Re: Thomas Roe in 1700's Maryland
-
In reply to:
Re: Thomas Roe in 1700's Maryland
Detia Roe 4/06/08
Hi,
I believe your source has probably INCORRECTLY connected two different ROE/ROW families in showing THOMAS ROE, SR. (d. 1712) of TALBOT/QUEEN ANNE's COUNTY, Maryland who died on or after 1 February 1711/12 and before 7 May 1712 (hereafter “THOMAS ROE, SR. of QA,(d.1712)”Maryland as the son of THOMAS ROW, SR.of SOMERSET COUNTY, Maryland, who died on or after 6 July 1702 and before 24 May 1703. [Hereafter “THOMAS ROW, SR. of Somerset”].Most of my files and notes are presently in storage so in many instances I cannot give you exact references or give you all the details.
Nevertheless, I believe you will find that the records in Talbot County, Kent County and Queen Anne's County in Maryland would appear to show that THOMAS ROE, SR., "planter," of QA,(d.1712),” generally considered by researchers of the Upper Eastern Shore Roe family as that family’s "Patriarch," is CONSIDERABLY OLDER than the “THOMAS ROE estimated to have been born ca. 1670 and shown in your posting as the son of THOMAS ROW, Sr. of Somerset”(I do not know a date of birth for THOMAS ROE, SR. of QA’s (d. 1712), but references to him in land records, etc., and references to his children and grandchildren, show that he had been married for at least 10 years BEFORE the date your posting shows as his estimated date of birth!
I would need access to my files to determine the earliest dated references I have for him, but I do know that in 1678 THOMAS ROE, SR. of QA’s (d. 1712) Talbot County was already residing in what was then Talbot County when he is recorded SELLING a tract of land he owned.In the deed of sale the tract is stated as being "occupied" by THOMAS ROE, or in other words, it is his residence.I know there are numerous other references in the records to THOMAS ROE and/or his wife FRANCES in the records of Talbot and Kent Counties in the 1670's, 1680's, and 1690's, later in Queen Anne's County in Maryland after the latter county’s formation in 1706.
Second, JOHN ROE, who died on or after 17 June 1737 and before 15 August 1737 [Hereafter “JOHN ROE”), who is by the consensus of researchers of this family is believed to be the son of THOMAS ROE, Sr. of QA’s (d.1712), as is also shown on the information you have provided, would from the extant records appear to be not only older than would be indicated by your information, but was even born before the date your information shows as the estimated date of his father’s birth in 1670.Based on his age as given in depositions and Chancery Court records, JOHN ROE was probably born between 1660 & 1664 [In 1723 his age was given as 59, in 1729 as 68, and in 1730 as 69].This makes him at least six years older and possibly ten years older than the THOMAS ROE shown on your chart as his father!
Although, it should be noted that THOMAS ROW, Sr. of Somerset County also apparently had a son named JOHN ROW, but earlier mentioned JOHN ROE does appear to be the son of THOMAS ROE, Sr. (d. 1712) of QA’s.
Furthermore, JOHN’s son, EDWARD ROE, a Quaker (died on or after 3 Feb. 3 1748/49 and before 3 March 1748/49), was born ca. 1696 (again, based on age gave in a deposition - 34 in 1729/30); and it should be noted that EDWARD ROE was not this JOHN ROE’s eldest child.
Simply stated, the “numbers” just do not “add up.”
There are other references to JOHN ROE in the records to indicate that the approximate date of birth from the depositions are in the correct general age range.For example, JOHN ROE received payment from the estate of Lewis Blangy of Kent County according to the Account Record of Blangy’s estate which was approved 3 September 1686 by the executrix of the estate.
ALSO, Somerset County records show that THOMAS ROW, son of THOMAS and REBECCA ROW was born 21 Sep 1688 and in addition that NICHOLAS ROE, son of THOMAS and REBECCA ROE born 15 Oct 1690.If I am recalling correctly, the Last Will and Testament of THOMAS ROW of Somerset County refers to a wife, but does not name her by her name.I do not recall off hand whether the probate records name her, or not.Thus, I am not sure if the references for birth of two children for a THOMAS ROW of Somerset County whose wife was named REBECCA is a reference for the father THOMAS ROW (d. ca. 1702), or possibly for the son named in the latter’s Will.Guessing, I would think it is more likely the father’s records, but do not know for sure without checking my files. [Just for “information,” the document in addition to mentioning a wife without giving her name, also records references to sons THOMAS, JOSEPH, JOHN, and NICOLAS ROW which ,shows the birth records in Somerset County could reasonably be for children of the elder THOMAS.However, in any case, whether the record is for the father or for the son, it would seem to RULE OUT the son being the THOMAS ROE of Talbot County who died in 1712
Your information may be a case of a researcher seeing that THOMAS ROW of Somerset County had a son named THOMAS ROE and made the assumption, without having sufficiently investigated and researched the theory; OR perhaps what was passed on to you was simply preliminary notes by the compiler.In any case, THOMAS ROW (d. ca. 1703) of Somerset County, Maryland whose Will and Testament on file in the Prerogative Court records was written 6 July 1702 and Proven 24th May 1703 does not appear to be the father of the elder THOMAS ROE of Talbot/Queen Anne’s Cos.
Jay
More Replies:
-
Re: Thomas Roe in 1700's Maryland
Diana Herr 9/08/08
-
Re: Thomas Roe in 1700's Maryland
chris swiskoski 9/08/08
-
Re: Thomas Roe in 1700's Maryland
Detia Roe 9/05/08