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: Talbott Family Genealogy Forum

Post FollowupReturn to Message ListingsPrint Message

William Talbott / Nathan Talbott: Md.
Posted by: John Boman (ID *****8938) Date: February 19, 2003 at 13:45:45
  of 754

              There is a book 'The Descendants of Richard Talbott and Elizabeth Ewen...' by Ida M. Shirk (in the stacks at Md. Hist. Soc. and also available elsewhere) plus a typed manuscript at Md. Hist. Soc. [filing case "A"] by Ms. Shirk which says that William Talbott is the son of John Talbott and Sarah Lockyer, and grandfather of Nathan Talbott - and that seems to have been accepted as true by many Talbott researchers.
              But Ms. Shirk's statement seems to me to be wrong - and I would like to make a record [in part a restament and in part additional conjecture] of my reasons to disagree with the Shirk conclusion, as follows:
              1. The birthdate registered for William in the church record mentioned below does not agree by 5 years with the record of the 1776 census: - and the census nearly perfectly described William's family
              2. The original will for John Talbot (Box 5, folder 8, Maryland Hall of Records ) shows that 'William Talburtt' was one of the 3 attesting witnesses. (This 'William Talburtt' can be identified as Nathan's father); and I believe that it is most unlikely that a testator (John in this case) would ask or permit his 18 or 19 year old son to act as an attesting witness on his will - and especially so where the son is being disinherited ;- and in this connection, I note also that Ms. Shirk mis-stated William's name in her manuscript 'The Talbott Family Records' (Md. Hist. Soc. filing case A) on p. 71 as 'William Talburtt Evans' - thereby avoiding having to deal with the question which is raised here.
              3. John's will described above does not mention Wiliam - which means that if he was John's son, he was disinherited completely if he was alive when the will was executed.
              4. In an era when given names were commonly passed on from generation to generation, the later naming pattern in William's family does not follow the usual mode.
              [5] The church records re John/Sarah Lockyer are in the register for King Georges Parish, P.G. Co., a copy of which is at M.H.R. This may not be a contemporary original , but a very old fair copy of the original, - but in any event, the record on p. 244 shows the marriage of John and Sarah , followed by the phrase 'their children' and then listing the names and dates of birth of the following, namely - Paul, John, Alice, Benj., Ann, Thomas, and Osburn, and the birth dates range from 1697 to 1708 and then they quit. So William is not on that page - and if that was the end of the entries there wouldn't be any question about William.
       But then later, on p. 253 of the same register, there are these entries: "William Talburt, son to John Talbot and Sarah his wife, was born the 13th day of January 1715 - Sarah Talbut, daughter to ye above John and Sarah his wife, was born ye 18 January 1718, Thomas, son to ye above was born ye 20 day of December, 1720"
       And the explanation is this: Sarah Lockyer must have died sometime after 1708, which accounts for the fact that the pattern of a child every 18 months or so was interrupted. There was a 7 year gap while John got married again, by coincidence to another 'Sarah'.        Then there were 3 more children, starting with William in 1715, Sarah 1718, and Thomas 1720. And then in 1735 John died leaving a will executed in 1733, naming his [second] wife executrix; and his will speaks of the fact that his [former] wife had died. [*see endnote] And in the final account for his estate, there is the mention that "Thomas is the heir under age' . And in the probate papers at M.H.R. is the note that Paul objected to the fact that some land had been devised to Thomas, because, as Paul conceived it, it should have been his since it had come from his -Paul's--mother, and implies that Thomas therefore really wasn't entitled to it.. This reinforces the hypothesis that Paul and Thomas were half-brothers rather than full brothers.
       So John Talbott had had 10 children - and of the 10, his will mentions only 6. The will mentions an 'Elizabeth' who isn't in the church register, but who may the the 'Ann' who WAS in the register; and omits to mention William, Sarah, Thomas # 1, and Osburn. And when John died in 1735 the first bunch of children were all adults, and William, Sarah and Thomas #2 would have been underage - and it turns out that Thomas#2 was recognized as being a minor. So they were aware of the problem of under-age devisees., and if there HAD been other under-age children [William, for example] it is reasonable to expect that that he also would have been noted as being underaged.
              So the record shows that John did indeed have a son William: he was of the second marriage, and William -Sarah -Osburn, and Thomas #1 predeceased their father John.
       * The will of John Talbott [MHR box 5, folder 8] was dated the 12th day of April, 1733, proven May 30, 1735 by John Evans and William Talburtt - [ who had been the attesting witnesses, contrary to Mrs. Shirk's statement] and following the usual preliminaries, the will contains the following: " I give and bequeath to my son Thomas this plantation on which I live and to my son Paul the 'o'y'r' [other] part of it bought of Madam Addison after my wife's decease"...

Notify Administrator about this message?
No followups yet

Post FollowupReturn to Message ListingsPrint Message
Search this forum:

Search all of GenForum:

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