List:
Continuing my previous message concerning Thomas CHANNELL and Elizabeth MONTGOMERY, I am
providing the following information and opinion as simply that, my opinions. As always,
it is up to individual researchers to reach their own conclusions based upon the available
research material.
Mr. Dan Fulgham of Conroe, TX has provided me with important, and very interesting
information.
------ BEGIN QUOTE ------
John Fulgham was the son of John Fulgham and Mary Purcell. He was born in the Isle of
Wight County, Virginia, in about 1746. He married Mary Montgomery, who was born about
1745, in the Isle of Wight County, Virginia. They moved first to North Carolina, probably
in or near Wayne County. They later moved to the Craven District, now Fairfield County,
South Carolina. John furnished supplies to the Continental Army during the Revolutionary
War. The children of John and Mary were:
1.) Micajah, born Feb. 10, 1767, Isle of Wight Co., VA.***
2.) Henry, born November 20, 1772, married Patience Sherard.
3.) Jesse, born about 1775, in Lancaster County, South Carolina.
4.) John, born about 1770, in the Isle of Wight Co., Virginia.
5.) Hardy, born about 1778, in Lancaster County, South Carolina.
John Fulgham died in Montgomery County, Georgia, in about 1801.
----- END QUOTE -----
I am working with Dan to obtain further information on the FULGHAM family, until then,
important things to consider here are:
(1) FULGHAM is the correct name, although the Chancery Court document I obtained listed
the name as FULLGHAM. I originally posted the name in the document as FULLINGHAM, but
after closer inspection it does indeed state FULLGHAM.
(2) It does appear that Elizabeth is the daughter of Robert MONTGOMERY who dies in early
1761. Robert also does appear to have died intestate, this is based on the fact that to
this point I have yet to find a will recorded, but have found appraisals and statements.
A check of the early orphan records for Isle of Wight does not show any MONTGOMERY being
orphaned. I have not found a name to suggest who the wife of Robert MONTGOMERY is, but it
would also appear likely that the Mary MONTGOMERY that FULGHAM marries is the sister of
Elizabeth who marries Thomas CHANNELL. At this point in time, I suggest that she is the
older sister of Elizabeth.
(3) The fact that John and Mary FULGHAM move to North Carolina and then on to South
Carolina can not be overstated. We all know the family legend that the boys came to
Virginia from South Carolina .. could this be the possible connection? One would have to
consider the Chancery Court case, was it a bitter affair, or just a bump in the road that
was patched up, and sisters and families made the move together? Very, very interesting
possible connections. One interesting point here is that after early 1765, mentions of
Thomas and Elizabeth CHANNELL disappear from available Isle of Wight records.
(4) If we do consider that Thomas and Elizabeth are the parents of the Channell boys, the
dates still do not line up well for Elizabeth being the mother of the boys, which leads
one to wonder if this is a second marriage for Thomas. If the death dates and cemetery
information for Jeremiah, John and Joseph are correct, then John is a half-brother to
Jeremiah and Joseph. Consider also that if the marriage of Thomas and Elizabeth is in
1763, as is suggested, there is a four year window where we have no idea if any children
have been born or not; is this where one might consider the family legend of an Aaron, who
was never heard from again after going to sea? Also, consider that Elizabeth also appears
to be quite young at the time of the marriage, under the guardianship of one John
STREETER.
As I have said before, I do not personally believe that Thomas and Elizabeth are the
parents of the boys. As I have also said before, I believe that there is a connection
between Isle of Wight and Maryland and Pennsylvania and all points beyond for the
Channells, and I do believe that this Thomas Channell is an important part of that, but
not in the capacity he is normally associated with. Documents such as this one being
discussed and other documents from Maryland provide important clues which I will address
in the future.
