Beginning March 2nd, 2020 the Mailing Lists functionality on RootsWeb will be discontinued. Users will no longer be able to send outgoing emails or accept incoming emails. Additionally, administration tools will no longer be available to list administrators and mailing lists will be put into an archival state.
Administrators may save the emails in their list prior to March 2nd. After that, mailing list archives will remain available and searchable on RootsWeb
Notice that Robert Powell's wife's name is SARAH CREED. Amos Powell,
son of Robert Powell, wife's name is HARRIET GAINES
Amos Powell and Harriet Gaines had a son named THOMAS POWELL, who might
be connected to MARGORY POWELL who has been proported the wife of JOHN
CHILDERS/CHILDRESS,SR who were the proported parent's of JOHN
CHILDRESS/CHILDERS, JR, who is proported to be the father of JOHN
CHILDRESS/CHILDERS III born Dec.2, 1759 who married 1st an Edmonston
then married 2nd Elizabeth LINDSAY. Two children, among others, of
John born 1759 carry the given names of Creed Childress/Childers and
another child is Margory/Margret Childress/Childers.
A David Childress/Childers is said to have married LUCY GAINES. DAVID
CHILDRESS AND LUCY GAINES are sometimes reported to be the aunt and
uncle of SARA CHILDRESS POLK, daughter of JOEL CHILDRESS and ELIZ. WHISETT.
JOEL CHILDRESS/CHILDERS/ father proved by court documents, was BENJAMIN
CHILDRESS/CHILDERS AND SUSAN? Joel Childress and Elizabeth Whitsett
named one of their children Benjamin Childress(died young) after Joel's
father and named one child Susan Childress (who married a Rucker)after
Joel's mother, as told in a letter by Sarah Childress Polk. Another son
of Joel's and Eliz Childress was name JOHN WHITSETT CHILDRESS, he was
named after Elizabeth Whitsett Childress' father John Whitsett.
Child Elizabeth Childress, named after her mother Eliz Whitsett died
young. Another son Anderson Childress became astranged from the family
after his parents died.
*****NOTE****** HOW MUCH OF THE ABOVE INFO IS TRUE? DOES ANYONE KNOW?
SOME OF THE INFORMATION MAKES SENSE AND IS LOGICAL. FOOD FOR THOUGHT
AND DEBATE. :)
www.genealogyfamilytrees.com/ FamilyTreesPDF/Childress.pd
* James Gaines born 1742 King & Queen County Virginia, married 1st
Unk White, 2nd Elizabeth Strother 1766 Culpepper County Virginia
marriage records, died 1830; Captain in the Revolutionary War from
Virginia, formed his own company, was wounded at Guilford
* George Strother Gaines
* Lucy Gaines, married David Childress
Edmond Pendleton Gaines born March 20 1777 Culpepper County
Virginia, died June 6, 1849 New Orleans Louisana; was U.S. Marshal,
stationed at Washington, D.C., during President James K. Polk's
administration, and was the officer who arrested Aaron Burr, charged
with treason against the government. During the War of 1812 he entered
the army and was promoted to the rank of General. After the war he
settled in private life near New Orleans. The city was partly built on
his wife's land. On file at the Georgia Archives is the original
handwritten copy of General Gaines' speech made at the last meeting of
Indian Chiefs, Indian Springs, Georgia. Mrs James K. Polk was SARAH
CHILDRESS who was the niece of DAVID CHILDRESS who married Lucy Gaines,
sister of General Edmond Pendleton Gaines ; Gainesville Hall County
Georgia was named after him; Brig General in the War of 1812 & the Texas
War for Independence; 1820 Charleston County South Carolina Federal
Census #108 list 2 females under age 10, 1 male age 10 to 16, 1 female
ages 16 to-26 & 1 male ages 26 to 45
***************
Raphell CREED Born: Abt. 1550 Westbury-On-Trym, Gloucester, , England
Died: 1632 Westbury-On-Trym, Gloucester, , England
Married: Abt 1575 England
Wife's Name Agnes Born: Abt 1555 England Died: Aft 11 1633 Mar
Henbury, Compton, Gloucester, England
Child
1. Edward CREED Born: Abt 1576 Gloucestershire, England Christened: 11
Feb 1582 Westbury-On-Trym, Gloucestershire, England Died: Bef 1649
Buried:Shirehampton, Gloucestershire, England
Ralph CREED Born: Abt 1599 Of Shirehampton, Gloucester,
EnglChristened: 1 Aug 1605 Westbury-On-Trym, Gloucester, , England
Died: Bef 2 1668 Sep Surry, Virginia
Father: Edward CREED
Mother: Elinor
Wife's NameGrace Born: Abt. 1600 Charles City, Virginia>Died: Bef 29
1676 Mar Place:
Children
1. Elizabeth CREED Born: Abt 1622 Shirehampton, Gloucestershire,
England Died: Abt 1675 Surry, Va
2. Johney CREED Born: Abt. 1628 Of Surry, Va>
3. William CREED Born: Abt. 1633 Of Surry, Va Died: 1688
4. Joane CREED Born: Abt. 1639 Westbury-On-Trym, Gloucester, , England>
5. Mauldin CREED Born: Abt. 1641Westbury-On-Trym, Gloucester, , England>
6. Mary CREED Born: 1635 Of Surry, VaChristened: 6 Sep 1635
Westbury-On-Trym, Gloucester, , England
7. Joane CREED Born: 1637 Christened: 21 May 1637 Westbury-On-Trym,
Gloucester, , England
8. Thomas CREED Born: 1639 Christened: 15 Dec 1639 Westbury-On-Trym,
Gloucester, , England
9. Maudlin CREED Born: 1649 Place: <, Of Surry, VA Died: 1676
Robert POWELL Born: 26 Feb 1650 Middlesex, Ma Died: 1732 Married: 21
Jan 1671 Middlesex, Ma
Father: Amos POWELL
Mother: Harriett GAINES
Wife's Name Sarah CREED Born: 1653 Middlesex, Ma Died: 7 Jan 1734
Middlesex, Ma
Married: 21 Jan 1671 Middlesex, Ma
Children
1. William POWELL Born: 22 Feb 1676 Middlesex, Ma Died: 16 Oct 1751
Gloucester, Va
2. Jeremiah POWELL Born: 10 Apr 1672 Middlesex, Ma Died: 21 Oct 1747
Middlesex, Ma
3. Melissa POWELL Born: 10 May 1683 Middlesex, Ma Died: 20 Feb 1760 :
4. Melinda POWELL Born: 10 May 1683 Middlesex, Ma Died: 17 Dec 1763
5. Amos POWELL Born: 19 Jun 1673 Middlesex, Ma Died: 28 Aug 1750
6. Abraham POWELL Born: 25 Aug 1681 Middlesex, Ma Died: 7 May 1754
7. Harriett POWELL Born: 12 Nov 1674 Middlesex, Ma Died: 9 Sep 1755
Middlesex, Ma
8. Rhoda POWELLBorn: 14 Nov 1677 Middlesex, Ma Died: 8 Apr 1725
9. David POWELL Born: 26 Nov 1679 Middlesex, Ma Died: 14 Apr 1759
North Handcock, Nc
Amos POWELL Born: 20 Apr 1625 Plymouth, Ma Died: 29 Sep 1707
Middlesex, Ma Married: 20 Jun 1648
Father: Ephriam POWELL
Mother: Nancy RAYBURN
Wife's Name Harriett GAINES Born: 17 Dec 1628 Plymouth, Ma Died: 11
Mar 1700 Middlesex, Ma
Children
1. Nancy POWELLBorn: 22 Jan 1662 Middlesex, Ma Died: 29 Jan 1740
Place: , Middlesex, Ma
2. Hannah POWELL Born: 18 Feb 1656 Middlesex, MA Died: 30 Apr 1725
3. Robert POWELL Born: 26 Feb 1650 Middlesex, Ma Died: 1732
4. Ephriam POWELL Born: 19 Mar 1659Middlesex, Ma Died: 17 Jan
1740Duplin, Nc
5. George POWELL Born: 28 May 1665 Middlesex, Ma Died: 28 Oct
1741Middlesex, Ma
6. Benjamin POWELL Born: 19 Jun 1651 Middlesex, Ma Died: 7 Sep 1733
Middlesex, Ma
7. Thomas POWELL Born: 12 Jul 1654 Middlesex, Ma Died: 22 Feb 1729
Northampton, Nc
8. Rosa POWELL Born: 27 Aug 1657 Middlesex, Ma>
9. Richard POWELL Born: 28 Nov 1652 Middlesex, Ma Died: 23 Jun 1730
Northampton, Nc
10.Rufus POWELL Born: 14 Dec 1663 Middlesex, Ma Died: 15 Aug 1744
Bennet CREED Born: Abt. 1739 Surry, Nc>Died: 1816 Surry, Nc
Wife Mary ESTES Born: Abt. 1743 Va>
Children
1 Colby CREED Born: Abt. 1765 Va>
2.Robert CREED Born: Abt. 1767 Va>
3. Abraham CREED Born: Abt. 1769 Place: Va>
4. Bennet CREED Born: Abt. 1773 Va>
5. Matthew CREED Born: Abt. 1775 Nc>
6. John CREED Born: Abt 1770/1780 Va Died: 28 Dec 1866 Surry Co., Nc
7. FEMALE CREED Born: 1792 Nc
8. Franky CREED Born: 1794 Nc
Augustine CREED Born: Abt 1712 Hempstead, Nassau, Ny>Married: 25 Mar
1732 St. George, Hempstead, Queens, New York
Wife's Name Mary OAKLEY Born: Abt 1712 Hempstead, Nassau, New York,
United State Married: 25 Mar 1732 St. George, Hempstead, Queens, New York
Father: Nathaniel OAKLEY (AFN:GMH0-ZB) Family
Mother: Ead BURTIS (AFN:GMH1-0G)
====================================================
Matthew Creed Born: ABT 1680 Henrico, Va
CHILDREN
Lucy Creed Born: ABT 1705 Married: ABT 1725 Prince George, Va
Spouses: Joseph Tanner
http://awt.ancestry.com/cgi-bin/igm.cgi?op=GET&db=:2688456&id=I551016372
John CHILDRESS b: 2 Dec 1759 in Albemarle, VA died 1849* Married: Abt
1779 in Albemarle, Virginia,: FIRST WIFE UNK EDMUNDSON CHILD:James/JOHN?
