Chat
|
Daily Search
|
My GenForum
|
Community Standards
|
Terms of Service
|
|
|
EXTANT NEW KENT QUIT RENT RECORDS
Your assertion that there are no extant Quit Rent records for New Kent is blatantly FALSE. See "English Duplicates of Lost Virginia Records", by Louis des Cognets, Jr., Copyright 1958 (Baltimore: Genealogical Publishing Company, 1990), pages 163-71. You should be ASHAMED OF YOURSELF for seeking to justify the fraud based upon the FALSE assertion that your fraud is plausible becase there aren't any records to prove your dishonesty. THERE ARE NO ROPERS IN THE 1704 QUIT RENT ROLL FOR NEW KENT.
*
FALSE ASCRIPTION OF YEAR OF BIRTH
You assertion that it is OK to FALSELY REPRESENT a person's speculative year of birth by showing "abt 1660" when nothing more is known of the person's age than the date of birth of a child (which may not even be the first child) is absolutely UNBELIEVABLE.
Any HONEST genealogist would at most represent that the year of birth was "prob b bef 1666".
*
TENUOUS ASCRIPTION OF JOHN ROPER JR AS BEING THE SAME JOHN ROPER LATER FOUND IN CHARLES CITY
Your assertion that the John ROPER who died in Charles City County bef Jul 1737 is the SAME John ROPER Jr. shown in the St. Peter's Parish Register is wholly without support.
The extant probate record shows only that Susannah was a co-executor. Her relationship with John ROPER is NOT shown. Moreover, there is very little reason to believe that the Susan ROPER shown to be the mother of Mary in 1686 was the SAME Susan ROPER shown in the 1737 record.
To the contrary, most honest and serious genealogists would agree that this is a particularly strained ascription. There is a 13 YEAR GAP between the child born in 1686 and the NEXT child which might implicitly be identified as being born to John ROPER Jr. Such gaps most commonly arose in that era when the mother died, most often in childbirth. There is NO indication that Susannah was the mother of the later children. No mother is listed at all.
Then the LAST child born to John ROPER is shown to have been born in 1711. This MIGHT mark the death of a second wife. Or it may reflect the death of this John ROPER. Notably, John ROPER, of Anne Arundel, is KNOWN to have died in Chowan, NC, in 1712, rather precisely the time that the children ceased to appear.
So your means of connecting John ROPER Jr. to the later John ROPER, of Charles City, who (d bef Jul 1737) seems to be to ASSUME that Susannah is STILL ALIVE, despite strong evidence suggesting otherwise, to ASSUME that John ROPER is still alive, despite some evidence otherwise, to ASSUME that Susannah ROPER, listed only as co-executor, is John ROPER's WIFE, despite the absence of any mentioned relationship, and to ASSUME that the other two co-executors, William ROPER and Joseph ROPER, are SONS, despite the fact that the probate record is SILENT as to this fact, too.
*
You have distinguished yourself to be singularly IGNORANT of the New Kent records, to be totally UNFAMILIAR with the other ROPER records of this era which offer essentially NO SUPPORT for your premise and to be unfamiliar with any reasonable standards for genealogical proof.
Any honest and reasonable person who adheres to mainstream standards of genealogical proof will REJECT the specious justification you offer for the FRAUDULENT ascription as to year of birth and connection between John ROPER Jr. of New Kent and John ROPER, of Charles City County. The creation of this FICTIONAL composite John ROPER Jr. has contributed to much of the confusion and setback in ROPER genealogy over the past decade. THIS MYTH NEEDS TO BE FINALLY PUT TO BED SO THAT RESEARCHERS CAN ACTUALLY BEGIN TO ADVANCE THE FAMILY HISTORY!
Notify Administrator about this message?
Followups:No followups yet |
| http://genforum.genealogy.com/roper/messages/1855.html | ||
 |
Link to GenForum Add Forum |
|