|
|
You pose an interesting question on Robert Crump. The researchers working on this Robert Crump are still trying to hammer this puzzle out. We have several pieces of conflicting data. Off the top of my head without benefit of having my data on this computer I can give you a few of the problems. It appears that the Robert of Johnson Co. was old enough to have been the son of Joseph, but he supposedly went back to New Kent County by the date of Joseph's will along with a son Richard. There was a Robert and an Edmund Crump in Halifax County about the dat you quote for Johnson County. I had always harbored the theory that Robert, Edmund, a Richard and a William could have been sons of Charles who was a presumed grandson of Stephen. No proof and as I say it is still hotly debated and discussed with no final decision, because everytime we turn around something new is found and you note of Sheriff in Johnson County is a "LuLu". :-) Back to Robert in that area, some researchers say this Robert was or may have been Robert Jr. con of Robert of MD and was married to a Mary Parr. They say also Robert's father was Robert Sr. who died 1749 in MD, wife a Jane Louder Lazenby. I am sure you will be getting lots of comments on this one. Good luck and keep us all informed on your findings. Maybe you can teach us old dogs some new tricks. :-) Stephen Crump is the presumed son of William and Ann Crump of New Kent County and had a brother named William for certain; there may have been other brothers and sisters unknown. Stephens apparent widow held land in 1704 in New Kent County and ?her name was Elizabeth. The way the figures on land were it appears the perhaps Richard and a Stephen Jr. were also sons and each had something like 80 acres each and a William had 333+ or - and then Robert and James both held 150 acres. Some of the last patented land seems to be missing and may have been leased or owned by a daughter or two. It looks like the land of William Senior/1st was divided into three perhaps four packages near the same size but not perfectly divided.
|
|
|||||||||||||
| Home | Help | About Us | Site Index | Jobs | PRIVACY | Affiliate |
| © 2009 Ancestry.com |