Dear Mark, This information comes as no shock to me. I have given a number of years tracking my Irish ancestors. Among the Celts, women were encouraged to enjoy conjugal behavior with other men. If a man fathered a child out of wedlock, that child was brought home for his wife to raise. Divorce was frequent and did not require legal action. I'm not sure the Brehon laws even existed for divorce. This is one reason the English considered the Irish to be barbarians and treated them with such disdain.. However the members of the English Court and, indeed, many of their kings were openly siring progeny with extra-marital affairs. Monogamy has not been especially practiced throughout the ages. I'm sure you have seen court cases in which the father is revealed to assure that the child will not become a burden on society. They weren't especially concerned with morality. None of us can be assured of out "purity" unless we pass the DNA test. In my own family it was a well known but hidden fact that one of my cousins was sired by his grandfather. No one betrayed the truth and he died without ever knowing. I can be pretty sure about my Irish folks back to a point because they were Catholic and the Priests kept pretty accurate records to the point of making a note of bastardy when a christening took place. Even with all that I wouldn't stake my life on it. Remember Kentucky was the Dark and Bloody ground. The early Kentuckians were pretty barbarian until the Great Awakening of religion took place. They had nothing to do but drink, fight and whatever might happen behind the corn stalks. Genealogists can just do the best they can. Wilma ----- Original Message ----- From: "Mark Younger" <Mark.Younger@hilton.com> To: <younger@rootsweb.com> Sent: Friday, December 19, 2008 2:43 PM Subject: Re: [YOUNGER] Source Records My researcher as told me that the Universities of Maryland and Virginia gave him the following info concerning records: Up until about the 1740s (couple of generations) "family" relationships were many times described as generational and not biological. You are using a newer "Puritan" type view of "family" (which was a strict interpretation of the Church of England & only existed in a small region of "New England") and not the actual meaning as it was used at the time (prior to about the 1740s) in the Maryland, Virginia & Carolina colonies by banished low-land Scots Presbyterians and French/Dutch Huguenots. Many of the Younger's where the banished low -land Scots... It was not uncommon for the Scottish (plus the Welsh, Irish & French) to have a second set of children by a much younger wife (one generation removed) and refer to this set of children as "grandchildren". Note that the 1st wife does not have to be necessarily dead ("divorce" after all was an evil Catholic & Church of England edict). When the old man died; the second wife could re-marry (all women had to be married) & a new set of children would be produced. This means that one "will" or "deed" (which could only be executed by a man) could refer to three different sets of children (the word "cousin" did not exist; invented at Harvard for history of emigrants of "Persons of Quality" & etc) by the wife's current last name. But actually refer to a prior "family" under a different name. Note that if the younger wife did not re-marry; she could be referred to as a "daughter" of the old man by the children of the 1st wife. The word "daughter" (and "son") meant different things to different groups of people. Most contemporary docs did not use either word because of the above (or was cleaned-up by various translators and the original no longer exist; see Harvard above & below). This can only be unscrambled (inferred) from the few original (un translated) "wills" by beds who were given to seemingly unrelated women. Beds (wife's), guns (sons) & cows (daughters & grandchildren) were given in that general order; which was the order of the "higher class" of people in England & Scotland at that time. "Whore, "Hore", or "Hure" implies a woman who did not re-marry and does not live with the old man's family. It may not of meant anything other than that someone was insulted by her living alone. But our friends at Harvard took offence & did not "translate" these parts of the original wills (and family Bibles) so we can never know how these extended families where constructed & that "cousins" may have been in fact "half" brothers & sisters inter-related by common mothers or fathers. (This is why there are so many of them in one very small region.) And these "translators" also supplied (or removed) the "son" and "daughter" parts to make it fit the Harvard Puritan view of "Persons of Quality". Also - Most colonial records( many where destroyed) requires some understanding