Big changes have come to — all content is now read-only, and member subscriptions and the Shop have been discontinued.
Learn more

Chat | Daily Search | My GenForum | Community Standards | Terms of Service
Jump to Forum
Home: Surnames: Pettus Family Genealogy Forum

Post FollowupReturn to Message ListingsPrint Message

Re: David Walker Pettus
Posted by: William Walker Pettus IV Date: January 07, 2002 at 06:48:53
In Reply to: Re: David Walker Pettus by Larry Anderson of 941


In your reply to Linda's query, you have "Thomas [Pettus], the Burgess, was s/o John, s/o John and s/o Thomas Pettyous." Elsewhere in your message, you cited P. H. Stacy as the source of your information.

Stacy actually has Thomas the Burgess was s/o John, s/o John, [conjectured] son of [Col.] Thomas Pettus [not Pettyous]. Stacy did go on to trace Col. Thomas Pettus's ancestry for another four generations to a Thomas Petyous of Norwich, England. Please note, however, that Stacy conjectured that Col. Thomas Pettus had a son named John Pettis, who lived in Old Rappahanock County, Virginia (her pedigree chart shows a "?" between Col. Thomas and John).

In my view, Stacy's identification of Thomas the Burgess's father as John, s/o John Pettis of Old Rappahanock County was nothing more than wild conjecture on her part. Except to show the existence of the two John Pettises by reference to original records, Stacy provided absolutely no evidence for any connection between Thomas the Burgess and the John Pettis whom she supposed to be his father; neither did she provide any evidence whatever for stating that Col. Thomas Pettus had a son named John.

If you know of any reliable evidence that might validate Stacy's conjecture, I would certainly like to hear about it; otherwise, please keep in mind that Col. Thomas Pettus had died by 1669 and that his son and heir, Thomas Pettus II, was an orphan in 1671. Since the eldest son inherited his father's plantations under the rule of primogeniture, Thomas the orphan was evidently the eldest son. So, for John Pettis I to have been Col. Pettus's son, he must have been a later son and also an orphan in 1671. But John Pettis I's supposed son, John Pettis II of Old Rappahanock County, swore in court that he was 24 years old in 1696; i. e., John Pettis II was born in 1671 or 1672, while his supposed father was still a minor. Although such an event is biologically possible, I doubt that it is the truth in this case. What do you think?

I have included a more thorough discussion of the problem of identifying the father of Thomas Pettus, burgess, in my forthcoming book on the history of the Pettus family.

W. W. Pettus


Post FollowupReturn to Message ListingsPrint Message
Search this forum:

Search all of GenForum:

Proximity matching
Add this forum to My GenForum Agreement of Use
Link to GenForum
Add Forum
Home |  Help |  About Us |  Site Index |  Jobs |  PRIVACY |  Affiliate
© 2007 The Generations Network