CHILDRESS Birth: Abt 1790 in , Burke, North Carolina, Death: Bef 1889 in
, Knox, Tennessee
http://worldconnect.genealogy.rootsweb.com/cgi-bin/igm.cgi?op=GET&db=cald...
JOHN CHILDRESS b: 2 DEC 1759 in Albemarle Co., VA died 1849 2ND WIFE:
ELIZABETH LINDSAY b: ABT. 1755 in Amherst Co., VA Married: BEF. 1820
Children
1. Betsy H. CHILDRESS b: 20 JUN 1818
2. Angeline CHILDRESS b: 18 JAN 1823
3. Creed L. CHILDRESS b: 22 JUL 1826
4. Phoebe L. CHILDRESS b: 9 APR 1828
5. Mary A.D. "Polly" CHILDRESS b: 2 DEC 1829 in Knox Co., East TN
6. Nancy B. CHILDRESS b: 5 OCT 1831 in Tipton Station, Knox Co., East TN
7. Hugh L.W. CHILDRESS b: 2 FEB 1836 in Knox Co., East TN
8. Margaret CHILDRESS b. before 1849
http://worldconnect.genealogy.rootsweb.com/cgi-bin/igm.cgi?op=SHOW&db=cal...
James/JOHN? CHILDRESS Birth: Abt 1790 in , Burke, North Carolina, Death:
Bef 1889 in , Knox, Tennessee
Father: John CHILDRESS b: 2 Dec 1759 in Albemarle, VA died 1849*
Married: Abt 1779 in Albemarle, Virginia,
Mother: UNK EDMUNDSON
Marriage 1 Polly AYERS b: Bef 1793 Death: Bef 1891 Married: 7 Nov 1808
in , Knox, Tennessee
Child
1. Robert Lucas CHILDRESS b: 7 Aug 1809 in , Knox, Tennessee
Robert Lucas CHILDRESS, Birth: 7 Aug 1809 in , Knox, Tennessee # Death:
30 Jan 1885 in , Webster, Missouri, Married by Lindsay Childress,
Justice of the Peace, Knox C TN.
Father: James/JOHN? CHILDRESS b: Abt 1790 in , Burke, North
Carolina
Mother: Polly AYERS b: Bef 1793
Marriage 1 Hannah LACEY b: 1 Jan 1812 Knox, Tennessee, Death: 27 Apr
1862 Webster, Missouri Married: 18 Oct 1832 Knox, Tn
Children
1.Lucinda Jane CHILDRESS b: 7 Jan 1844 in , Cherokee, Alabama
2.Mary CHILDRESS
3.Martha CHILDRESS
4.Sarah CHILDRESS
5.Priscilla Alabama CHILDRESS b: 8 Mar 1846 in , Cherokee, Alabama
6.Minerva CHILDRESS
7 George CHILDRESS
8.John CHILDRESS
9.Creed T.CHILDRESS Creed is buried in Seymour Masonic Cemetery,
Webster Co., MO.b.1854
10.Charles CHILDRESS
1880 Webster Co., MO, census, p.283D, Hazelwood Twp., June 8-9, 1880:
CREED T. CHILDRESS, W M 26, son, school teacher, AL TN TN;
with 107/110, =1854
ROBERT LUCAS CHILDRESS, W M 70, farmer, TN TN TN. =1809
The following information may? give a clue as to the origin of the name
CREED as a surname and CREED as a given name.
Edward CREED Birth: Abt 1576 Gloucestershire, England Christening: 11
Feb 1582Westbury-On-Trym, Gloucestershire, England
Death: Bef 1649 Burial: Shirehampton, Gloucestershire, England
Father: Raphell CREED (AFN: 190Q-2C9) Family
Mother: Agnes (AFN: 190Q-2DH)
Spouse: Elinor Marriage: Abt 1598 England
Children
1. Ralph CREED Born: Abt 1599 Of Shirehampton, Gloucester, Engl
Christened: 1 Aug 1605 Westbury-On-Trym, Gloucester, , England Died:
Bef 2 1668 Sept Surry, Virginia
2. Joane CREED Born: Abt. 1601 Compton, Gloucester, Engl
3. William CREED Born: Abt. 1603 Compton, Gloucester, Engl>
4. Elizabeth CREEDE Born: Abt. 1607 Westbury-On-Trym, Gloucester, ,
England>
5. Margaret CREEDE Born: Abt. 1609 Westbury-On-Trym, Gloucester, ,
England>
6. Mary CREED Born: Aft 1611 Of Compton, Gloucester, Engl>
7. Elizabeth CREED Born: Aft 1611 Of Compton, Gloucester, Engl>
8. Sara CREED Born: Aft 1611 Of Compton, Gloucester, Engl>
9. Margaret CREED Born: Aft 1611 Of Compton, Gloucester, Engl>
10. William CREEDE Born: Abt. 1628 Westbury-On-Trym, Gloucester, , England>
11. Joan CREEDE Born: 1603 Christened: 27 Feb 1603 Westbury-On-Trym,
Gloucester, , England
12. Sara CREEDE Born: 1626 Christened: 23 Jul 1626 Westbury-On-Trym,
Gloucester, , England
SEE NEXT EMAIL TO LIST FROM ME
Pat,
There is a reference to a Moses Ayres on the same web site that I just
posted data from. The explicit page is
http://awt.ancestry.com/cgi-bin/igm.cgi?op=GET&db=:2444277&id=I520035174
where they have the following
Nathaniel Ayers; b. abt 1714 sp. Rhoda
ch; Moses Ayers, born abt. 1740, Pittsylvania Co., Va.
sp; Abigail Payne, b. abt 1756
ch.; Nathaniel Ayers, b. 12-17-1788, N.C.
sp.; Milcah Walters; B., 9-23-1795, Franklin Co.., Georgia
Seems curious that an Ayres family from NJ and one from VA would both be
using the name Moses.
Green
>From: "Patrick Childress" <jpc(a)beecreek.net>
>Reply-To: CHILDRESS-RESEARCH-L(a)rootsweb.com
>To: CHILDRESS-RESEARCH-L(a)rootsweb.com
>Subject: Re: [CHILDRESS] Matthias Ayres and Henry Childers
>Date: Fri, 26 May 2006 12:15:14 -0500
>
>Green,
>
>If you wish, you can check out the notes on these two individuals on my
>family file:
>Aaron Ayers, b. 1708
>http://worldconnect.genealogy.rootsweb.com/cgi-bin/igm.cgi?op=GET&db=patc...
>
>Green, as I note in the above individual's sources:
>"The name 'Aaron' and the birth date of 1780, as well as the city of birth,
>Woodbridge, New Jersey, was taken from an Internet site by JPC in September
>2001. No verification of the data has been undertaken at this time. The
>Internet site was maintained by Bob Nixon at Prodigy.net."
>
>Nathaniel Ayers, b. 1700
>http://worldconnect.genealogy.rootsweb.com/cgi-bin/igm.cgi?op=GET&db=patc...
>
>While not conclusive, the above notes serve as my "information only" data
>on the family tree file. As best as I can conclude, the Ayers/Aryes line
>that I show migrated from New Jersey to Halifax County, Virginia.
>
>Regarding your central question, I have no idea who this "Henry Childers"
>is, as I have no data on such an individual among my direct
>Childress/Childers ancestors.