Regards,
Micheal Mathews
----- Original Message -----
From: "M.E. Mathews" <memathews(a)onewest.net>
To: <CHANNELL-L(a)rootsweb.com>
Sent: Friday, October 08, 2004 8:34 PM
Subject: [CHANNELL] Addendum: Thomas CHANNELL and Elizabeth MONTGOMERY
List:
Reviewing the original Order Book entry of 1763 for Isle of Wight Co., Virginia that
lists the marriage of Thomas CHANNELL and Elizabeth CHANNELL, we find the following:
(1) The entry is not a marriage record at all, it is a continuance of a Chancery Court
case brought by a John STREETER, guardian of Elizabeth MONTGOMERY, which suggests highly
that Elizabeth is a minor at this point in her life. This raises very interesting
questions.
(2) The record indicates that since the last review of the court case in progress,
Elizabeth married THOMAS CHANNELL and the court ordered that Thomas be added as a
plaintiff to whatever the court case is about. Unfortunately, no dates are recorded and
no further information is provided about what the case is about or when the marriage took
place .. BUT .. there are clues.
(3) Whatever the court case is about, it is directed against a John Fullingham and wife
Mary. (This is the name written in the record) Taking a quick look at the records I can
access, I believe that the name may actually have been meant to be John FULGHAM. No
indications of what the problem is, but there is a significant clue in the appraisal of
the estate of one Robert MONTGOMERY, which was ordered by the court on 5 MARCH 1761, and
which names among other people, a John FULGHAM. The court authorizes STREETER on behalf
of Elizabeth MONTGOMERY to depose one Elizabeth WHITFIELD. My initial research on the
names of those mentioned suggests that Elizabeth WHITFIELD is the wife of Samuel
WHITFIELD, who at the time of this continuance was dead and had a probate case going. (A
note of caution here: there is also a daughter named Elizabeth named in Samuel's
will.) What exactly the connection is between everyone can not be known until a review of
the actual documents can be ma!
de.
(4) Based upon what is contained in the record, and what I have been able to dig up with
records available to me, I believe that (1) Elizabeth MONTGOMERY is the daughter of the
Robert MONTGOMERY previously mentioned; that (2) Robert MONTGOMERY died intestate in late
February, early March of 1761; that (3) FULGHAM, in whatever capacity he had with
MONTGOMERY'S estate appears to have made some type of significant error that has led
to Elizabeth MONTGOMERY, through her guardian initiating some type of legal action; and
that (4) Elizabeth WHITFIELD appears to have knowledge of what FULGHAM did.
This document reinforces my opinion that Thomas CHANNELL and Elizabeth MONTGOMERY are
not the parents of the brothers CHANNELL. That a Thomas CHANNELL did indeed marry an
Elizabeth MONTGOMERY can no longer be discounted -- individual researchers will have to
determine for themselves if Elizabeth, who certainly appears to be a minor in 1763, could
possibly be the mother of Jeremiah and Joseph. Certainly, she could be mother of John
born in 1767. This record also places CHANNELL in Virginia much earlier than believed.
Certainly, there is nothing to preclude the idea that they may have left for South
Carolina or points south after the marriage, but then again there is evidence that
suggests they remained in Isle of Wight for a period of time. And of course, nothing
should preclude that CHANNELL and MONTGOMERY may have come to Virginia separately from
South Carolina prior to 1763.
I have seen this marriage said to have taken place in South Carolina, North Carolina,
Maryland and Virginia. I have searched high and low in all of these locations, and to
this point, I have yet to find anything outside of Maryland that even suggests of Thomas
CHANNELL. While I suppose that it could be within the realm of possibility that a second
Thomas CHANNELL married a second Elizabeth MONTGOMERY, anyone suggesting that theory would
have to want them to be the parents very badly to maintain that position.
Regards,
Micheal Mathews
--------------------------------------------------
"Quid me nutrit me destruit" --
==============================
Gain access to over two billion names including the new Immigration
Collection with an
Ancestry.com free trial. Click to learn more.
http://www.ancestry.com/rd/redir.asp?targetid=4930&sourceid=1237