Corrected Pedigrees

by Jeff Carr

In the last several years, it has come to my attention that many people continue to perpetuate incorrect, unsubstantiated pedigrees on their charts. I have noticed these among the correspondence of people who have written to me for assistance, or in the pedigree charts published by ARFHS. In most cases, such mistakes can be traced back to published sources. Unfortunately, they also share the fact that most of these published sources lack much hint of documentation. Sometimes, incorrect genealogies are created by "factualizing" someone's suggested, working theory on a family. I once met a couple who had spent their last several years of research chasing and trying to document the maiden name of their ancestress, Abigail, the wife of John Carr Sr. I had the unfortunate task of telling them that their efforts had quite surely been in vain. I knew so because I was the one who had made the off-the-cuff comment about the possibility of her maiden name having been Veach, and had since pretty-well ruled it out. What happened was that the relative to whom I had made the comment in the first place, passed this on after several years as if it were fact. To the original couples' credit, they were trying to document this free-floating "fact." Other times, an author has presented data with a tentative "maybe" or "possibly," or sometimes with an explicit disclaimer that this is just a working theory and should not be entered onto family ~group sheets or pedigree charts; yet somehow, readers ignore this and pass it along as fact.

It isn't my intention to come across as heavy-handed, or holier-than-thou. I have made all of these mistakes at some point in my genealogical excursion. In fact, one the corrections described below is of my own mindless mis-contribution to a local family history. I simply want to help correct some lineages that we share. I have come to the conclusion that we need to balance our enthusiasm and curiosity in pursuit, with responsibility in reporting what we find and eventually put into print (whether published or our own data sheets). Listed below are some of the more widespread mistakes which I have seen. While this article does not allow the space for full elaboration and documentation of these families, I hope to review enough documentation or refutation that others may credibly weigh what I have presented. In the case of changing a lineage (as opposed to simply refuting a claim), researchers should find enough clues and references herein to eventually come to the same documentable conclusion.

Carr. The first of these corrections deals with the Carr family. In apparent deference to his wife, Homer Fansler included an individual section on the Carr ancestry, which was grossly inaccurate, in his History of Tucker County (1962). Firstly, he repeated the mistakes of his contemporary, Doane Lambert, who had also included a subsection on the Carr family in his History of the Lambert Family (1958). Doane Lambert got off-track when he incorrectly transcribed the will of John Conrad (in Hardy County) to have been that of Conrad Carr; thus, any account of the next generation therein were never Carrs in the first place. Lambert made other mistakes in the Carr section as well. Homer Fansler added to this some mistakes of his own. Fortunately, the Carr family has produced many researchers and most of them have recognized these sophomoric mistakes. A more accurate account of this family can be found in the recent Randolph Co., WV Past and Present. Careful study of the censuses, quit-claim deeds, and tax lists has greatly clarified this family.

Fansler. Naturally, Homer Fansler discussed the ancestry of his own family. While I cannot comment on the latter generations, he made some mistakes in the earliest generations. Henry Fansler was in fact the son of Dietrich and Elisabetha Margaretha (Stone) Fansler. However, Henry did not marry Sarah Elizabeth Stone, nor did she ever exist. Henrich Ferntzler married Elisabetha Adam on March 24, 1789 at Schwartzwald Reformed Church in Cumru Twp., Lancaster Co., PA. Soon after, Henry, his parents, and siblings removed to Shenandoah Co., VA. Henry's father, Dietrich Firnssler, married Elisabetha Margaretha Stein [Stone] on July 6, 1760 at Trinity Lutheran Church, New Holland, Lancaster Co., PA. The marriage record indicates that he was the "son of the late Matthias Firnssler, late of Cummeri [Cumru Twp.]," and that she was the daughter of Sebastian Stein. Another, less well done transcription of that church record incorrectly identified "Sebastian" as Dietrich's father. As it turns out, Sebastian Stein was also the father of the Henry Stone that settled in Pendleton Co., WV, whom Homer Fansler had suggested as the ancestor of "Sarah Elizabeth Stone," the incorrect wife of Henry Fansler. As a side note, the Peter Stone who married Mary Ann Waggy in Pendleton, was actually Peter Stone Jr., a grandson of Henry, rather than a son. To Homer Fansler's credit, he accurately identified the immigrant Matthias Fansler as one of five possible fathers of Dietrich Fansler.