>
>Regards,
>Pat Childress
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Green Ayres
> To: CHILDRESS-RESEARCH-L(a)rootsweb.com
> Sent: Friday, May 26, 2006 9:45 AM
> Subject: Re: [CHILDRESS] Matthias Ayres and Henry Childers
>
>
> Patrick,
> Thanks for the reply. I looked at your web site and found the
> Ayres(Ayers) data confusing. Where does the data that Moses Ayres, Jr.
>was
> born in Halifax, VA come from? If, as the data on Moses Ayres Sr. says,
>he
> was married in SC in 1773 and the rest of his children were apparently
>born
> in SC, what is the Halifax connection? You appear to have NJ Ayres
>roots
> rather than VA roots. My Ayres line has VA roots as best I can tell.
> Since this is a Childress list, let's get back to them. I've
>found
> some more online data on Matthias Ayres that appears to relate to my
> original question. Here is the data, poorly referenced, as found
>supposedly
> in a Henrico County Order Book (1737-46).
>
> "Mathias Ayres 5-1739;
> Mathias Ayres deed from Henry Childers 7-16-1743;
> Mathias Ayres, appointed Proceffiones in 13th Precinct, st.John's
>church,
> Henrico Parish, Robert Pleasant, Pew Price Four Mile Ck., Bailey's Run,
> White Oak Swamp 1743;
> Mathew Ayres, bounds of parish; Col. Richard Randolph's, Robert
>Pleasants,
> Edward Goode, Jr., James Woodfin, Thomas Matthew, Pew Price John Hobson,
> Eliza Hobson; Proceffioning the bounds
> 9-2-1744;
> Mathias Ayres bounded by Philemon Childers ( wife eliz.) to Thomas
>Bates,
> Robert Pleasants, Four Mile Ck.,12-1-1746;
> Mathias Ayres, of co. & parish of Henrico Co. to Henry Sharpe of same on
> Four Mile Creek, Mathias purchased from Henry Childers,other 122 acres
>by
> patent 7-25-1726, wife Elizabeth, bounded by
> Robert Blaus, Wit. Charles Woodson, Chas. Ballow, James Woodfin;"
>
> As best as I can interpret all this, it appears to say that Mathias
>Ayres
> purchased land from Henry Childers, which was apparently adjacent to
> Philemon Childers, which he later sold. I've answered my own question
> regarding the location of Four Mile Creek, and from a VA map, it appears
> that the land talked about above is somewhere east of a town called
>Varina
> Grove and in the vicinity of the intersection of VA 5 and I-295. Now
>back
> to my main question. Who is this Henry Childers? Can anyone help me on
> this?
>
> Green
>
>
>
> >From: "Patrick Childress" <jpc(a)beecreek.net>
> >Reply-To: CHILDRESS-RESEARCH-L(a)rootsweb.com
> >To: CHILDRESS-RESEARCH-L(a)rootsweb.com
> >Subject: Re: [CHILDRESS] Matthias Ayres and Henry Childers
> >Date: Thu, 25 May 2006 15:34:02 -0500
> >
> >I have several records of marriages between Ayres and Childress. Moses
> >Ayres, Jr. (1774 to 1841), born in Halifax, VA died in Choctaw County,
>MS
> >is my 4th great grandfather. You can read about him on my family tree
>at:
> >
>
> >http://worldconnect.genealogy.rootsweb.com/cgi-bin/igm.cgi?op=GET&db=patc...
> >
> >Regards,
> >Patrick Childress
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: Green Ayres
> > To: CHILDRESS-RESEARCH-L(a)rootsweb.com
> > Sent: Friday, May 19, 2006 9:43 AM
> > Subject: [CHILDRESS] Matthias Ayres and Henry Childers
> >
> >
> > Hi,
> > I just joined this list and am interested in finding out
>information
> > concerning Ayres (or Ayers) relationships with Childers or
>Childress. I
> > have seen claims that there were marriages between the families but
>have
> >not
> > been able to verify them. There is one record in particular on
>which
> >I'm
> > trying to find out more information. In Benjamin B. Weisiger,
>Henrico
> > County, Virginia, Deeds. 1737-1750 (Richmond, 1985) on page 34 is
>the
> > following:
> >
> > 1 Dec 1746 Matthias Ayres of the County and Parish of Henrico sold
>to
> >Henry
> > Sharpe 62 1/2 acres on Four Mile Creek. 50 acres of which had been
> > purchased from Henry Childers; which apparently refers to the sale
>from
> > Henry Childers to Matthias Ayres in the May Court for 1739 found on
>page
> >74.
> >
> > Can anyone help me out with this? Who is this Henry Childers? Where
>is
> >Four
> > Mile Creek?
> >
> > Thanks
> >
> > Green Ayres
> >
> > _________________________________________________________________
> > Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today - it's
> >FREE!
> > http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/
> >
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Don't just search. Find. Check out the new MSN Search!
> http://search.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200636ave/direct/01/
>
_________________________________________________________________
Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today - it's FREE!
http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/
Dear List,
My original post referred to an item from Benjamin B. Weisiger,
Henrico County, Virginia, Deeds. 1737-1750 (Richmond, 1985), where on page
34 is found
1 December 1746 Matthias of the County and Parish of Henrico sold to Henry
Sharpe 62 1/2 acres on Four Mile Creek, 50 acres of which had been purchased
from Henry Childers.
On page 74 is found
The sale from Henry Childers to Matthias Ayres appears in the May 1739 court
records.
More details on this purchase are alluded to on the following gedcom
http://awt.ancestry.com/cgi-bin/igm.cgi?op=GET&db=:2444277&id=I520034023
where the following data supposedly found in the Henrico County Court Order
Book from 1737-1746 are cited:
1) 5-1739; Mathias Ayres deed from Henry Childers
2) 7-16-1743; Mathias Ayres, appointed Proceffiones in 13th Precinct, st.
John's church, Henrico Parish, Robert Pleasant, Pew Price
Four Mile Ck., Bailey's Run, White Oak Swamp
3) 1743; Mathew Ayres, bounds of parish; Col. Richard Randolph's, Robert
Pleasants, Edward Goode, Jr., James Woodfin, Thomas Matthew, Pew Price
John Hobson, Eliza Hobson; Proceffioning the bounds
4) 9-2-1744; Mathias Ayres bounded by Philemon Childers ( wife eliz.) to
Thomas Bates, Robert Pleasants, Four Mile Ck.,
5) 12-1-1746; Mathias Ayres, of co. & parish of Henrico Co. to Henry Sharpe
of same on Four Mile Creek, Mathias purchased from Henry Childers,
other 122 acres by patent 7-25-1726, wife Elizabeth, bounded by
Robert Blaus, Wit. Charles Woodson, Chas. Ballow, James Woodfin;
Related to this is the following land grant from The Library of Virginia
Ayers, Matthias.
25 July 1746.
Location: Henrico County.
Description: 12 1/2 acres begg. &c. on the top of a bank of Four Mile Creek.
Source: Land Office Patents No. 25, 1745-1747, p. 148 (Reel 23).
Tranlation of all this:
Matthias Ayres purchased 50 acres from Henry Childers in May of 1739. On
July 25, 1746 he added to this with a land patent of 12 1/2 acres bringing
his land holdings on Four Mile Creek to 62 1/2 acres, which he sold on Dec
1, 1746 to Henry Sharpe. The 9-2-1744 data is unclear since its wording
makes it look like there was a land transaction to Thomas Bates. This may
have been from someone who was omitted in the cite since there is no data to
suggest that Matthais owned any additional land. What does seem clear is
that Matthias Ayres was bounded by Philemon Childers, so that it appears
that the land he purchased from Henry Childers was bounded by the land owned
by Philemon Childers.
Now the following was found on The Childers ~ Childress Family Association
web site.
Areas of Land Ownership, CHILDERS, Early Virginia
Prepared by Virginia Hanks , Ellenburg, Washington
Four Mile Creek: (southeast of Richmond)
1680 - Abraham (thought to have married Ann or Jane Howard) to son Abraham
(married Ann Pew)
1690 - adjacent Philemen Childers of Four Mile Creek
1707 - Thomas Childrey from Pleasants, easternmost branch of Four Mile Creek
1727 - John to Abraham, land given by Henry Pew
1729 - Abraham and wife Mary
1730 - Philemon and wife Elizabeth
1731 - Abraham & wife Hester, land on Four Mile Creek, on Spring Branch and
Miery Branch
1745 - adjacent Benjamin, eastern run of Four Mile Creek to Great Branch-
Philemen, cordwainer, sold to Thomas Bates, Elizabeth relinquished dower
I'm not sure whether this explains or confuses the issue. It appears that
the reference to Philemon Childers cited may have been to his sale to Thomas
Bates, which likely means that the reference actually was
9-2-1744; Philemon Childers ( wife eliz.) bounded by Mathias Ayres to
Thomas Bates, Robert Pleasants, Four Mile Ck.,
This still leaves Henry and Philemon adjacent, but the Hanks data throws in
a Benjamin as well.
