This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--part0_922293924_boundary
Content-ID: <0_922293924(a)inet_out.mail.aol.com.1>
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
--part0_922293924_boundary
Content-ID: <0_922293924(a)inet_out.mail.aol.com.2>
Content-type: message/rfc822
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
Content-disposition: inline
From: DWhitm2249(a)aol.com
Return-path: <DWhitm2249(a)aol.com>
To: rcf(a)code-co.com
Subject: Re: [CALVERT-L] Benedict Swingate Calvert's Will and Codicil
Date: Wed, 24 Mar 1999 11:44:34 EST
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
Robert et al.,
Thanks for the post and analyisis. A few additional observations. I have
photocopies of the Bible records you posted and will check to see if they are
identical. I have a copy of William's listing in the DAR (1994) book and it
also gives his birthday as 2-26-1757.
I have seen statements that said or implied that George was the youngest son.
This is not the source I am referring to, but there is a book in the Library
of Congress with a title like "Benedict Swingate Calvert's descendants, the
youngest and oldest." Since George's line is the best documented I assume
that he was the youngest being referred to. If George was the youngest (b.
1768) and Henry was born in 1766 there is not much room for William and John
in between.
Galen has discussed a letter from Benedict to his father Charles sent in 1765.
In this letter he refers to his 8 children. Among his sons only Charles is
known to have been born prior to this date. Galen concluded that there were at
least three sons on this date and William and John were likely candidates.
The original will seems to give priority to Henry and George, possibly the two
youngest sons. (We know that ultimately that George inherited the Riversdale
estate and Henry and Elizabeth inherited the Mt. Airy estate) . William being
a Patriot might explain this, while his impending marriage to Elizabeth
Nodding might explain the codicil's final disinheritance. The timing
certainly works. Again, it seems unlikely both of these slights would be
taken against an underaged son. I like your idea about the will being drafted
a year or two prior to 1779 when our William would have been under 21.
Dan Whitmire
--part0_922293924_boundary--