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
This is a Message Board Post that is gatewayed to this mailing list.
Author: Patch227
Surnames:
Classification: queries
Message Board URL:
http://boards.rootsweb.com/surnames.claypool/313.3.1/mb.ashx
Message Board Post:
I come from John and Nancy's son Phillip. John died in Hardy and is buried there.
Tombstone very faded but in Baker's cemetery , his home is also there down the road from cem. Supposedly born in 1730's.
John and Rachel had a very large family and he had with Nancy
Philip, Priscilla, Nancy and Aaron I don't have actual proof of wives or Rachel's death. Only can state Philip born in 1789 and died in Ohio 1845 in Licking CO, Oh, where his tombstone is. In Hendricks a John is listed as dying ,two of them 1832 and a 1835.
Barbara
Important Note:
The author of this message may not be subscribed to this list. If you would like to reply to them, please click on the Message Board URL link above and respond on the board.
This is a Message Board Post that is gatewayed to this mailing list.
Author: pammey27
Surnames: Scott, Claypool, Slater, Sinnate, Osorn, Bradigum, Gray, Baker, Chilcott, Chrisman
Classification: queries
Message Board URL:
http://boards.rootsweb.com/surnames.claypool/313.3/mb.ashx
Message Board Post:
I am related to Rachel Scott m John Claypool but want to know if Rachel died before 1784 and he remarried a Nancy. WV estate settlements for Hardy County, WV for John Claypool Sept. 9, 1823 list Nancy wife; James, John, David, Stephen, George, William, Aaron, Philip sons: Mary Metcalf, Elinor Slator, James Osborn, Marg. Osborn, Sarah Slater, Rachel Baker, Hannah Gray, Eliz. Bradigum, Leah Chrisman, Nancy Sinnate, Priscilla Chilcott daughters. I have that Rachel Scott Claypool died in 1784 but I believe she died earlier as some of the children would have been born when she was 50 or more and that these children are probably John's second wife, Nancy's children. Do you know anything about this and can help me verify. Also have that John who married Rachel Scott died at Lost River, Hardy County, WV but then I find a John Claypool between 60-70 in the Hendricks, Indiana 1830 Census along with David and Reuben. Is this John the father of John, David and Reuben or the older b!
rother to David and Reuben?
Thank you,
Pam Scott Truly
Important Note:
The author of this message may not be subscribed to this list. If you would like to reply to them, please click on the Message Board URL link above and respond on the board.
This is a Message Board Post that is gatewayed to this mailing list.
Author: MADDYDAWN1942
Surnames: CLAYPOOL KINDER
Classification: queries
Message Board URL:
http://boards.rootsweb.com/surnames.claypool/327/mb.ashx
Message Board Post:
MY GREAT GRANDFATHERS SISTER WAS EDITH KINDER,(BORN 1877 IN PENN) SHE MARRIED A CHARLES CLAYPOOL IN ILLINOIS IN 1908.IM LOOKING FOR ANY FAMILY MEMBERS, ORIGINAL KINDERS ARE FROM ENGLAND
ANY HELP WOULD BE APPRECIATED
MADDYDAWN1942(a)aol.com
Important Note:
The author of this message may not be subscribed to this list. If you would like to reply to them, please click on the Message Board URL link above and respond on the board.
This is a Message Board Post that is gatewayed to this mailing list.
Author: barrychapman59
Surnames: Norton & Rachel Claypoole
Classification: queries
Message Board URL:
http://boards.rootsweb.com/surnames.claypool/326.1/mb.ashx
Message Board Post:
Barbara,
After the Great Fire of London, St Mary Abchurch was rebuilt by Christopher Wren - here's some more detail:-
St Mary Abchurch, Abchurch Lane, off Cannon Street, London EC4
The original church to stand on this site, built in the 12th century, may have been named 'up church' because it was upstream from its then-owner the Priory of St Mary Overie, now Southwark Cathedral.
The present building dates from 1681 - 86, and is a restored Wren church, one of the 51 churches built in London by the prolific architect after the Great Fire of 1666.
The simple Dutch-influenced red-brick exterior of the building conceals the magnificence of the interior. Wren's marvellous shallow dome, painted by William Snow, gives the building an unusually spacious feel. Beneath the dome is some splendid 17th century woodwork, including the the carved limewood reredos created by Grinling Gibbons. This superb altar screen is the only example in the City to be definitely attributed to the 17th century master carver.