Moreover Hanks does not mention Henry.
There must be more to this. Can someone explain who this Henry was?
Green Ayres
_________________________________________________________________
Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today - it's FREE!
http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/
Hi Patrick -
Hi Green -
RE: Henry "Childers" question? I'm checking it out for you, don't know what
I may have in my files, but I'll certainly look.
MaryJean Childress - Voegtlin
I have several records of marriages between Ayres and Childress. Moses Ayres, Jr. (1774 to 1841), born in Halifax, VA died in Choctaw County, MS is my 4th great grandfather. You can read about him on my family tree at:
http://worldconnect.genealogy.rootsweb.com/cgi-bin/igm.cgi?op=GET&db=patc...
Regards,
Patrick Childress
----- Original Message -----
From: Green Ayres
To: CHILDRESS-RESEARCH-L(a)rootsweb.com
Sent: Friday, May 19, 2006 9:43 AM
Subject: [CHILDRESS] Matthias Ayres and Henry Childers
Hi,
I just joined this list and am interested in finding out information
concerning Ayres (or Ayers) relationships with Childers or Childress. I
have seen claims that there were marriages between the families but have not
been able to verify them. There is one record in particular on which I'm
trying to find out more information. In Benjamin B. Weisiger, Henrico
County, Virginia, Deeds. 1737-1750 (Richmond, 1985) on page 34 is the
following:
1 Dec 1746 Matthias Ayres of the County and Parish of Henrico sold to Henry
Sharpe 62 1/2 acres on Four Mile Creek. 50 acres of which had been
purchased from Henry Childers; which apparently refers to the sale from
Henry Childers to Matthias Ayres in the May Court for 1739 found on page 74.
Can anyone help me out with this? Who is this Henry Childers? Where is Four
Mile Creek?
Thanks
Green Ayres
_________________________________________________________________
Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today - it's FREE!
http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/
Hi,
I just joined this list and am interested in finding out information
concerning Ayres (or Ayers) relationships with Childers or Childress. I
have seen claims that there were marriages between the families but have not
been able to verify them. There is one record in particular on which I'm
trying to find out more information. In Benjamin B. Weisiger, Henrico
County, Virginia, Deeds. 1737-1750 (Richmond, 1985) on page 34 is the
following:
1 Dec 1746 Matthias Ayres of the County and Parish of Henrico sold to Henry
Sharpe 62 1/2 acres on Four Mile Creek. 50 acres of which had been
purchased from Henry Childers; which apparently refers to the sale from
Henry Childers to Matthias Ayres in the May Court for 1739 found on page 74.
Can anyone help me out with this? Who is this Henry Childers? Where is Four
Mile Creek?
Thanks
Green Ayres
_________________________________________________________________
Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today - it's FREE!
http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/
Does anyone have any information on the Thomas Childress who shows up in the Surry County, North Carolina 1790 Census. He's listed as having 1 male over 16, one male between 0 and 15 and three females in the household (M637, roll 7, page 513). In the 1800 census, I find two Thomas Childress households in North Carolina, but both in Stokes County.
Any leads would be appreciated.
Pat Childress
MaryJean,
As far as I know I am the only one of my line from Pleasant Jr thru James
Harvey who is participating in the DNA testing. There are no first cousins
and I don't know any second cousins or beyond. My primary reason for being
in the DNA group is to help bridge the generation between Pleasant Sr and
Abraham the Planter of Curles VA (if that is in fact my ancestry).
Crit
Dear Lee and Patrick,
Lee, I know you wrote the message, in answer to Patrick, but may I add
something?
In my recent message regarding the DNA and male/female Childress ancestors.
I think you probably recall the male Childress who carried another surname,
that of his mother's maiden name. I don't believe his wife said they knew what
his father or it might have been his grandfather (don't have the file in front
of me) had done. Until much later, but I helped her with his ancestry and
you gave me quite a lot of information which your Aunt had in her files.
It was a really lovely story, in that this very young Childress gentleman
loved a young woman and they were underage. The parents of both, refused to
allow them to marry, so they ran away and the young man had the idea that IF he
changed his name to that of his mother, both sets of parents wouldn't be able to
find them. I think this happened in the 1800's.
The young man was not only a Childress, but a double! He descended from (one
side) William Childress and Ann Burton (yep, the one so many researchers have
written about) and the other ancestor was David Childress who married the
Gaines. He being the son of Henry and Mary Farmer Childress (aka Childers). It
was through these two Childress males and their children's children that
married one another. So you see, until the later descendant (male) found out he
was NOT the surname he carried, (he was shocked), it would have been possible he
would NEVER have known. Thus, if HIS sons had taken the DNA, same
circumstances you mentioned. But, his being a double Childress was even more unusual I
thought it was amazing what happened, this was way before all the DNA testing
began for Childress and Childers.
MaryJean Childress - Voegtlin
Hi Crit,
Thank you for sharing that information. I'm glad you could take the DNA and
I certainly hope you can find other male cousins who might be able to help
out. I only hope I have success finding some (male) cousins of mine!
I have a suggestion for you. Don't know how long you've been doing family
research, but have you ever seen "The Childress Chatter", Ed. & Publisher, Molly
Reigard? If not, you might be able to find the collection in a good research
facility / archives. Or you might find them through LDS. Not saying
everything in those quarterlies was accurate, but many fine researchers (Childers &
Childress) were dedicated to original records and published their work in
"Childress Chatter". Also, some older CFA Newsletters. Why not write them, if you
haven't, and ask about past newsletters. Some of what was published might
help you with your (current) ancestor. Thank you for writing!
MaryJean
Hi Lee,
List,
While I went around the world:) - I do appreciate your response to Patrick,
myself and others on the list. As usual, thank you for your logic and insight
on this discussion.
MaryJean
Thank God for your ability to put into words my thoughts and I am sure those
of others. Anyone who thinks surnames are pure in breed really need to
take a look around. Yesterday is no different than from today. There are
bastards in every family which are going to skew the results at some point.
Thanks MJ.
Regards,
Steve
-----Original Message-----
From: MJCV25(a)aol.com [mailto:MJCV25@aol.com]
Sent: Thursday, May 04, 2006 5:00 PM
To: CHILDRESS-RESEARCH-L(a)rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: [CHILDRESS] CHILDERS - CHILDRESS FAMILY DNA QUESTIONS?
Hi Patrick -
List -
It was good to hear from you once again. I didn't have a problem with the
(not apparent) underlined:) I knew what you were asking and what your
comments
meant. Sorry this is long, but I am going answer you as best I can:)
"My friend" is a seasoned family researcher, which does include Childress /
Childers. He and I discuss almost everything about the family and have,
since
I came online. I have a wide list of researchers and have the pleasure of
hearing their opinion and comparing documentation. This is very helpful of
course, just like you and I are doing right now and anyone else who wants to
join
in, Kay already has.
Even though I quoted my fellow researcher (friend), I agree with him, I
can't
say exactly what he would right now, but I can give you an opinion as to
what
I believe he meant and what I know to be good examples.
You and I both know there are those without the Childers/Childress surname
(male) whose DNA did not match the surname they carry, but instead, match
the
Childress DNA. How many there are right now, I am not sure. I have
corresponded with at least three so far. These folks (male) are basically
Childress, but
carry another surname, either through design, by adoption, born out of
wedlock or by whatever else might have happened within their families, these
families will have to do extensive research to prove their ancestry, if
possible.
Then there are those who are male and I know they carry the Y, because they
match Childress. However, I also know that myself for instance, I am not a
male, I do not carry the Y, so I can't take the DNA, however, that does not
mean
I am not a Childress, I certainly am one, straight down from my earliest
Childress ancestor, to my father to me. This brings up what my friend had
to say.
There were those who CARRIED the surname of CHILDERS or CHILDRESS and it was
NOT through a MALE, but rather through a FEMALE, their mother. Whether
known
to them or not, that would be the question.
A good example of this, would be the descendants (if any) of this line -
Abraham Childress lll - to his daughter - Mary Ann Childress who married
Solomon
Carter, but Solomon was NOT the father of - JOHN CHILDERS because, as per
the
1774 Amherst County, Virginia court record - "MARY CARTER, late, Mary
CHILDERS, mother of a bastard son, JOHN CHILDERS, is bound out 1774 Amherst
County,
Virginia. This record did NOT say WHO the father was, nor the age of this
male
CHILDERS (aka Childress). This was when Mary Ann was married to Solomon
Carter of whom died in 1786c leaving a will and having written in his will -
"To my
wife MARY ANN, who is cohabiting with another man, etc." - The will was
dated
1786. Mary Ann Childress Carter later married JOHN GOODRICH who lived in
Amherst County, VA and was seen in the 1785 Amherst tax records and in fact,
near
the Childresses, with five in his household, and probably Mary Ann. Other
children of Mary Ann were living with neighbors and other people during that
time. You can those records by going to the CARTER genforum and viewing the
messages of Dick Zieman. He along with several other CARTERS worked with me
on
this lineage and the mystery surrounding it.
