Pam Mullinax wrote:
What has been your thoughts on Stubbs' comment that Francis
MERIWETHER, with
his wife, Mary Bathurst, made a deed to David, "son and only heir of
Nicholas Catlett," on Aug. 10, 1696 (Essex Records)?
Of course, his comment does not quote "ONLY son and only heir", and can
"only heir" rule out that Nicholas had other sons (i.e., a Nicholas)?
Going back to Margaret Amundson's article in The Virginia Genealogist,
where she effectively says that the Stubbs may have been reading too much
into the deed to Francis Meriwether from "David Catlett as sonne & heir
apparent of the said Nicholas Catlett", I would agree with her. While
David may have been the only heir, he may also have siblings which under
the law of primogeniture don't count (a reason why many of the gentry of
Colonial times came to America).
At the time of the deed, David may also have been the only surviving child
of Nicholas, but that isn't what the deed is saying. Essentially "heir
apparent" meant that David was the oldest surviving son of Nicholas. David
may have had older brothers that died, he may have younger brother, and he
may have sisters. Unfortunately, since Nicholas apparently died intestate,
we may never know if there were other children besides David and an
apparent younger brother or older brother who had died (Nicholas of the
earmark entry).
----------
Lee Hoffman/KY
E-mail: lhoffman(a)acm.org
My website: <
http://www.users.mis.net/~lhoffman>
--------------
A user of the best genealogy program, The Master Genealogist (TMG)