Another correction to the Fansler genealogy comes from research into the Carr family. Homer Fansler reported that the wife of Peter Fansler (son of Henry) was Rebecca Bonner [b.1806]. However, Bonner genealogists have never included Rebecca in their family groups. It now appears that Peter Fansler's wife was Rebecca Carr, an illegitimate daughter of Christianna Carr, who was the oldest daughter of John Carr Sr. Christianna Carr later became a housekeeper and consort of Isaac Booth of Belington. Christena Carr left a will in Barbour County and named Rebecca "Phansler" as one of her legatees, though no relationship was specified. This was clarified by a January 1813 bind-order in a Randolph County Court Minute Book (2A, p. 157, 164), in which "Overseers of the Poor order Rebecca Carr, orphan of Christina Carr, be bound to Samuel Bonner." Samuel was a younger brother to the William Bonner who married Jemima Carr, Christianna Carr's next younger sister. Two months later that order was rescinded and she was bound to Ebenezer Flanagan. About this same time, Christianna Carr began living with Isaac Booth. He was a representative to the Virginia Legislature in 1822, and some constituents filed a legislative petition [on file at the Va. Archives] to have him removed due to his immoral conduct. It is therein that she was called his housekeeper (among other names) and how long they had been together; there is also report that he had children living with him that he wasn't sure were his, which was why he wouldn't marry her. The 1820 Census does not suggest that Rebecca was with them; ultimately, in his will, Isaac Booth claimed paternity of the children born from 1812 on. I do not believe that Isaac Booth is Rebecca's father. Given that illegitimate children were often known in the community by both their mother's and their father's surname, it is remotely possible that her father was, in fact, a Bonner. However, no such man has been identified.

Mullenax. This mistake is mine. In 1990 I wrote an article (among others) on the Mullenax family for the new History of Pendleton County, WV Past and Present. Even though I had just researched and clarified some errors in the historical organization of the earliest generations of this family, I unfortunately perpetuated the confusion, and even added to it. James Mullenax (ca.1764-1814) had two wives: Mary Arbogast (m.1785) and Mary Yeager (m.1795); there has been much confusion about whom the mothers were of his children. Historically, Mary Arbogast was believed to have been the mother only of Abraham, the oldest child; the rest belonging to Mary Yeager. This is incorrect, and it is what I perpetuated in the article. A simple study of all the children's approximate ages (via censuses and tax lists) clearly showed that all of the oldest children were born prior to 1795, and thus belonged to Mary Arbogast; those children were Abraham, Rachel, Jacob, William, and Joseph. Only the youngest son, George (b.1796) was born to Mary Yeager. In addition to the census logic, evidence that George was the only son of Mary Yeager is further suggested by a court case after his mother's death. After James Mullenax's death, Mary (Yeager) Mullenax remarried Henry Simmons, who was a slave owner. At Henry Simmons' death, some of the slaves were left to his widow, Mary. At Mary's death, George contested his Simmons step-siblings' claim to the slave portion of her estate. In the course of this, George seemed to claim that he was the sole heir [biologically] of his mother, and therefore was the only person entitled to her estate. The case was appealed, and at length, George lost his claim, apparently due to the fact that the slaves had originally belonged to Henry Simmons.

In addition to this perpetuation, I irresponsibly suggested that maybe Joseph Mullenax had been an illegitimate son of Mary (Mullenax) Cutlip (a sister to James, above), and that Joseph might have married as "Joseph Cutlip" in Pendleton in 1820. Based on a study of genealogical correspondence, his personal property tax lists, and his interactions with the family, I now have little doubt that Joseph was the son of James and Mary (Arbogast) Mullenax; he married his cousin, Catherine Arbogast, a daughter of Michael Arbogast Jr. Part of what made Joseph's placement difficult was the fact that he was just coming of age as his father died, thus it was not easy to follow him in the tax lists of his father, and that Joseph soon moved to Ohio.

Cunningham/Peterson. I have had multiple contacts with researchers who descend from James and Agnes Cunningham of Pendleton, Bath, and Randolph Counties. Based on some great research, and ensuing articles by the late Mary Harter, their family has been much clarified (The Virginia Genealogist, Vol. 29, #1, #2). She meticulously documented the early Cunningham relationships, especially through land transactions. She reviewed proof that the Mary Cunningham who married Isaac Hinkle in 1781 was the daughter of the John Cunningham who had been killed by Indians in 1758. She further reviews circumstantial evidence that John's widow was the Mary Cunningham who married Sylvester Ward, and that James was another of Mary (Cunningham) Ward's children. Some notably missing evidence is any record that John Cunningham's wife was named Mary, or that the Mary Cunningham who married Isaac Hinkle was the daughter of Mary (Cunningham) Ward. There is also the potential inconsistency in dates wherein the mother Mary Cunningham was supposed to have been captured by Indians in 1757-8, yet she bought land in 1761; most of those captives were not returned until 1764. While all of the assertions in the article may be true, has anyone explored the possibility that Mary Ward may have been born a Cunningham (?sister to John Cunningham?) and was not a widow, with James being an illegitimate son.