Admission free. Opening Times, Mon-Fri 10:30-14:00.
Barry
Important Note:
The author of this message may not be subscribed to this list. If you would like to reply to them, please click on the Message Board URL link above and respond on the board.
This is a Message Board Post that is gatewayed to this mailing list.
Author: Patch227
Surnames:
Classification: queries
Message Board URL:
http://boards.rootsweb.com/surnames.claypool/326/mb.ashx
Message Board Post:
This might make it easier, so much info floating about. The Claypool's that left DE were not Quakers, they had given up the religion in New Castle, Norton and wife were never Quaker at all, given info in London, it appears were involved with St Mary Abechurch, no longer standing. Those of you involved or interested in Norton should read TAG, either 2000, 2001 fall issue. It gives their background as much as is known.
James (phila) states his son "My sonne James was born ye 6 day 9 month 1664 about 9 of ye clock in the Evening in Scots yard near London Stone"Family Bible., he married Mary Cann daughter of Quakers and came to New Castle, where died 1706. Had son James, daughter and unknown
bapt records found in ministers records. so they had left Quaker church by 1703. George Keith's Journal, pg 37
April 11, Sunday, 1703. I preached at New Castle, on Jude(?) 20. Mr. Talbot Preached there in the afternoon and Baptized three children of Mr. James Claypool (who had formely been a Quaker) and another Child of a churchman. And at our return to New-Castle from Virginia, I Baptized the said Mr. James Claypool, he was much afflicted wi a Palsie.
Norton married Rachel about 1670 in London had sons John who died young and daughter Mary died London, his son James b ?1673, he married Elizabeth Pawling and died in 1702 Sussex Co., records of their deaths can be find in DE records since their wives remarried.
DAR records have allowed children of James and John in based on PS provided service. Since father James was a weaver it appears they most likely helped with donations of cloth to the army. Only a guess. Those records can be found online DAR request or Nat'l Archives.
I don't think anyone knows for sure which line we come from, those in VA at least. Over a hundred years ago a letter asking that very question to VA History Group from a man in OH, never answered. Along with research to Edward is also info from another group with the opposite so its a toss up. The Bird family is well established early in US history and ended wealthy and prominent in VA/WV about that same time. Perhaps tracing them back might provide some info on James, Jane marriage.
Anyone wanting anymore info please email me at my personal address, I'll help if I can, but can't settle the main question.
Barbara
Important Note:
The author of this message may not be subscribed to this list. If you would like to reply to them, please click on the Message Board URL link above and respond on the board.
This is a Message Board Post that is gatewayed to this mailing list.
Author: JosephAHittle
Surnames:
Classification: queries
Message Board URL:
http://boards.rootsweb.com/surnames.claypool/16.17.27.1.2.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.2...
Message Board Post:
Barry,
Yes, this 1677 James has me very curious. That, along with the idea that this James had a wife named Jean.
In an earlier post I mentioned that there were several James in Philadelphia who had been confused with James Jr. (son of James and Helena (Mercer) Claypoole) According to E.F. Claypool's reference, this is one of them.
Which raises the question, if he was a son of Norton, what happened to the 1673 son of Norton named James which you've identified? There are a couple of possibilities to consider here:
a) E.F. Claypool's researchers were completely incorrect in all of the details of Norton's son James
b) Norton had 2 sons James
c) if b, James I (b. 1673) may not have been the son of the same wife as James II (b. 1677)
d) if b, and not c, then James I likely died before 1677.
None of these satisfactorily answers the corollary question: If James II was the only living son of Norton, who is the "Jean" refered to as Norton's son James' wife in E.F. Claypool's work?
If there ARE 2 James Claypooles, one born in 1673, and one born in 1677, and James II is NOT Norton's son, then whose son IS he? Outside of being a pure hoax, what other rationale is there for E.F. Claypoole's researchers to report that there was such a person? (for clarification's sake, that's pretty much a rhetorical question, and I'm not expecting you to have a ready answer, but if you do, I'd definitly welcome it).
To this point in my study, I've never found anyone who purposely messed up a genealogy report. I'm sure there are cases in which this may be shown to have happened, but even in all the discussion of E. F. Claypool's work, I've never seen that alleged.
And so, the confusion of the James(es) continues. I surely don't have any answers to the questions I've posed here. But, it seems to me that there's too much smoke to totally ignore here.