of pre & post Latinized English spelling in three locations; Scotland, England & the early colonies. Example: Youngare = Younger Saruant = Servant Haue = Have Sarue = Serve Seaven = Seven Aleauen = Eleven Henry Frith brought his Saruant Richard Dods to haue Judgmt of this Courtt for his time he is Judged to Sarue Seaven yeares Thomas Cox brought his Saruant Francis Oxley to haue Judgmt of this Courtt for his time he is Judged to Sarue Seaven yeares Tho: Martin brought his Saruant Jno Youngare to haue judgment of this Courtt for his time he is Judged to Serue Seauen yeares Natha: Euitt brought his Saruant John Burcher to haue Judgment of this Courtt for his time he is Judged to sarue Seauen yeares Mr William Hamblton brought his Saruant Elizabeth Grundell to haue Judgmt of this Courtt for her time She is Judged to Sarue Seauen yeares Tho: Heythcott brought his Saruant Michell Foster to haue Judgment of this Courtt for his time he is Judged to Sarue Aleauen yeares Tho: Scellington brough his Saruant George Mackeelling to haue Judgment of this Courtt for his time his Judged to Sarue Six yeares Ralph Dawson brought his Saruant John Stonestreet to haue Judgment of this Courtt for his time he is Judged to Sarue Seauen yeares [ Ref: Proceedings of the County Courts of Kent (1658-1676), Talbot (1662-1674), and Somerset (1665-1668) Counties Pg 454 Talbot County Court Proceedings, 1662-1674 (abt 1669?)] Mark Younger CFM Director Facilities Administration Hilton Hotels Corporation Memphis Operations/Data Center 755 Crossover Lane Memphis ,TN 38117 Tel: 901 374-5458 Fax :901 374-5458 "Necessity is the Mother of Invention" -----Original Message----- From: younger-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:younger-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Wilma (Younger) Norton Sent: Tuesday, December 16, 2008 2:51 PM To: younger@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [YOUNGER] Thomas Younger ... I have eight Thomas Youngers -- these below and a whole bunch more born after 1790. Most, if not all the dates are estimates, most of the information came from the FOTY book or from this List. 1. Alexander and Rebecca Mills had a Thomas who had two unknown wives and about 15 children. 2. One of the children from the first unknown wife was named Thomas born ca 1734. 3. Humphrey and Mary Pell of MD had a Thomas born ca 1712 4. John and Sarah Kennard had a Thomas born ca. 1753 5. James and Anna Nash had a Thomas born March 10, 1761 NC married Mary Nall 6. William and Mary Watkins had a Thomas born ca 1784 married Sarah Brown 7. Unknown parents had a Thomas born ca. 1790 married Martha Crowder 8. Thomas and Mary Nall had a Thomas born bet. 1790-1791 NC married Ellen London. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Roberta J. Estes" <restes@comcast.net> To: <younger@rootsweb.com> Sent: Tuesday, December 16, 2008 2:11 PM Subject: Re: [YOUNGER] Thomas Younger ... >I don't see any evidence of a second Thomas being part of the time between > 1700 and 1791. The reason is that by 1740 Thomas buys the land from > Driscoll saying it was Alexander's. By 1749 Fretwell is involved and we > know > Thomas's early children were "of the half blood" (based on the > estate/lawsuit records) and one of them married a Fretwell. I'd be glad > to > contribute my research notes to Larry and I'm all for cleaning up > genealogy > messes everyplace. I'm very glad someone is working on them. > > Bobbi > > -----Original Message----- > From: younger-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:younger-bounces@rootsweb.com] > On > Behalf Of Mbmackie1231@aol.com > Sent: Tuesday, December 16, 2008 2:45 PM > To: younger@rootsweb.com > Subject: Re: [YOUNGER] Thomas Younger ... > > I have a Thomas Younger b. ABT. 1700...son of Alexander. > > Then a Thomas Younger b. 1798...son of William the above Thomas's > brother. > > (can't be...too much time between) > > I don't think the Thomas b. 1700 lived until 1791. I think there was > another in between him and the one who died in 1791. > > Brownie > **************Make your life easier with all your friends, email, and > favorite sites in one place. Try it now. > (http://www.aol.com/?optin=new-dp&icid=aolcom40vanity&ncid=emlcntaolcom00000 > 010) > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > YOUNGER-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the > quotes > in the subject and the body of the message > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > YOUNGER-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the > quotes in the subject and the body of the message ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to YOUNGER-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to YOUNGER-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message