Chat
|
Daily Search
|
My GenForum
|
Community Standards
|
Terms of Service
|
|
|
...and from post #1168:
Topic Two:
Is there proof that Sarah was not a daughter of Ninian Beall? Well it's kind of impossible to prove a negative. The weight of the evidence says not though. Colonial law concern consanguinity should have prohibited the marriage of Ninian Beall Jr. to Elizabeth Magruder if Elizabeth's mother Sarah was Ninian Sr's daughter. And hard to imagine that Sarah, Samuel and Ninian Sr would all have still included bequests to this family in their wills. Ninian and Ruth name, in 8 separate deeds of 10 March, 1706, eight of their children: Charles, Ninian Jr., Thomas, John, George, Hester, Mary and Rachel. I've heard that a scouring of MD records finds proof of two other children finds two more: Jane and Hannah.
People have included Sarah as a child of Ninian because she and Samuel named their second child Ninian. Well, Ninian Beall was one of the colonies wealthiest and well known members. And admired. And yes, Alexander Magruder (immigrant) did appointhim as an overseer to his will but here Ninian's importance works against us: he was the overseer or executor of seven wills that I have seen.
1) William Mills 1676: overseers- Alex. Magruder, Sam. Taylor and Ninian Beall
2) Alexander Magruder 1677: overseers- Nathaniel Truman, Samuel Taylor and Ninian Beall
3) Patrick Cammell 1670: overseer Ninian Beall
4) Robert Lasly 1680: executors Ninian Beall and James Moore (James Moore called Ninian a Brother in a deposition once. Robert Lasly might be the connection to illuminate Ruth's birth family?)
5) John Witton 1680: overseers Captain Ninian Beall and Richard Gardner
6) Peter Archer 1683: executors Ninian Beall and John Chittan
7) Thomas Elles 1689: executors Thomas Greenfield, Major Ninian Beall and David Small
All Calvert County.
So, how much can you weigh a connection between Ninian Beall and the Magruders with out giving equal weight to these people. It might just be that Ninian had the trust and reputation and the finacial means to be overseer and excutor for all these people. Peter
I am not disagreeing with any of this nor am I taking another side, just looking at the same facts from a different perspective here...devil's advocate, if you will.
(By the way, I think the actual quote from the post I read about this all being "proven" said that it was "proven she was not a Beall" and not just "proven she was not Ninian's daughter.")
In either case, I can easily see where all of these facts agee with the notion that she was not Ninian Beall's daughter by birth. It actually is a very strong case for that statement to be made and one I could agree with, given my examination of all of this to date.
However, "proving that she was not Ninian's daughter" is a long way from "proving she was not a Beall" in my book. Just because a detail of the family tradition is wrong (i.e. she's not Ninian's daughter) does not necessarily mean the entire tradition is incorrect (i.e. her name was Sarah Beall).
She could very well have been a Beall, since I really have seen nothing to prove any reference to another last name for her other than circumstantial. She could also have very well been associated with Ninian in some way, perhaps a ward (orphan of a relative) cousin, niece, or even a grand-daughter or god-daughter. (Which would help to explain a confusion over whether she was a daughter of his or not.) Or, she could just be a Beall and may have been little more than a distant relative of Ninian's and people just made a false assumption about that relationship in the early genealogies.
In either case, she still could be "Sarah Beall" and not necessarily "Sarah ________." Also, Sue Emerson's note about her being a distant cousin (or some other relative) would seem to support that name as well as allow for the marriage under Colonial law standards (although I have not seen the source that Sue is referring to myself). Meaning that, instead of declaring the entire family tradition of Samuel's marriage to Sarah Beall completely false, we are only declaring a minor detail to be a case of mistaken identity.
So, given the above, I still (even considering the remarkable amount of circumstantial evidence that could point in other directions) do not see how she <b>could not</b> have been Sarah Beall, married to Samuel Magruder, somehow related to Ninian.
The point about the Beall's being wealthy and influential is pretty much historical fact and valid, but it alone would not seem be the reason for naming a son "Ninian" and fabricating a relationship for the early Magruder family. For one thing, even in those early days, the Magruder's belief in their MacGregor heritage would have made them cocky enough and "royal enough" without concocting a fabrication just to "look good" in the New World.
For another, the Magruder's and Beall's were neighbors on at least part of their lands: Per Samuel's will, his son Ninian gets part of "Alexandria"; in Ninian's will, he has also acquired a nearby land called "Honesty," part of which he passes to his son, Samuel III; in Samuel III's will, this land is referred to as "Beall's and Magruder's Honesty," suggesting either a previous joint-ownership or border land. Given that Ninian most likely purchased lands near his own "Alexandria," that would put "Beall's and Magruder's Honesty" pretty close to Alexander's lands in the first place.
Lastly, in his own lifetime Alexander became what was considered a "wealthy landowner" by anyone's standards (having some 4000+ acres by his death per several sources). In Samuel's own time, he too was considered fairly wealthy if not downright "rich". Being neighboring wealthy landowners themselves, I think it is highly unlikely for any of the early Magruder's to have named a child after someone just because they were rich; given their own relative status and the other very deliberate naming traditions they had.
In fact, is it not those same naming traditions that has the current theories pointing to Samuel Taylor as a possible father for Alexander's wife, Sarah ______? The fact that the naming tradition is a consideration for him to be a relative of hers but not for Ninian to Samuel's wife seems rather contradictory. Likewise, if the presence of Ninian's name in Alexander's will is not a justification for an early Magruder-Beall marriage, how can the same argument be used to suggest that Samuel Taylor's mention is proof of a Magruder-Taylor marriage?
Just some food for thought and, again, I both enjoy and appreciate the discourse and exchange of ideas. I still have some research to read through on both Sarah (wife of Samuel) and Elizabeth (of Craighnaigh) which may shed some light on these people or just raise more questions, who knows?
JD
Notify Administrator about this message?
Followups:
|
| http://genforum.genealogy.com/magruder/messages/1171.html | ||
 |
Link to GenForum Add Forum |
|