But, you're very much correct from what I've found, the records show that Norton had at least one son named James baptized in 1673.
(and I'm betting that while I haven't seen his will, that it doesn't name 2 sons named James for him)
Joe
Important Note:
The author of this message may not be subscribed to this list. If you would like to reply to them, please click on the Message Board URL link above and respond on the board.
This is a Message Board Post that is gatewayed to this mailing list.
Author: JosephAHittle
Surnames:
Classification: queries
Message Board URL:
http://boards.rootsweb.com/surnames.claypool/16.17.27.1.2.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1...
Message Board Post:
I've not yet attempted to verify whether or not Jesse (born 1751) was a Revolutionary War participant. To this point I've never attempted to apply for SAR membership, but could through nearly every other ahnentafel line I can establish, with the exception being that of my paternal grandmother, whose parents arrived from Bavaria shortly after the close of the Civil War.
I have never run across any story of any Claypool(e) ever being accused of being a Royalist during the Revolution. Obviously Betsy (Griscom) ((Ross)) (((Ashburn))) Claypoole's last husband John would not have fit that designation. I think it would have been hard to have assigned that designation to any of the Claypoole's yet in the Philadelphia area during the conflict, given the dedication of David Claypoole's newspaper to the "cause of freedom" during a time when the city of Philadelphia was actually controlled by the British army.
On the other hand, for those holding to strict Quaker beliefs, there may have been some who chose to be non-participants in the conflict. The question then becomes, if there were still such to be found, where are they in meeting records? And, even if they are there, that in no way means that they were Royalists. It was their example that initiated the concept of "conscientious objector," a designation still viable yet today were a draft ever resumed.
As far as "credited" writing goes, I'm probably not that good. My quest, at this point in life, is to give my grandchildren (presently numbering 4, with 2 more on their way) something they can count as reliable when they desire to pass the story on to their family.
I happen to think it's good enough to make it reliable. And so, as you've reflected, the work goes on.
Here's hoping I've helped others on the way.
Joe
Important Note:
The author of this message may not be subscribed to this list. If you would like to reply to them, please click on the Message Board URL link above and respond on the board.
This is a Message Board Post that is gatewayed to this mailing list.
Author: barrychapman59
Surnames: Claypoole
Classification: queries
Message Board URL:
http://boards.rootsweb.com/surnames.claypool/16.17.27.1.2.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.2...
Message Board Post:
Joe and Greg,
Given my area of interest is the Claypoole family of Philadelphia and that I don't have much knowledge of your lines (whether from James 1634-1687 or from Norton), I'm surprised to find I am able to help re the birth/christening of James, son of Norton and Rachel Claypoole.
I confirm that Norton's James was born no later than 1673, as he was christened on 8 Dec 1673 at St. Mary's Abchurch, off Cannon St., City of London, England.
Norton and Rachel had an older son named John, who was also christened at St. Mary's Abchurch, on 20 May 1672. It is most probable that John had died by 1680, as in James'(1634-1687) letter to his brother Norton, dated "London, the 28th, 8th mo., 1681", he noted that Rachel and son James had left England (for America) about 10 weeks earlier ie. around mid August 1681.
You can check these christenings via the IGI on the LDS Family Search website - the IGI batch # for both is C045891.
Based on John's christening date, and assuming no earlier children, it is likely that Norton and Rachel married no later than mid 1671.
Interestingly, James (1634-1687) the migrant's London home in Scots Yard was also off Cannon St., City of London.
Barry Chapman
Important Note:
The author of this message may not be subscribed to this list. If you would like to reply to them, please click on the Message Board URL link above and respond on the board.
This is a Message Board Post that is gatewayed to this mailing list.
Author: GClaypool
Surnames: Claypool
Classification: queries
Message Board URL:
http://boards.rootsweb.com/surnames.claypool/16.17.27.1.2.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1...
Message Board Post:
Thanks Joe for taking the time to present the positions floating around. I more or less agree with the common versions, since dates, locations, marriages seem to fit. I have somewhat of the same problem in names on my wife's family line, since all the critical people from years ago are all named John. I'm of the opinion that the Hardy County bunch were from the James of Phila, that Norton went to Armstrong, Pa and Joseph remaining in Phila. and New Jersey. We as they say, genealogy is always a work in progress. The Hardy County bunch is where my line originated from. Have you developed any credited information that is or was accepted by the DAR or SAR. I know there are a few files lurking at DAR, but other than the Rebellious James, who found it expedient see the light so to speak, I find a real absences of patriot activity or at least in the record. Have you been successful in finding such. Best Regards, Greg Claypool
Important Note:
The author of this message may not be subscribed to this list. If you would like to reply to them, please click on the Message Board URL link above and respond on the board.
