Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [SPURLIN] Re: [SPURLING] Mary Bannuel (Barnwell?)1725/26 Westmoreland Co.

Expand Messages
  • Lucy Sperlin
    Norman, As always, thank you for your caution and your imaginative thinking. Do you have a photocopy of the original handwritten will? If not I ll sent you
    Message 1 of 2 , Feb 1 1:01 AM
    • 0 Attachment
      Norman,

      As always, thank you for your caution and your imaginative thinking. Do
      you have a photocopy of the original handwritten will? If not I'll sent
      you one, because I think it will help you see what I'm seeing, and help
      us move the matter a little closer to a probable conclusion, though,
      obviously some of it we may never know, for the reasons you cite. For me
      it's a way to find leads, that may lead to answers later, because I
      still have this gap above the 'first' Jesse.

      The copy of the will that I have was transcribed independently by my
      niece who, raised in India with British system schooling, seemed better
      able to read the handwriting than I. However, once I see her words, and
      look at the original, I believe she was correct in almost all the words.

      In the "...and my body to the earth to be decently interred by my first
      wife Mary", the word "Mary" is inserted above the line, above an insert
      mark, as if an after thought. So before that was inserted, it read,
      simply "interred by my first wife." If his present wife Mary was still
      alive, he would hardly be asking to be interred "by" (beside) her, and
      he would have had no need to differentiate a first wife (as opposed to a
      second).

      Norman, I don't have your complete book, I guess. Is there any chance
      you could send me pages 33 - 35? I have only 'The Known Descendants of
      Jesse and Sarah (Peters) Spurling' ....starting two generations after
      the people in question. So I don't know what you are referring to
      regarding Thomas Chandler not liking Mary Bannuel Spurling. I suppose
      there are any number of reasons a person might not like a second spouse
      of a son-in-law. As a grandparent, my first hunch might be that he
      didn't like the way she treated his grandchildren. But that is as
      speculative as your own speculations.

      I note also, that if the dates that Judy Hampton provided are correct,
      Jeremiah married Mary Barnwell (or Bannuel) in 1723, only 2 - 3 years
      before he died. so you can speculate on where the relationship was at
      that time, especially if he had been ill for a while. He obviously was
      when he wrote the will in Feb. 1725. This could lead to another
      speculation regarding Thomas not liking Mary B. --for his time, Jeremiah
      had some means, and Thomas may have resented her if he thought she
      married Jeremiah to gain Jeremiah's inheritance that otherwise would
      have gone to his grandchildren (or even to him, if he were to have
      received custody of them on Jeremiah's death). That could even explain
      why Jeremiah took such pains to detail guardianship of the minor
      children. He might have been deliberately trying to keep father-in-law
      Chandler from getting custody of them. Ah, well, speculation upon
      speculation. But it is interesting, isn't it, what clues may be found
      in a will.

      Hope you'll grace me with any other information you have in this matter,
      and especially if you have any descendants for Thomas Spurling.

      See also, my other little note, below.

      Regards,
      Lucy Sperlin



      Norman Spurling wrote:
      >
      > Some possibilities to consider: Jeremiah clearly loved his current wife Mary Bannuel (Barnwell?) Spurlin who had had a previous son John son of Robert Bannuel. I am not positive that Jeremiah had more than one wife. I had not seen the wording "interred by my first wife" when I saw the original document in Richmond (and maybe that was a function of the handwriting). Are we sure that is a clear reading of the handwriting? If Mary Bannuel Spurling happened to be Jeremiah's first wife, then she could have also married a Chandler after her marriage to Bannuel and before the marriage to Spurling. Thomas Chandler was grandfather to the young boy Thomas Spurling. Thomas Spurling could have previously been named Thomas Chandler and could have only taken on the Spurling name since he wound up with a new stepfather.
      >
      > If we wanted to speculate why the elder Thomas Chandler didn't like Mary Bannuel Spurling, what if she had been married to Chandler and fell in love with Jeremiah and had the young Thomas while still married to Chandler??? There are many other possibilities if you let the imagination run wild.