The issue here is that Virginia Hanks discovered these records on film,
while
searching the records of her ancestors in Virginia. She gave the info to
the
editor and publisher of "Childress Chatter" and it was published. No one
seemed to say much about it, with exception to Virginia Hanks. If you don't
know
about her Childers / Childress research, you can see her published work on
the CFA website.
This I believe is what my friend was using as an example, just one example,
however. Not knowing much at all about this JOHN CHILDERS in Amherst
County,
what happened to him? Did he have a wife, have issue? If so, are his
descendants taking the DNA test today? If so, they would NOT match Viking,
they would
not match anyone, even though these males would carry the surname of
CHILDRESS and even possibility CHILDERS.
There were those named JOHN CHILDRESS in Amherst County, VA during the time
of when the (bastard) son of Mary Ann Childress Carter Goodrich would have
probably reached maturity. So therefore, could he have been one of those in
the
records during the time we see three adult John's in the records as head of
household in Amherst County for 1785 and one in 1783? What about all the
Amherst
deeds between a John Childress, Sr. and Jr., with one suggested by Stinnett
descendants as having married both a John AND a Henry. Then there is a John
Childress, Jr., apparently married a Goode in the same place. There were
John
Childresses in Amherst after the time that another one left for Burke County
(1786). And I add, this is very very possible, that other's remained, who
were
their father's? All head's of household for any JOHN CHILDRESS in Amherst
had
people in their household. Could any of these have been males and had
descendants of their own? Sure they could have. Would they match the
Childress DNA
classification Viking or Celtic, no, they wouldn't. These male descendants
would be from a female Childress or Childers.
I would also add, MARY ANN Childress Carter Goodrich WAS the ancestor of
those who bore the name of CHILDRESS and through this ancestry - ROBERT
Childress
who married secondly, KEZIAH CARTER, was the daughter of PETER Carter and
Elizabeth Sandidge. PETER Carter's mother was MARY ANN CHILDRESS CARTER,
who
married first, Solomon Carter. In fact, it is ROBERT Childress who is the
son of
JOHN CHILDRESS, Rev. Soldier who was born 1759 Albemarle, who was taken as a
child to Amherst and of whom migrated 1786c Burke Co, NC and then to Wilkes
Co., NC. He was married to the daughter of James Edmondson of Wilkes Co, NC
as
per his 1793c will. JOHN migrated at least by 1795 to Knox CO, TN.
Therefore,
the children of ROBERT Childress do descend from Abraham Childress lll to
HIS
daughter and through her granddaughter, ZEZIAH CARTER who married ROBERT
CHILDRESS, son of JOHN CHILDRESS. The children and grandchildren of JOHN
Childress have more blood links to Abraham Childress lll, not only through
Mary Ann.
They also connect to Elizabeth, daughter of John Childress and through
Abraham
Childress lll's last wife, Lucy Thomas Neville Childress, who by the way,
had
two sons whose name was not that of their father (unknown) but rather HER
purported maiden name of THOMAS. Another example of descendants of Lucy's
sons
who might not have known they would NOT carry the DNA of a THOMAS, but
rather
the Y of their actual father.
Most of you know, that JOHN CHILDRESS (above) has been placed in the
"CELTIC"
group. And in fact, is the ancestor of the Childress-List and DNA list
owners.
There were other's I know who dropped the name Childress and went with their
mother's maiden name (they were males) and one in particular was a double
Childress. The same would apply to HIS children, they would not match their
surname because they were the children of a MALE (double) Childress rather
then a
MALE ______. Now at least, the children know, because I worked with the
wife
of this man whose father dropped his Childress surname and used his mother's
maiden name. If you want the information, email me, it's not a secret.
The point is this, to sum it up. There could be many male offspring, who
carry the name CHILDERS or CHILDRESS and of whom actually descend from a
female
CHILDERS or CHILDRESS. If that be the case, they will not match. Just as
my
son, even though male, will not match CHILDRESS DNA. My son carries the Y
of
his own father, even though, no matter how you look at it, my son IS a
CHILDRESS descendant, because of me. Had my son changed his name to
CHILDRESS and his
OWN children didn't know this, then his sons wouldn't match any Childress
DNA
either:) Point taken?
The other point you questioned, would be those who live near one another,
such as those in Amherst Co, VA for instance. The hardest thing to see, is
when
reviewing original deeds in that place, seeing for instance, a Henry
Childress
whose land borders a John Childress, then you see their land borders a
Stinnett and others. Then we see several or more Henry's and they are (in
order)
living right next to one another, such as Goolsby, Henry, John and another
John,
is this only a coincidence and if so, don't you find that very odd? I do.
I
believe there was a connection and they shared kinship, some even through
their wives. These are situations that have to be thoroughly researched and
studied. To assert that certain Childress were NOT related even though
deeds and,
etc., link them and or that they were living very near to one another, sends
up a red flag to me.
From experience, I just don't happen to agree. DNA alone, cannot determine
whether or not, say, five or more Childress living near one another are NOT
related due to a classification called "Celtic" and "Viking". I say this
due to
being descended from a female Childress issue and of what I've discussed in
this message.
I also don't approve of how these classifications were determined. We all
know about the tombstone of Joel Childress and what the Childress-List began
as
THEIR determination that the only TRUE Childress arrived AFTER 1745, these
just happen to be classified as "Celtic" with purported "Scottish" ancestry,
even
though the purported record of a George "Childers" from Scotland has no
substantial evidence that I have been able to ascertain. I am very
suspicious of
theory like that, without an ounce of solid documentation. One can't just
assert a purported theory and ancestors and call it documented, that doesn't
wash
with me. Sorry, I don't want to sound critical, however, as a Childress, I
am
very leery as to the actual truth regarding a purposed tombstone with
genealogical information engraved on it. I have seen no solid proof of this.
And
this is the basis for the theory about a 1745 arrival of the "true"
Childress.
Thus the classification of "Celtic" which is used for the purpose, due to
this
small group NOT matching those classified as "Viking" and pre-1745.
I appreciate your comments and opinion Patrick. I also appreciate all the
fine work you've personally done with the DNA, your to be commended. And
no, I
do not think you were being critical in the least, just as I suggested, it
is
important to discuss every issue pertaining to our Childress / Childers,
this
is important and but one ingredient to successful results. Let me know if
there were other issues I missed! Write anytime!
MaryJean
--
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.385 / Virus Database: 268.5.2/329 - Release Date: 5/2/2006
--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.385 / Virus Database: 268.5.2/329 - Release Date: 5/2/2006
Lee,
Thanks for your reply. I'll try my best to address your points to the best of my knowledge(?). I've got a fairly good communication line with FamilyTreeDNA, so if we somehow get stuck on an issue, perhaps we can call in the real experts!
Once again, I'll delete some of your note for the sake of brevity and will enclose my responses to your points ***thusly.***
----- Original Message -----
From: Lee A Rau
To: CHILDRESS-RESEARCH-L(a)rootsweb.com
Sent: Thursday, May 04, 2006 4:28 PM
Subject: RE: [CHILDRESS] CHILDERS - CHILDRESS FAMILY DNA QUESTIONS?
Hi Patrick,
Based on my understanding of the limitations of DNA evidence, though, I believe that attempts to
determine whether one descends from an individual who lived many generations
earlier without that individual's DNA is less certain.
***unquestionably, a portion of the DNA conclusions is based on probabilities, using statistical models based on a very significant sample size.***
That is primarily because - if my understanding is correct - one must first establish the
possible ancestor's DNA through the DNA of his known male descendants.
***using the Y-dna science that is available to FamilyTreeDNA, one cannot with absolute certainty ascertain who the "penultimate" ancestor is, nor can we say without question what the configuration of that ancestor's 25, 37 or the new 59 marker values were. The only way this can be done would be to exhume the remains and run the tests. However, one should consider the scientifically proven facts of genealogical dna studies. In summary, given that markers change, or mutate, only once every 10,000 years or so, and given that we are studying as many as 37 "independent" markers, one can surely appreciate the fact that we can state with a high probability of certainty that if my 37 marker values approximate those of another contemporary dna donor, we can say with certainty that we (the other donor and me) share a common ancestor. The trick, of course, is to ascertain how far back in time that ancestor lived. This "trick" is accomplished by looking at mutations which occur !
on the same markers.***
However, There is always the possibility of error in establishing that individual's
descendants.