This is a Message Board Post that is gatewayed to this mailing list.
Author: JosephAHittle
Surnames:
Classification: queries
Message Board URL:
http://boards.rootsweb.com/surnames.claypool/16.17.27.1.2.1.1.1.1.1.1.1/m...
Message Board Post:
Well, there are basically 3 schools of thought:
a) In the early 1900's, a banker from Indianapolis named Edward Fay Claypool commissioned genealogists to trace his line back into antiquity. His opening premise was that he descended from the James Claypoole who is buried in the Miller-Claypool cemetery in Hardy County, (West) Virginia. This work can be found at http://contentdm.lib.byu.edu/cdm4/document.php?CISOROOT=/FH3&CISOPTR=1758...
b) Some 13-15 years before E.F. Claypool's work was published in 1906 a descendant of James Claypoole, William Penn's business associate who died in Philadelphia in 1687, named Rebecca Irwin Vanuxen Trimble Graff published a series of articles in the Pennsylvania Genealogical Magazine which was later combined in 1893 into a work entitled "Genealogy of the Claypoole Family of Philadelphia. 1588-1893." This work can be found at http://books.google.com/books?id=B2kWAAAAYAAJ
On pages 13 and 14 of E.F. Claypool's work, his researchers reported that James of Hardy County was the son of James Claypool, son of Norton Claypool
On page 170 of Graff's work she reports that James of Hardy County arrived there from Rockingham County, Virginia, but earlier on this page notes that the names following are those which she has not been able to connect back to the known Claypool trees. Basically, Graff's position is that James of Hardy is not traceable.
While I have not read Elizabeth Claypool Bracken's work, it is reported that she established that James of Hardy was indeed the son of James Jr. (son of James Sr, the original James of Philadelphia).
This was also my understanding before I ever even knew there was an Elizabeth Claypool Bracken, but in backtracking the story that came to me, I'm not certain whether Bracken was the one who informed the base of my sources, or if the connection was made the other way. I'm also not sure that is all that important to sort out.
Barbara Johnson, who also posts here has, located some references for what seems to me to point toward the conclusion that James of Hardy County was indeed the grandson of James Sr. via his son James Jr.
I am not an old man, but on the other hand, neither am I any longer a young one. The version I've heard for many years is that my line connects to James of Hardy via his youngest son, Jesse, and that from Jesse on back there are 3 James Claypooles in succession, James married to Jane Byrd, James married to Mary Cann, and James married to Helen(a) Mercer (and brother-in-law of Elizabeth (Cromwell) Claypool, via his elder brother John).
With 3 versions of the story "out there" and with several different variations of each story (especially Bracken's and E.F. Claypool's) prevalant in rootsweb gedcoms (and several other online gedcom repositories) it's not hard to imagine that someone might get confused in this regard.
While my personal leaning is to the Bracken version, I am indeed curious as to why it was reported in E. F. Claypool's work that:
a) James of Hardy connected to Norton as his grandfather
b) Norton's son James was married to a Jean {nee unknown} rather than to Elizabeth Pawling.
c) Norton was married in 1677
d) Norton's son James born in 1677 rather than the more common date usually accorded to him of 1673. (on the other hand, I'm also not sure of the source of the 1673 date).
There's plenty of room for confusion of the James(es) here. You're not the only one whose head is spinning!
Hope this helps.
Joe
Important Note:
The author of this message may not be subscribed to this list. If you would like to reply to them, please click on the Message Board URL link above and respond on the board.
This is a Message Board Post that is gatewayed to this mailing list.
Author: GClaypool
Surnames: Claypool
Classification: queries
Message Board URL:
http://boards.rootsweb.com/surnames.claypool/16.17.27.1.2.1.1.1.1.1.1/mb....
Message Board Post:
Hi Forks and Kin, I've been following the messages and am completely confused as to who did what and when. Would someone please tell me what the current assumptions are or present theory regarding the James Claypoool who moved to WV are, his parents being, married to who, and children? I've read everything from Bracken to Chapman and everything in between. Would really like to understand what most people who study the family line believe is correct and if not, where the holes are. Really appreciate the help from all.