The point of correction that I want to address is the Cunningham-Peterson connection. Mary Harter referenced Junkins' The Henckel Genealogy report that Isaac Hinkle's wife was the daughter of John and Mary (Peterson) Cunningham. As was often the case, the Junkins' did not reference any source for that information, thus making it suspect and undependable. Later in her article, Mary Harter was careful to place a question mark in front of Peterson as the maiden name for Mary, the wife of John Cunningham. Three paragraphs later, Mrs. Harter wrote:

While it is only tradition that Mary, the mother of James Cunningham, was a Peterson, the continued close association surely supports this identification. If (italics and bold added] Mary was a Peterson then she definitely belongs in the family following . . ."

What a powerful word, "if." Mrs. Harter continued by elaborating on the family of John Jacob Peterson, an early South Branch settler in Hardy County, who had emigrated from Switzerland as Hans Joggi Bidert. In the Peterson family records, which are quite good for that time period (ca. 1750), there is no record or rumor of a daughter Mary married to a Cunningham. There was a daughter named Ursula, for which there is no further adult record, whom they suggest never returned from Indian captivity. Mary Harter made the preposterous suggestion that since "Maria" is the commonly given first name for many girls in Germanic families, Ursula must have been "Maria Ursula," and became known as Mary [Cunningham]. This is no different than having an ancestor named John, finding a family of that given surname that has a son named Valentine, then concluding that this must be your ancestor, since most Germanic sons had Johann as their first given name! In addition to this, only 36 years separates the birth of Ursula Peterson and James Cunningham's oldest child, which narrows in practical terms the possibility of her having been James' mother. Mary Harter also sidestepped the obvious conflict of James Cunningham's traditionally reported birth date of 1741, and Ursula' s of 1731. This really was unlike Mary Harter to have made such a ridiculous jump, and taints an otherwise excellent article. As strange as that was, it is even more frustrating that other readers/researchers uncritically added this lineage to their charts.

Via some incidental researching, the genesis of Mrs. Harter's suggestion may have been found. In her book The Hammers and Allied Families of Pendleton County, WV (1950), Elsie Byrd Boggs reported (p.2) that the Petersons were "sometimes called Pedroes." While it is true that the Bidert family underwent several varietal name changes to Peterson, including Peters, I have not found any evidence that the Petersons were ever called Petro. Most of what Mrs. Boggs recounted were family traditions. She later (p.23) told about the Cunningham family, and the Petro family that came about the same time; ". . . their [Petro's] daughter became the wife of John Cunningham." Mrs. Boggs went on to recount the Indian captivity. With family traditions, it is hard to tell what is accurate and what gets garbled after 200 years. It is also unclear if the family legend was "Petro" and Mrs. Boggs changed it to Peterson, or if the legend was Peterson and changed it to Petro. As many in Randolph County know, there is a distinct family named Petro. They first settled in Hampshire County, and moved to Randolph County in the late 1700's. I ran across a brief narrative of that family, by James H. Petro of Chillicothe, OH; it is interesting to note that three members of the Petro family were also taken captive by Indians. He did not mention any connection to the Cunninghams. Their generational time-frames would not seem to accommodate Mary (Cunningham) Ward.

Another Peterson connection comes through the William and Mary (Bennett) Peterson family of Lewis County. A book by W. H. Peterson claims that William Peterson was of Swedish descent, the son of Lawrens Peterson; the author claimed that Lawrens married Nancy Jones and settled on the South Branch. Unfortunately, a rather imposing tombstone recounts this in a cemetery at Vandalia in Lewis County. There is absolutely no evidence of a Lawrens Peterson anywhere near the Hampshire County area. In fact, the available evidence suggests that William descends from the same Peterson family described above. While I have yet to find any proving evidence, William's circumstantial evidence (mostly tax lists) always place him in proximity to that family. Given William's approximate birth date of 1762, he was of the generation to have been a grandson of John Jacob Peterson/Hans Joggi Bidert Sr. Jacob Sr. had three sons: Jacob Jr., Martin, and Michael. The families of Jacob Jr. and Martin are fairly well documented. However, we can't just assume that William was a son of Michael, due to our lack knowledge of all the relationships and possible illegitimate relationships. In that same book by W.H. Peterson, a Henry Peterson was reported as a brother to William. Oddly enough, I know of no evidence of a Henry in relation to the Hardy-Hampshire County family. Henry Peterson was reported to have come to Lewis County in 1816 from Cumberland, MD; this may be accurate, and there may not have any relationship between William and Henry.