***this is true and is an affirmation of the idea that no one approach can possibly take the place of "on the ground" research into records and documents. In fact, genealogical dna necessitates sound documentation, as the essence of genealogical dna is that if my dna matches someone else, I should be able to rely on that individual's research to fill out my family tree.***
I further understand that one can not use DNA to trace ones
male ancestors through a female ancestor.
***true***
Thus should a male take his mother's maiden name for any reason, such as being born out of wedlock, one could descend from a male ancestor without sharing common DNA markers.
***I'm sorry, Lee, but this is where I miss your point. The Y-dna study is based on the absolute principal that the father passes his Y-dna to his son. The maternal, or mt-dna, goes the other way, wherein the mother passes her dna to her daughter. It matters not who the mother of the son is, as this statement relates to the Y-dna. It is this fact that gives rise to individuals with surnames other than Childress or Childers ending up in our genealogical dna pool. As I've had to explain numerous times to totally unsuspecting and surprised non-Childress/Childers descendents, the reason they have our Y-dna is for one of three primary reasons: undisclosed adoptions; an arbitrary changing of their surname or marital infidelity wherein a woman had a child by a Childress/Childers individual. It is through Y-dna research that these revelations come to light. It's up to the individuals to pursue their Childress/Childers ancestors at that point.***
That COULD explain why descendants of a common male ancestor might fall within
different DNA groupings.
***I'm unsure what you mean when you say "different DNA groupings." The DNA results will put them in primarily in only one dna group.***
I also believe that the probability that persons living within close
proximity of one another with the same surname are related does vary
depending on a number of factors, but that is only one factor, that must be
considered along with other data.
***I stand by my statement that Y-dna results will absolutely and conclusively prove that two individuals with the same surname living in close proximity to one another are totally unrelated, at least as this relates to the common Childress/Childers ancestor.***
Lee Rau
Thanks,
Patrick Childress
-----Original Message-----
From: Patrick Childress [mailto:jpc@beecreek.net]
Sent: Thursday, May 04, 2006 10:53 AM
To: CHILDRESS-RESEARCH-L(a)rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: [CHILDRESS] CHILDERS - CHILDRESS FAMILY DNA QUESTIONS?
Hi, MaryJean
It's always interesting to get other folks' opinions about the role and the
success of DNA studies in the pursuit of genealogical ends. Since I serve
as project administrator for two non-Childress DNA projects (Overton and
Barron) and as an informal "Viking" administrator for the Childress/Childers
project, I feel an obligation to respond to a few of the observations you
note below.
Note that my responses are not meant to be critical, just to raise another
side of the discussion.
I've eliminated some of your original note below and my responses are in
italics.
----- Original Message -----
From: MJCV25(a)aol.com
To: CHILDRESS-RESEARCH-L(a)rootsweb.com
Sent: Thursday, May 04, 2006 12:25 AM
Subject: Re: [CHILDRESS] CHILDERS - CHILDRESS FAMILY DNA QUESTIONS?
Hi Crit and List -
Re: Childers and Childress DNA -
Just today, I was discussing the DNA project with one of my favorite,
fellow
researchers, he had this to say -
- - I think what the Childress DNA project has proven is that there are
Childress/Childers lines that do not descend from a common male ancestor
THROUGH
male ancestors. That does not rule out the possibility of a common
ancestor
though a female ancestor who, for example, bore a child out of wedlock. I
agree,
however, that it is unlikely that all Childers and Childresses in this
country have a common male ancestor, and also agree that it is probably
that within
unrelated lines both surnames have been used.
I must confess that I don't fully understand the verbiage underlined
above. Is your friend suggesting that the Y-dna test results are somehow
impacted by the union between a Childress/Childers male and a female? If
so, that would be an incorrect assumption. The Y-dna test used are
absolutely and completely independent of any "interference" by the maternal
line. I do agree that the Y-dna tests have conclusively proven that the 60+
participants do not spring from a common male ancestor. Certainly, the
observation that non-related families utilize the same surname is correct.
After all, surnames have been in existance since only about 800 A.D.
- - And other comments - - Similarly, surnames based on common
occupations,
such as Miller, are likely to have many unrelated families. The Childers
and
Childress names, however, are far more unique, and I thus think within a
given
geographic area, the likelihood that people with either name are related
is
much greater than with most surnames. I am skeptical by attempts to rely
on DNA
evidence to separate Childers/Childresses who live in close proximity with
one another based solely on DNA evidence - -
Your friend's observation above likely is based on an uninformed opinion.
If we adopted the "pick and choose" attitude suggested above, we'd certainly
not be able to convict (or release) criminals on the basis of dna tests.
There are many instances of families with the same surname living in close
proximity where there is absolutely no relation. Otherwise, I'd have to
suggest that 60,000+ donors have given their time, money and dna samples to
an international scam!
As I told him, it certainly makes perfect sense to me and I agree with him
on
those points. The fact is, so far, there are the classifications to deal
with, which are, Celtic and Viking. Who decided these classifications? I
believe it was the listowners of the Childress-List, correct me if wrong.
However,
the fact is, that is the classification right now. While there were many
other classifications, all confusing to at least me, my interest is in the
here
and now. Honestly, I am doubtful of those classifications or at least,
how
their presented.
There are numerous issues on which I disagree with Mark and Gary. That
point notwithstanding, the adoption of "Celtic" and "Viking" as a convenient
label was not based on their input. If you'd like to see the exhaustive
study of the international dna "trail" over the past 10,000 years or so,
I'll be happy to look up the scientific website and send the address to you.
What I find confusing to, is the seemingly urgent search for more Celtic
classification Childress. I believe because this group is lacking in any
other
Childress who has a match. Why is that? The answer coming from the
Childress-List would be because the Celtic Childress arrived in 1745 and
the Viking
Childers and Childress did not.
I would suggest that the probable reason for the search for more "Celtic"
Childress/Childers connections is to be substantiate the list owners'
position that their lines were in America at the time they would like to
place them. From a pure logical point of view, the greater the number of
current Y-dna participants who have a common ancestor, the more likely the
family line has been here longer. Likewise, the fewer the participants, the
less likely the line has been existant in America for a long period of time.
Currently, the majority of the Y-dna participants are in the "Viking"
category.
I believe in good old fashion research, as in a research facility,
archives,
library. But, by constructing a Childress tree, one has to be very
careful. We can't just assert someone in there without documentation. This
is what makes me very nervous, when I see that
type of research on a website, like the Childress-List for instance. I
especially get nervous when mistakes to said ancestry tree are not
corrected (when in
error) on a very public forum, like the Childress-List. If you want to
know
more, see their archives on rootsweb. I want you all to know, I am not
picking
on that particular list, I am only pointing out what I've read in their
series
and monograph.
I agree with your research position 100%!
In the meantime, I appreciate your comments and by the way, I assume
you've
taken the DNA or did I miss that? Thanks!
MaryJean Childress - Voegtlin
As always, MaryJean, thanks for the opportunity to discuss this matter.
Patrick Childress
Hi Patrick -
List -
It was good to hear from you once again. I didn't have a problem with the
(not apparent) underlined:) I knew what you were asking and what your comments
meant. Sorry this is long, but I am going answer you as best I can:)
"My friend" is a seasoned family researcher, which does include Childress /
Childers. He and I discuss almost everything about the family and have, since
I came online. I have a wide list of researchers and have the pleasure of
hearing their opinion and comparing documentation. This is very helpful of
course, just like you and I are doing right now and anyone else who wants to join
in, Kay already has.
Even though I quoted my fellow researcher (friend), I agree with him, I can't
say exactly what he would right now, but I can give you an opinion as to what
I believe he meant and what I know to be good examples.
You and I both know there are those without the Childers/Childress surname
(male) whose DNA did not match the surname they carry, but instead, match the
Childress DNA. How many there are right now, I am not sure. I have
corresponded with at least three so far. These folks (male) are basically Childress, but
carry another surname, either through design, by adoption, born out of
wedlock or by whatever else might have happened within their families, these
families will have to do extensive research to prove their ancestry, if possible.
Then there are those who are male and I know they carry the Y, because they
match Childress. However, I also know that myself for instance, I am not a
male, I do not carry the Y, so I can't take the DNA, however, that does not mean
I am not a Childress, I certainly am one, straight down from my earliest
Childress ancestor, to my father to me. This brings up what my friend had to say.
There were those who CARRIED the surname of CHILDERS or CHILDRESS and it was
NOT through a MALE, but rather through a FEMALE, their mother. Whether known
to them or not, that would be the question.