Important Note:
The author of this message may not be subscribed to this list. If you would like to reply to them, please click on the Message Board URL link above and respond on the board.
This is a Message Board Post that is gatewayed to this mailing list.
Author: JosephAHittle
Surnames:
Classification: queries
Message Board URL:
http://boards.rootsweb.com/surnames.claypool/16.17.27.1.2.1.1.1.1.1/mb.ashx
Message Board Post:
Hi Barbara,
I'm just a picture nut, and always enjoy seeing new presentations even of "old" stuff. It sounds like your findings of 10 years ago substantiate what Jim and Selma (Selma is the Claypool descendant) are reporting. If I hadn't been tipped off, I probably would have shot the mismarked stones believing that I had found the real deal.
I think the Burrows' account also suggests that the death date on Jane's stone may not be any where nearly so legible as it was for the WPA reporting, so this gives me a hint as what to look for as well.
If you ever want to put pictures on the web, let me know. I do have a vehicle for that on my website, and would welcome any additions you'd care to share.
Thanks,
Joe
Important Note:
The author of this message may not be subscribed to this list. If you would like to reply to them, please click on the Message Board URL link above and respond on the board.
This is a Message Board Post that is gatewayed to this mailing list.
Author: Patch227
Surnames:
Classification: queries
Message Board URL:
http://boards.rootsweb.com/surnames.claypool/16.17.27.1.2.1.1.1.1/mb.ashx
Message Board Post:
Joe
I have nothing online, my photos are not great anyway so i have no proof for you
I was there a good 10 years ago and maybe more, the stones were readable up close, and poor janes stone i believe was laying down off its base, but we were able to make out the stone writings . The WPA in the 30s i'm sure could read it even better, the only difference with theirs and mine were it was hard to see if Janes stone said a 6 or 8, 1768 or 1766. We went to Baker outside of moorefield and took a left is what is in my mind and its down the road on left, up a hill, it did say cemetery on the road. Had to walk up a steep dirt hill, it was across the road from a chicken farm, next to a federal style home, since it is called
Baker Cem., wondered if that was the Baker home.
Barbara
Important Note:
The author of this message may not be subscribed to this list. If you would like to reply to them, please click on the Message Board URL link above and respond on the board.
This is a Message Board Post that is gatewayed to this mailing list.
Author: JosephAHittle
Surnames:
Classification: queries
Message Board URL:
http://boards.rootsweb.com/surnames.claypool/16.17.27.1.2.1.1.1/mb.ashx
Message Board Post:
I usually take a 2 week vacation and head east from here in Iowa and "do genealogy" each summer. I'm going to have to spend a full week in WV, as I have in-depth "stuff" to do in Hardy, Monongalia, Preston and Greenbriar Counties as the Claypools, Gadds, Boords, Jenkins(s), Handleys and Kincaids (all part of my mother's side of the ahnentafel) ventured from there to eastern Illinois in the mid-1800's.
>From what others have told me, the Miller Cemetery is a bit tough to find, so I'm hoping that satellite maps from Google (and others) can show me the basic route to take, at least.
I went back and revisted Jim and Selma Burrows' website and noticed that they have addendums to their original findings at Miller.
According to their addendums, they too have found the stone marked for Jane (Byrd) Claypoole, but demonstrate via photography that the illegible stones with more recent granite plaques attached are actually not what they find the stones for James III and Jane to be. In fact, with shaving cream "technology," they have good photos of broken stones which are very likely to be the stones "read" by the WPA walkers some 75 years ago.
So, there is hope that even in the cemetery I'll be able to get photos that can be used for my online gallery. I'm a little opposed to going out and grabbing other people's work, even when they've told me that I could, simply because part of the fun of research for me is enjoying the spiritual adventure/reward in standing where they have stood, and now temporally lie. (Hopefully that doesn't seem too morbid for those not understanding the emotion of finding those without whom one doesn't exist)
Do you have an online presentation for your photos? I'd love to see them if they're available.
Thanks!
Joe
Important Note:
The author of this message may not be subscribed to this list. If you would like to reply to them, please click on the Message Board URL link above and respond on the board.
This is a Message Board Post that is gatewayed to this mailing list.
Author: Patch227
Surnames:
Classification: queries
Message Board URL:
http://boards.rootsweb.com/surnames.claypool/16.17.27.1.2.1.1/mb.ashx
Message Board Post:
Joe
I was there and photoed stones, and was able to record them, i have seen better photos then mine.