Bennetts. Over the years, a variety of mistakes have been passed along about the Bennett family. One of the more persistent ones comes from The Holt-Bennett Family History (1974). This book refers largely to the Holt family and a few other of the author's related families. Only thirty pages of it refer to the Bennetts, and those trace the descendants of William and Rebecca (McCauley) Bennett. Of this, one paragraph recounts the Bennett ancestry of William Bennett. It reports that Joseph Bennett Sr. of Pendleton County was the son of a William Bennett who was born in England in 1668, and that William married Elizabeth Lee. They supposedly had a son, Joseph, who was born in 1695 in New Jersey, married a Mary Vernon, and died in 1767; this is supposed to be our Joseph Sr. No evidence or references to support corroborate these are given; this, of course, makes it totally unreliable. The last bit about Joseph is completely refutable; it is incredibly unlikely that he was born in 1695, had kids in the 1745-68 range, and was living as late as 1804 in Harrison County. We know that Joseph Bennett Sr. did not die in 1767. However, once again, some researchers have uncritically added these purported ancestors to their charts without verification. While those people (William and Elizabeth, Joseph of 1695, and Mary Vernon) may have existed, no one has yet offered any documentable evidence, or connected them to our Pendleton County family.

The late Mary Harter did extensive research on the Bennett family, and sold manuscripts of her research in the late 1970's. Since that time, several of us have continued to research this family and the progress has been slow. At present, our research has taken us only as far back as Joseph Sr., and then not always definitively. Another Bennett mistake that has continued to have a seemingly immortal life of it's own came from The Henckel Genealogy, and The Henckel Genealogical Bulletin. Without going into the myriad of details, the wife of Joseph Bennett Jr. was given as Hannah Elsworth. This has been refuted and corrected in both The Henckel Bulletin and this journal, and in much correspondence by those who continue to advance the research on the Bennett family. However, some researchers continue to carry the Elsworth name on their sheets; it should be removed. Evidence has been reviewed that suggests that Hannah's maiden name may have been Starnes. Corroborating public-record evidence of this, and her parentage have yet to be found.

Helmick. Once again, a mistake from the Henckel Genealogy persists; given the recent reprint of that book, it seems likely to continue. It was there reported (p.222) that Jacob Helmick Sr.'s descendants could probably [italics added] trace their ancestry to a Jacob A. Helmick, born 1712, of Richmond Co., VA. Again, no supporting references were given, nor has any supporting evidence been found. At present, four contemporary Helmick men have been found in the Allegheny highlands region: Jacob Sr., Philip Sr., Adam, and John. All of them were born before 1765. The earliest records of them found thus far date from the last quarter of the 1700's. While those four were probably closely related, no evidence has been found to suggest that those relationships actually were. Many have believed that they were brothers, but no evidence has been found to verify this. Neither has any evidence been found to suggest whom or where the preceding generation might have been. With the succeeding generations from those pioneers, work is in progress by family researchers to establish which families/descendants belonged to which pioneer; there are quite a few currently unplaced members in this family.

Teter. This one may be old news. It was once widely circulated that George Dieter/Teter, the progenitor of the family in Pendleton, had once lived in Frederick Co., VA on Opequon Creek. The well-known Rev. John Casper Stoever baptized several children of a George Teter at that place in the 1730's; these were published in Early Lutheran Baptisms and Marriages in Southeastern Pennsylvania. Those baptisms belong to another contemporary George Teter that did live at that place. His descendants migrated westward along the Valley of Virginia, and were living in the New River area by the Revolutionary War. The George Teter that was the ancestor of the local family has been documented as having lived in old Orange Co., VA, now Madison County, during the 1730's and 1740's. He died there in 1744. Again, this has been correctly reported in other publications such as the Henckel Bulletin and the Teter Descendants of Hans Jorg and Maria Dieter, by Eva (Teter) Winfield (1992). However, some readers of this journal may not have had access to those works.