A good example of this, would be the descendants (if any) of this line -
Abraham Childress lll - to his daughter - Mary Ann Childress who married Solomon
Carter, but Solomon was NOT the father of - JOHN CHILDERS because, as per the
1774 Amherst County, Virginia court record - "MARY CARTER, late, Mary
CHILDERS, mother of a bastard son, JOHN CHILDERS, is bound out 1774 Amherst County,
Virginia. This record did NOT say WHO the father was, nor the age of this male
CHILDERS (aka Childress). This was when Mary Ann was married to Solomon
Carter of whom died in 1786c leaving a will and having written in his will - "To my
wife MARY ANN, who is cohabiting with another man, etc." - The will was dated
1786. Mary Ann Childress Carter later married JOHN GOODRICH who lived in
Amherst County, VA and was seen in the 1785 Amherst tax records and in fact, near
the Childresses, with five in his household, and probably Mary Ann. Other
children of Mary Ann were living with neighbors and other people during that
time. You can those records by going to the CARTER genforum and viewing the
messages of Dick Zieman. He along with several other CARTERS worked with me on
this lineage and the mystery surrounding it.
The issue here is that Virginia Hanks discovered these records on film, while
searching the records of her ancestors in Virginia. She gave the info to the
editor and publisher of "Childress Chatter" and it was published. No one
seemed to say much about it, with exception to Virginia Hanks. If you don't know
about her Childers / Childress research, you can see her published work on
the CFA website.
This I believe is what my friend was using as an example, just one example,
however. Not knowing much at all about this JOHN CHILDERS in Amherst County,
what happened to him? Did he have a wife, have issue? If so, are his
descendants taking the DNA test today? If so, they would NOT match Viking, they would
not match anyone, even though these males would carry the surname of
CHILDRESS and even possibility CHILDERS.
There were those named JOHN CHILDRESS in Amherst County, VA during the time
of when the (bastard) son of Mary Ann Childress Carter Goodrich would have
probably reached maturity. So therefore, could he have been one of those in the
records during the time we see three adult John's in the records as head of
household in Amherst County for 1785 and one in 1783? What about all the Amherst
deeds between a John Childress, Sr. and Jr., with one suggested by Stinnett
descendants as having married both a John AND a Henry. Then there is a John
Childress, Jr., apparently married a Goode in the same place. There were John
Childresses in Amherst after the time that another one left for Burke County
(1786). And I add, this is very very possible, that other's remained, who were
their father's? All head's of household for any JOHN CHILDRESS in Amherst had
people in their household. Could any of these have been males and had
descendants of their own? Sure they could have. Would they match the Childress DNA
classification Viking or Celtic, no, they wouldn't. These male descendants
would be from a female Childress or Childers.
I would also add, MARY ANN Childress Carter Goodrich WAS the ancestor of
those who bore the name of CHILDRESS and through this ancestry - ROBERT Childress
who married secondly, KEZIAH CARTER, was the daughter of PETER Carter and
Elizabeth Sandidge. PETER Carter's mother was MARY ANN CHILDRESS CARTER, who
married first, Solomon Carter. In fact, it is ROBERT Childress who is the son of
JOHN CHILDRESS, Rev. Soldier who was born 1759 Albemarle, who was taken as a
child to Amherst and of whom migrated 1786c Burke Co, NC and then to Wilkes
Co., NC. He was married to the daughter of James Edmondson of Wilkes Co, NC as
per his 1793c will. JOHN migrated at least by 1795 to Knox CO, TN. Therefore,
the children of ROBERT Childress do descend from Abraham Childress lll to HIS
daughter and through her granddaughter, ZEZIAH CARTER who married ROBERT
CHILDRESS, son of JOHN CHILDRESS. The children and grandchildren of JOHN
Childress have more blood links to Abraham Childress lll, not only through Mary Ann.
They also connect to Elizabeth, daughter of John Childress and through Abraham
Childress lll's last wife, Lucy Thomas Neville Childress, who by the way, had
two sons whose name was not that of their father (unknown) but rather HER
purported maiden name of THOMAS. Another example of descendants of Lucy's sons
who might not have known they would NOT carry the DNA of a THOMAS, but rather
the Y of their actual father.
Most of you know, that JOHN CHILDRESS (above) has been placed in the "CELTIC"
group. And in fact, is the ancestor of the Childress-List and DNA list
owners.
There were other's I know who dropped the name Childress and went with their
mother's maiden name (they were males) and one in particular was a double
Childress. The same would apply to HIS children, they would not match their
surname because they were the children of a MALE (double) Childress rather then a
MALE ______. Now at least, the children know, because I worked with the wife
of this man whose father dropped his Childress surname and used his mother's
maiden name. If you want the information, email me, it's not a secret.
The point is this, to sum it up. There could be many male offspring, who
carry the name CHILDERS or CHILDRESS and of whom actually descend from a female
CHILDERS or CHILDRESS. If that be the case, they will not match. Just as my
son, even though male, will not match CHILDRESS DNA. My son carries the Y of
his own father, even though, no matter how you look at it, my son IS a
CHILDRESS descendant, because of me. Had my son changed his name to CHILDRESS and his
OWN children didn't know this, then his sons wouldn't match any Childress DNA
either:) Point taken?
The other point you questioned, would be those who live near one another,
such as those in Amherst Co, VA for instance. The hardest thing to see, is when
reviewing original deeds in that place, seeing for instance, a Henry Childress
whose land borders a John Childress, then you see their land borders a
Stinnett and others. Then we see several or more Henry's and they are (in order)
living right next to one another, such as Goolsby, Henry, John and another John,
is this only a coincidence and if so, don't you find that very odd? I do. I
believe there was a connection and they shared kinship, some even through
their wives. These are situations that have to be thoroughly researched and
studied. To assert that certain Childress were NOT related even though deeds and,
etc., link them and or that they were living very near to one another, sends
up a red flag to me.
From experience, I just don't happen to agree. DNA alone, cannot determine
whether or not, say, five or more Childress living near one another are NOT
related due to a classification called "Celtic" and "Viking". I say this due to
being descended from a female Childress issue and of what I've discussed in
this message.
I also don't approve of how these classifications were determined. We all
know about the tombstone of Joel Childress and what the Childress-List began as
THEIR determination that the only TRUE Childress arrived AFTER 1745, these
just happen to be classified as "Celtic" with purported "Scottish" ancestry, even
though the purported record of a George "Childers" from Scotland has no
substantial evidence that I have been able to ascertain. I am very suspicious of
theory like that, without an ounce of solid documentation. One can't just
assert a purported theory and ancestors and call it documented, that doesn't wash
with me. Sorry, I don't want to sound critical, however, as a Childress, I am
very leery as to the actual truth regarding a purposed tombstone with
genealogical information engraved on it. I have seen no solid proof of this. And
this is the basis for the theory about a 1745 arrival of the "true" Childress.
Thus the classification of "Celtic" which is used for the purpose, due to this
small group NOT matching those classified as "Viking" and pre-1745.
I appreciate your comments and opinion Patrick. I also appreciate all the
fine work you've personally done with the DNA, your to be commended. And no, I
do not think you were being critical in the least, just as I suggested, it is
important to discuss every issue pertaining to our Childress / Childers, this
is important and but one ingredient to successful results. Let me know if
there were other issues I missed! Write anytime!
MaryJean
MaryJean,
As far as I know I am the only one of my line from Pleasant Jr thru James
Harvey who is participating in the DNA testing. There are no first cousins
and I don't know any second cousins or beyond. My primary reason for being
in the DNA group is to help bridge the generation between Pleasant Sr and
Abraham the Planter of Curles VA (if that is in fact my ancestry).
Crit
Hi Crit,
Thank you for writing and for answering my question about whether or not you
took the DNA test. Do you represent your family? Their very fortunate if you
did and I'm sure they will be thankful (for future generations) for your
contribution towards this endeavor.
MaryJean
MaryJean and List:
Regarding the assignment of the labels of "Viking" and "Celtic" to the Haplogrouping of the Y-DNA participants, please click on the link below to go to the webpage where these determinations were made. I certainly do not consider myself to be a dna "expert," but my research indicates that the database of 60,000+ participants has allowed the grouping of the results into broad categories, as determined by the first eight or so dna markers.
Here is how the term "Viking" came to be attached to the majority of the Childress/Childers participants, based on their nomenclature of "I" in the haplogrouping:
http://isogg.org/tree/ISOGG_HapgrpI.html
Here is how the term "Celtic" came to be attached to the majority of the Childress/Childers participants, based on their nomenclature of "R1b1" in the haplogrouping:
http://isogg.org/tree/ISOGG_HapgrpR.html
I hope the above doesn't add too much more confusion!
Thanks,
Patrick Childress
VISIT THE CHILDRESS/CHILDERS "VIKING" DNA RESULTS PAGE AT:
http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~jpcfamily/childress_dna_project.htm
----- Original Message -----
From: MJCV25(a)aol.com
To: CHILDRESS-RESEARCH-L(a)rootsweb.com
Sent: Thursday, May 04, 2006 12:25 AM
Subject: Re: [CHILDRESS] CHILDERS - CHILDRESS FAMILY DNA QUESTIONS?
