Shortly after writing the previous, I found something strange. My Tapley file is a bit disjointed and needs work. It is in segments. One segment is the Loyalist family of James Robert Tapley (which, I believe, is my connection), with other segments dealing with sons of Alexander and Sarah (Hood) Tapley. I take the tentative position that Alexander was the progenitor of all pre-Loyalist Tapley's, and that his brother, Samuel, seems to have left no descendants in NB. For two of these sons, under Alexander, I have:
SAMUEL TAPLEY b. Topsfield, Essex Co., Massachusetts (this seems unlikely, and he was more likely b. Maugerville) ca. 1776.
Probably m. Sarah ____ (b. ca. 1783, d. 11JUN1854 age 71 years), whose headstone, in the Wicklow-Tapley Cem., Carleton Co., NB (near Florenceville), indicates she was the wife of Samuel Tapley.
ASAEL TAPLEY m. MARY _____ (b. ca. 1785)
with separate segments later for each.
For Samuel I have roughly children:
1. JOSEPH TAPLEY b. ca. 1804
2. HENRY TAPLEY b. Fredericton, NB ca. 1806-1811, d. Bridgewater, Aroostook Co., ME 9MAR1877, m. 1st MARTHA _____ (b. ca. 1820-4, d. 10FEB1858 age 33 years); m 2nd 8DEC1853 JANE McCLINTOCK (b. Centreville, NB ca. 1831, d. Bridgewater, Aroostook Co., ME 7JUL1884), d/o William and Phoebe (White) McClintock.
3. SAMUEL TAPLEY b. ca. 1811, m. JANE _____ (b. ca. 1818-9.)
4. SHERMAN TAPLEY b. ca. 1812-3, m. ESTHER _____ (b. NB ca. 1816-7.)
5. EDWARD TAPLEY b. NB ca. 1820
6. JAMES A. TAPLEY b. ca. 1824-5, m. 1st SARAH J. ____ (b. ca. 1831, d. 17FEB1855 age 23 years); m. 2nd V. EUNICE _____ (b. ca. 1831.)
7. JANE TAPLEY (d/o Samuel Tapley) m. 8AUG1829 JOHN RANKIN, lived in Houlton, ME.
I believe I am making some assumptions, and would not state that the list was complete or accurate; but it is likely reasonable. Asa/Asael Tapley appears to have had the four children, Osmond, Francis Dashwood, Hannah and Frederick W. Tapley, and to have died by 1851 when his widow is found in the 1851 census of Victoria Co., NB. Note that I do not have a birth-date for Asa/Asael, but a guess might be ca. 1779-80. This is significant. Samuel is given as b. ca. 1776; on what basis is not clear. There is a garbled story in Upper Canada of an Asa Tapley said to have had a wife, Mary, who is said to have m. 2nd Samuel Tapley; who would appear to be Asa’s brother. What I found just recently was a census entry:
In 1852, in Brantford Twp., Brant Co., Canada West was the family:
Tapley, Samuel Farmer New Brunswick Christian Y 55 M
Tapley, Mary New Brunswick Christian Y 35 F
Tapley, Asa F 15 M
Tapley, Brucilla F 10 F
Tapley, Mary Jane F 8 F
Tapley, Elizabeth F 3
Tapley, Caroline F 2 F
Tapley, Asa Farmer New Brunswick Christian W 72 M
This suggests that Samuel, with a wife, Mary, while possibly Asa's brother, did not marry his widow as Asa's wife appears to have predeceased him. It is likely, however, that Asa did have a brother, Samuel, s/o Alexander and Sarah (Hood) Tapley, making Asa the Asa/Asael who m. Mary Drake. Here, however, Asa is a widower, and Mary, in Victoria Co., NB in 1851, was a widow. While the rational conclusion is that, in both cases, they are Asael and Mary (Drake) Tapley; the conclusion contradicts the census evidence. Nevertheless, these seem to be the sons of Alexander.
This is just so typical of the Tapley's. The Asa in 1852, supposedly a widower, b. NB ca. 1780, seems almost certainly to be the same Asa/Asael who m. Mary Drake, supposedly a widow. The Samuel in 1852 one must assume is related but not likely (just possibly, but not likely) a son of Asa's; therefore likely a brother. But this Samuel is not the one supposedly b. ca. 1776 with descendants in NB and Maine.
This is so perplexing. I can understand the claim to be a widower and widow. I do not believe divorce was an option at the time, and the fiction of widowhood may have been a means of covering up the disgrace of a separation.
I supposed on explanation is that Alexander Tapley's brother, Samuel Tapley, did have children (which creates a whole series of difficulties as the assumption he did not simplified things enormously); and that these are two of HIS sons; with the two Asa's being born about the same time as coincidence. I do think it rather naughty that two brothers of the period would give sons born about the same time the same name. Sometimes I think that they anticipated Genealogy and set up their little pranks.
I am sure this type of confusion is of little assistance to you, but you may spot something relevant, it may serve as a warning and someone may be able to have a resolution.
Notify Administrator about this message?
|Home | Help | About Us | Site Index | Jobs | PRIVACY | Affiliate|
|© 2007 The Generations Network|