Lamberts. The Lambert family of Tucker, Randolph, and Pendleton Counties was reviewed in the aforementioned History of the Lambert Family (1958). It was there reported that John Lambert Sr. (d. 1804) of Washington Co., MD and Randolph and Pendleton Counties, WV was the son of a George Lambert Sr, and grandson of a Matthias Lambert of York Co., PA. Thus far, no one has found proof that John Sr. was the son of George Sr.; it is true that they lived adjacent one another, and appear to be of succeeding generations, but this is not proof. There were other Lamberts in the Washington and Frederick County area. Nor has it been proven that George Lambert Sr. of Washington Co., MD is identical to the George Lambert that was named in the will of Matthias Lambert of York Co., PA. These do seem probable identifications, but there is a substantial lack of connective evidence between them.

In addition to this, the earliest generations of the Pendleton County Lamberts in that book contain numerous errors. The first and most glaring is when it was reported that James Lambert, son of John Sr., left a single son named John, to be raised by John Lambert Jr. This "single son" was reported to have married Winnie Nelson, and raised a family in Pendleton County, from whom the Lamberts of Tucker County largely descend. Firstly, the initial "single son" claim is easily refuted when one considers that James Lambert (b.1758) could not have had a son born in 1762! In reality, the "single son" John and John Jr. were one-and- the-same person. John Lambert Jr. first married Nancy ---, and had three children: Elizabeth, John, and Mary. He then left his wife and family around 1800, and "ran off' with Winnie (Nelson) Summerfield, and they commenced producing a family. Eventually, John Lambert was called to the Pendleton County Court (1813) for living in adultery with Winnie. They never married, possibly because Winnie never got a divorce from her first husband, Joseph Summerfield (though that didn't stop him from remarrying). Another omission in the history of the Lambert family is that George Lambert, youngest son of John Sr., had another mate and family prior to Eleanor Johnson and their family. The evidence suggests that George Lambert first lived with Jane Warner, from about 1800 to 1810-11. They had at least five children together: John, James, Zebedee, Solomon, and Elizabeth. George's 1810 Census enumeration supports this identification (excepting Elizabeth, who was born in late 1810-1). In addition, some Warner families in Pendleton County have a family tradition that they were "all supposed to be Lamberts"; those families can, in fact, be traced back to Jane Warner. In addition, at death, two of her sons' fathers were reported to have been "George." For unknown reasons, George Lambert and Jane Warner separated around 1811. George then paired-up with Eleanor Johnson, a daughter of Richard Sr. and Nancy (Howell) Johnson. Family descendants have tried for years to find their marriage; given George's behavior with Jane Warner, I will be surprised if researchers ever find a marriage record for him to Eleanor.

Friend. For years, the family legend has been handed down that this family descends from an old English sea captain named Nicholas. In some stories, he probably lost his life when the ship ran aground and he went back to save (and did) his youngest son. Quite romantic and heroic, don't you think? It's also quite incorrect. These traditions were passed through the branch of the family that settled in Garrett Co., MD. It should be noted that within this erroneous legend, there were quite a few elements of the truth, as is often the case. This account was locally published in Indian Blood (1967). However, there were also family members there that claimed the family had come from Sweden. Even the English sea-captain version contained allusions to family connections to Swedes. Sweden is, in fact, the true European origin of the family. Dr. Peter S. Craig of Washington, D.C. has published an excellently researched and documented manuscript of the Friend family, up to the early 1700's. After reading the accurate account of this family, it is interesting to look back to the family legends; one can then see the truth peeping through.

Dr. Craig has identified the earliest American ancestor as Nils Larsson Frande, who came to New Jersey by 1650. For those unfamiliar with researching Scandinavian families, their names followed the principles of patronymics; Nils' sons and daughters would become known as ---- Nilsson and ---- Nilsdaughter, respectively. Dr. Craig has further identified Nils Larsson Frande's wife, and their ten surviving children. Contrary to family legend, Gertrude, the grandmother of Declaration of Independence signer John Morton, was not one of the daughters. The Garret Co., MD Friends descend from Nils' son Johannes Nilsson, or John Friend, as he came to be known. The Pendleton and Randolph County branches of this family descend from Israel Friend, who died in Frederick Co., VA. Israel Friend was the son of Anders Nilsson Frande, or Andrew Friend, the oldest surviving son of Nils Larsson Frande. Copies of his manuscript can be bought from Dr. Peter S. Craig; 3406 Macomb St., N.W.; Washington, D.C. 20016-3160.