Hi Crit and List -
Re: Childers and Childress DNA -
I appreciate your response and for writing. As for myself, my Dad passed
away in 1995 and he was an only child. I wish I could submit his DNA, but now
that isn't possible. As for any other living (male) Childress relative from his
branch? I've not located any at this point. However, there are some I
believe who descend from my ancestor, William Childress (b.1785 VA-1865 KY) and I
plan on posting a message about it and looking on the Internet to see if there
are any (males) from my line on the websites. However, no luck as yet.
Just today, I was discussing the DNA project with one of my favorite, fellow
researchers, he had this to say -
- - I think what the Childress DNA project has proven is that there are
Childress/Childers lines that do not descend from a common male ancestor THROUGH
male ancestors. That does not rule out the possibility of a common ancestor
though a female ancestor who, for example, bore a child out of wedlock. I agree,
however, that it is unlikely that all Childers and Childresses in this
country have a common male ancestor, and also agree that it is probably that within
unrelated lines both surnames have been used. DNA, as I view it is simply one
piece of evidence that must be evaluated along with other evidence to assess
what inferences can be drawn from it. - -
- - And other comments - - Similarly, surnames based on common occupations,
such as Miller, are likely to have many unrelated families. The Childers and
Childress names, however, are far more unique, and I thus think within a given
geographic area, the likelihood that people with either name are related is
much greater than with most surnames. I am skeptical by attempts to rely on DNA
evidence to separate Childers/Childresses who live in close proximity with
one another based solely on DNA evidence - -
As I told him, it certainly makes perfect sense to me and I agree with him on
those points. The fact is, so far, there are the classifications to deal
with, which are, Celtic and Viking. Who decided these classifications? I
believe it was the listowners of the Childress-List, correct me if wrong. However,
the fact is, that is the classification right now. While there were many
other classifications, all confusing to at least me, my interest is in the here
and now. Honestly, I am doubtful of those classifications or at least, how
their presented.
What I find confusing to, is the seemingly urgent search for more Celtic
classification Childress. I believe because this group is lacking in any other
Childress who has a match. Why is that? The answer coming from the
Childress-List would be because the Celtic Childress arrived in 1745 and the Viking
Childers and Childress did not. Where did the date come from? It came from a very
absent piece of a purported tradition, the tombstone of Joel Childress. But
that's another story!
I believe in good old fashion research, as in a research facility, archives,
library. This is what I did for 25 years before coming online about 1999.
Most of our families came out of Virginia (Childers-Childress) and so therefore,
we are at a great disadvantage, records burned due to various wars and other
disasters. So, we're out of original documents to piece our ancestry
together. However, there are deeds and there are wills. But, by constructing a
Childress tree, one has to be very careful. We can't just assert someone in there
without documentation. This is what makes me very nervous, when I see that
type of research on a website, like the Childress-List for instance. I
especially get nervous when mistakes to said ancestry tree are not corrected (when in
error) on a very public forum, like the Childress-List. If you want to know
more, see their archives on rootsweb. I want you all to know, I am not picking
on that particular list, I am only pointing out what I've read in their series
and monograph.
In the meantime, I appreciate your comments and by the way, I assume you've
taken the DNA or did I miss that? Thanks!
MaryJean Childress - Voegtlin
Mary Jean, You are correct, I did take the DNA test; my results are on the
Childers/ress DNA group and on Childers/ress Assoc web page. Thanks for your
comments. Crit
Dear List:
I noticed that the software and/or server has "filtered out" the italics, bold print and underlined passages in the note I sent below. Sorry about that! I trust that an interested reader can muddle his or her way through the responses I raised. I've put an ******** line before and after my responses below.
Thanks,
Patrick Childress
----- Original Message -----
From: Patrick Childress
To: CHILDRESS-RESEARCH-L(a)rootsweb.com
Sent: Thursday, May 04, 2006 10:52 AM
Subject: Re: [CHILDRESS] CHILDERS - CHILDRESS FAMILY DNA QUESTIONS?
*******************
Hi, MaryJean
It's always interesting to get other folks' opinions about the role and the success of DNA studies in the pursuit of genealogical ends. Since I serve as project administrator for two non-Childress DNA projects (Overton and Barron) and as an informal "Viking" administrator for the Childress/Childers project, I feel an obligation to respond to a few of the observations you note below.
Note that my responses are not meant to be critical, just to raise another side of the discussion.
I've eliminated some of your original note below and my responses are in italics.
*******************
----- Original Message -----
From: MJCV25(a)aol.com
To: CHILDRESS-RESEARCH-L(a)rootsweb.com
Sent: Thursday, May 04, 2006 12:25 AM
Subject: Re: [CHILDRESS] CHILDERS - CHILDRESS FAMILY DNA QUESTIONS?
MARYJEAN
Hi Crit and List -
Re: Childers and Childress DNA -
Just today, I was discussing the DNA project with one of my favorite, fellow
researchers, he had this to say -
MARYJEAN
- - I think what the Childress DNA project has proven is that there are
Childress/Childers lines that do not descend from a common male ancestor THROUGH
male ancestors. That does not rule out the possibility of a common ancestor
though a female ancestor who, for example, bore a child out of wedlock. I agree,
however, that it is unlikely that all Childers and Childresses in this
country have a common male ancestor, and also agree that it is probably that within
unrelated lines both surnames have been used.
**************************************
I must confess that I don't fully understand the verbiage underlined above. Is your friend suggesting that the Y-dna test results are somehow impacted by the union between a Childress/Childers male and a female? If so, that would be an incorrect assumption. The Y-dna test used are absolutely and completely independent of any "interference" by the maternal line. I do agree that the Y-dna tests have conclusively proven that the 60+ participants do not spring from a common male ancestor. Certainly, the observation that non-related families utilize the same surname is correct. After all, surnames have been in existance since only about 800 A.D.
***************************************
MARYJEAN
- - And other comments - - Similarly, surnames based on common occupations,
such as Miller, are likely to have many unrelated families. The Childers and
Childress names, however, are far more unique, and I thus think within a given
geographic area, the likelihood that people with either name are related is
much greater than with most surnames. I am skeptical by attempts to rely on DNA
evidence to separate Childers/Childresses who live in close proximity with
one another based solely on DNA evidence - -
****************************************
Your friend's observation above likely is based on an uninformed opinion. If we adopted the "pick and choose" attitude suggested above, we'd certainly not be able to convict (or release) criminals on the basis of dna tests. There are many instances of families with the same surname living in close proximity where there is absolutely no relation. Otherwise, I'd have to suggest that 60,000+ donors have given their time, money and dna samples to an international scam!
*******************************************
MARYJEAN
As I told him, it certainly makes perfect sense to me and I agree with him on
those points. The fact is, so far, there are the classifications to deal
with, which are, Celtic and Viking. Who decided these classifications? I
believe it was the listowners of the Childress-List, correct me if wrong. However,
the fact is, that is the classification right now. While there were many
other classifications, all confusing to at least me, my interest is in the here
and now. Honestly, I am doubtful of those classifications or at least, how
their presented.
***********************************************
There are numerous issues on which I disagree with Mark and Gary. That point notwithstanding, the adoption of "Celtic" and "Viking" as a convenient label was not based on their input. If you'd like to see the exhaustive study of the international dna "trail" over the past 10,000 years or so, I'll be happy to look up the scientific website and send the address to you.
**********************************************
MARYJEAN
What I find confusing to, is the seemingly urgent search for more Celtic
classification Childress. I believe because this group is lacking in any other
Childress who has a match. Why is that? The answer coming from the
Childress-List would be because the Celtic Childress arrived in 1745 and the Viking
Childers and Childress did not.
************************************************
I would suggest that the probable reason for the search for more "Celtic" Childress/Childers connections is to be substantiate the list owners' position that their lines were in America at the time they would like to place them. From a pure logical point of view, the greater the number of current Y-dna participants who have a common ancestor, the more likely the family line has been here longer. Likewise, the fewer the participants, the less likely the line has been existant in America for a long period of time. Currently, the majority of the Y-dna participants are in the "Viking" category.
***********************************************
MARYJEAN
I believe in good old fashion research, as in a research facility, archives,
library. But, by constructing a Childress tree, one has to be very careful. We can't just assert someone in there without documentation. This is what makes me very nervous, when I see that
type of research on a website, like the Childress-List for instance. I
especially get nervous when mistakes to said ancestry tree are not corrected (when in
error) on a very public forum, like the Childress-List. If you want to know
more, see their archives on rootsweb. I want you all to know, I am not picking
on that particular list, I am only pointing out what I've read in their series
and monograph.
************************************
I agree with your research position 100%!
*************************************
MARYJEAN
In the meantime, I appreciate your comments and by the way, I assume you've
taken the DNA or did I miss that? Thanks!
MaryJean Childress - Voegtlin
***************************************
As always, MaryJean, thanks for the opportunity to discuss this matter.
Patrick Childress