.S. to the Rootsweb Listers: Anyone researching the WATSON surname from Northumberland or Durham England?