Harper. For years now, it has been widely circulated that wife of Jacob Harper (a son of Philip Harper Sr.) was Margaret Simmons. This does seem likely, and has been based solely on the recollections by Susanna (Skidmore) Harper, the wife of Nicholas Harper, a son of Jacob and Margaret. These recollections were recorded by her son, Dr. Eli Akim Harper of San Diego, CA, in the 1880's. The erroneous portion of Margaret (Simmons) Harper's story are the birth and death dates that have been attributed to her. In Grave Register, Pendleton County, WV, 1977, p.78, she was reported to have been buried in Cemetery #28, near Solomon's Chapel on North Mountain. Her purported tombstone was interpreted to have read "Decd. Nov. 9, 1847. Age 96Y-6M-7D." There were many discrepancies with this. Some of these were: 1) she wasn't buried with her husband; 2) such an age would have made her 48 when her youngest child was born; 3) no record could be found of her after 1820. With this last one, she did not sign with her husband on deeds in 1821 and 1824, she was not mentioned in his estate proceedings, and she could not be found on the 1830 and 1840 Censuses with family, friends, or neighbors. The reason for all of these discrepancies is that the tombstone does not belong to Margaret (Simmons) Harper, the wife of Jacob Harper. Nedra Brill, editor of The Henckel Genealogical Bulletin recently re-examined the stone, and concluded that the dates read: "Decd Nov 9 l867, age 16Y 6M 7D" Such a date matches Margaret Harper, the probable daughter of Aaron and Hannah (Hedrick) Harper; Aaron was a son of Moses, and grandson of Jacob and Margaret (Simmons) Harper. In the 1860 Census, the family of Aaron was scattered. His wife appears to have died, and he was living with Michael Hinkle; daughter Mahulda (age 14) was living with Esau Hinkle, as was Margaret Harper, age 10. This census enumeration closely matches the birth date reported on the tombstone, and the following circumstantial information. There is no further record for this Margaret Harper. As it turns out, Michael Hinkle used to own the farm where Margaret Harper's tombstone is. Given the logic of these circumstances, and the illogic of it being Margaret (Simmons) Harper, one must conclude that the tombstone belongs to the probable daughter of Aaron Harper.

Nelson/Starns. An amazing number of researchers descend from the Nelson family of Pendleton County. Oren Morton, in his History of Pendleton County, WV, suggested that the Nelson patriarch, John Nelson, had married Sarah Stearns. He did not offer any evidence for this, as the nature of his work did not permit space to do so. Given this situation, researchers have been left to their own devices to account for this. As any researcher of Pendleton families knows, Lyman Chalkley's Chronicles of the Scotch-Irish Settlement of Virginia is a great source of information. Chalkley's work included information on Frederick Sr. and Mary Starnes/Sterns that settled on the New River in the 1740's in western Virginia. Well, researchers tentatively wondered if they could be the parents of Sarah Stearns. As has been noted previously, such tentativeness (and the accompanying question marks on a group sheet) fade after several years, and such information begins to look like fact. Unfortunately, I was one of the researchers that wondered, mostly verbally, but sometimes in writing, if Sarah was the daughter of Frederick and Mary Starnes. My wondering was wrong; they are not Sarah Nelson's parents.

In fact, there is no evidence known at this time to connect Sarah to the family of Frederick Starnes. A history has been written on the Starnes family, called Of Them That Left a Name Behind. It documents the migration of the Staring family from Germany to NY, to PA, to the VA frontier, where they became known as Starnes. Given the dates and generational configuration of Frederick Starnes' family, the wife of John Nelson would correspond to the grandchildren of Frederick Sr. However, again, there is no presently known evidence to connect her to them. Oddly enough, another Pendleton family on the North Fork may have a Starnes connection. As mentioned before, there is evidence that the wife of Joseph Bennett Jr. was Hannah Starnes. It does seem too coincidental that two families on the North Fork would have such suggested ancestry, and would also have much intermarriage. There may in fact be truth in these women's suggested maiden names; there just isn't yet any corroborating evidence to support the suggestions.

While there are more families on whom incorrect information has continuously circulated, these represent some of the ones that seem to appear on the most group sheets.

Questions or comments to: Deborah Johnson or ARFHS Webmaster