      *******
      The above would leave me grasping to figure out who bore Thomas's elder
      siblings Jeremiah and Sarah.
      *******

      >
      > For those who have my book take a close look at pages 33-35. The raw facts to me don't seem to explain the situation clearly enough to chart it clearly in a family tree. I tend to stick with the documents because when you start to chart, you neaten up a lot
      > of situations that probably don't lend themselves to neat solutions. That may not be as bold as speculating, but putting things into neat charts tends to leave people thinking they have the answers when they don't. I don't mean to criticize here, because we
      > all want to know as much as we can. I just hope that people will take family charts as the theories they are until the documents really support them. I hope people won't trust the charts as the truth and keep looking for the documents.
      >
      > Norman Spurling
      > www.erols.com/spurlinn/spurgen.htm
      >
      > Lucy Sperlin wrote:
      >
      > > Judy, (And to Dave, as this new information supersedes my latest to
      > > you, and changes the picture considerably.)
      > >
      > > Thanks to you both, and to LaVerne Gibson, for all your information on
      > > the Jeremiah Spurling family. It clarifies a great deal, and cuts my
      > > future search. Knowing about Mary Barnwell as a second wife of the first
      > > Jeremiah makes a huge difference.
      > >
      > > ...Even though I still haven't found the link I need, this gives me hope
      > > that we'll eventually get this tied together. It seems that this may be
      > > of interest to the whole list...especially the information I have from
      > > the first Jeremiah's will in 1726.
      > >
      > > First, I don't think Judy had the wives in the wrong order. I didn't
      > > know about the second wife, Mary Barnwell. It now becomes clear that
      > > John Barnwell was Jeremiah's stepson. As I reread the will, I realize
      > > that Jeremiah states that he wishes his body to be "...interred by my
      > > first wife Mary...". A statement that I had misinterpreted. (Since he
      > > said "By" rather than "beside").
      > >
      > > Jeremiah's will later states that surplus tobacco be "...divided between
      > > both families..." Also his statements about who should raise his minor
      > > children indicate that Jeremiah, Sarah and Thomas were his first family,
      > > to be cared for by his second wife, but if she died, the youngest would
      > > be raised by his older brother. (See quoted wording, below)
      > >
      > > Pertinent quotes from the Jeremiah I(?) 1825 will read thus (in part):
      > >
      > > "....I desire that after my decease that my son Thomas Spurling may be
      > > carryed to court and bound till he comes to the age of twenty one years
      > > to my dear and loving wife Mary Spurling, but in the case of mortality
      > > he shall live with my son Jeremiah Spurling....I give and bequeath unto
      > > my son John Barnwell half my working tools and my great Bible and my
      > > will and desire is that what sows and hogs I have may be for the use of
      > > the plantation and family and I likewise desire that what tobacco I have
      > > it may be to pay my debts and if there be any over pluss to be divided
      > > between both families, and I likewise desire that my son Jeremiah
      > > Spurling and my daughter Sarah Spurling may live with my dear and loving
      > > wife Mary Spurling till they come to the age of twenty one years..."
      > >
      > > All very intriguing, and though nothing definitive for me, still
      > > exciting
      > > because this is the closest I've gotten yet to finding my Virginia
      > > ancestors. It appears that probably I should be looking for descendants
      > > of Thomas as the most likely progenitor of my branch. The dates fit for
      > > him to be the grandfather of my first Jesse, b. 1760-65. Who has the
      > > interim generation???? (Or any other information on him.)
      > >
      > > If any of you want a photocopy of the will, I'll be glad to send it.
      > >
      > > With thanks,
      > > Lucy Sperlin
      > >
      > > JudyHam@... wrote:
      > > >
      > > > As you can see, if John Barnwell was over 21 when Jeremiah died in
      > > > 1725, then I must have the two wives in the wrong order. I don't have
      > > > a source listed for either marriage date and both wives were named
      > > > Mary.
      > > >
      > > > I don't have a Jesse Spurling in my data base at all.
      > > >
      > > > Judy Spurling Hampton
      > > > JudyHam@...
      > > >
      > >
      > > This is a flame free list. And be sure that you include your email on the end of your msg for that is how people can reach you. For some reason the headers do not come thru with your email. Some do and some don't so please include at the end of your msg.
      > >
      > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
      >
      > This is a flame free list. And be sure that you include your email on the end of your msg for that is how people can reach you. For some reason the headers do not come thru with your email. Some do and some don't so please include at the end of your msg.
      >
      > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.