Barbara
Important Note:
The author of this message may not be subscribed to this list. If you would like to reply to them, please click on the Message Board URL link above and respond on the board.
This is a Message Board Post that is gatewayed to this mailing list.
Author: JosephAHittle
Surnames:
Classification: queries
Message Board URL:
http://boards.rootsweb.com/surnames.claypool/16.17.27.1.2.1/mb.ashx
Message Board Post:
Actually, I didn't make it to Hardy County, and am wishing now that I had.
The dates from both Jane and James III's tombstones were recorded earlier in the 20th century, or, so the citations I've seen of them suggest.
In Jim and Selma Burrows' pages at http://www.eldacur.com/~burrowses/Genealogy/Claypool/Intro.html they have current pictures from the cemetery, and state that the stones of James and Jane are no longer legible.
And Wayne Osborne (likely a descendant of James and Jane's daughter Elizabeth who is named as "Betty Ozborn" in James will) has a memorial to Jane at http://www.findagrave.com/cgi-bin/fg.cgi?page=gr&GSvcid=3088&GRid=11277587&
I'll have to dig a little for the earlier transcriptions of the dates on James and Jane's original stones, but I'm pretty sure they were still legible enough that the WPA projects of the 1930's recorded them.
Hope this helps!
Joe
Important Note:
The author of this message may not be subscribed to this list. If you would like to reply to them, please click on the Message Board URL link above and respond on the board.
This is a Message Board Post that is gatewayed to this mailing list.
Author: tlhittle
Surnames:
Classification: queries
Message Board URL:
http://boards.rootsweb.com/surnames.claypool/16.17.27.1.2/mb.ashx
Message Board Post:
Quote Joe:
"There are also questions about how many wives James may have had, and if more than one, was "Jane Byrd" a married or natal name of the lady who is declared to be his wife via her tombstone?"
Joe, I know you have spent a lot more time researching this line than I and probably most people reading this. My question is: During your trip last summer did you have the occasion to view this tombstone and can you share here what it says?
Thanks
Tim Hittle
Important Note:
The author of this message may not be subscribed to this list. If you would like to reply to them, please click on the Message Board URL link above and respond on the board.
This is a Message Board Post that is gatewayed to this mailing list.
Author: Patch227
Surnames:
Classification: queries
Message Board URL:
http://boards.rootsweb.com/surnames.claypool/16.17.27.1.1/mb.ashx
Message Board Post:
Joe not sure i can help but here is my email, patch227yahoo.com
I have a little info on your question. Barbara
Important Note:
The author of this message may not be subscribed to this list. If you would like to reply to them, please click on the Message Board URL link above and respond on the board.
While I am NO authority on the Claypool/Claypoole line, it is a double line
for me and I do have a picture of the headstone in question complements of
another researcher, on my website at
http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~waughtel/claypool_clayp...
I will be most interested in any viewpoint on it and/or anything on my
website. If incorrect, I would want to update any information.
Thank you -
Antoinette (Tacoma, Washington)
----- Original Message -----
From: <gc-gateway(a)rootsweb.com>
To: <CLAYPOOL-L(a)rootsweb.com>
Sent: Thursday, January 01, 2009 8:34 AM
Subject: Re: [CLAYPOOL] Jesse Claypool's mother
> This is a Message Board Post that is gatewayed to this mailing list.
>
> Author: tlhittle
> Surnames:
> Classification: queries
>
> Message Board URL:
>
> http://boards.rootsweb.com/surnames.claypool/16.17.27.1.2/mb.ashx
>
> Message Board Post:
>
> Quote Joe:
> "There are also questions about how many wives James may have had, and if
> more than one, was "Jane Byrd" a married or natal name of the lady who is
> declared to be his wife via her tombstone?"
>
> Joe, I know you have spent a lot more time researching this line than I
> and probably most people reading this. My question is: During your trip
> last summer did you have the occasion to view this tombstone and can you
> share here what it says?
>
> Thanks
>
> Tim Hittle
>
> Important Note:
> The author of this message may not be subscribed to this list. If you
> would like to reply to them, please click on the Message Board URL link
> above and respond on the board.
>
>
>
>
> -------------------------------
> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
> CLAYPOOL-request(a)rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the
> quotes in the subject and the body of the message
>