Chat
|
Daily Search
|
My GenForum
|
Community Standards
|
Terms of Service
|
|
|
There are MORE than a few indications that ROSIERs might have later turned up as ROSSIERs and then ROSSERs.
There are ALSO some very interesting indications that the ROSIERs may have in fact been ROPERs all along. There are a number of indications that ROSSERs and ROPERs might be the same family, due to frequent confusion of "p" and "ss" in Colonial script.
If one carefully inspects a number of ROPER and ROSSER genealogies, one often finds that they are BOTH occasionally using the SAME evidence in support of competing alternative genealogies!
If one looks very carefully at the ROSIER/ROZIER records, one find that in almost EVERY instance that these ROSIERs are upon occasion also identified as ROPERs in other records.
You might want to take a look at my Posts which touch upon this topic:
"Northampton VA Land Patent of John Rosyer Dated 10 Jul 1646"
http://boards.ancestry.com/mbexec?htx=message&r=rw&p=surnames.roper&m=477
"Northumberland Patent to John ROSYER Dated 19 Oct 1653"
http://boards.ancestry.com/mbexec?htx=message&r=rw&p=surnames.roper&m=479
There is a very interesting Maryland deed dated 15 May 1669 in which a John RAPER and a Benjamin ROZER are witnesses to a historic conveyance of land to Charles Calvert, the Governer. (See records of the Maryland Archives begining at http://www.mdarchives.state.md.us/megafile/msa/speccol/sc2900/sc2908/000001/000057/html/am57--440.html ) But there didn't seem to be any RAPERs in Maryland at that time. And the ROPERs that WERE there in Anne Arundel County appeared to be COUSINS of Calverts WIFE. A John ROPER, age 25, (b ca 1637) is shown giving a deposition in a Court proceeding in Charles County, Maryland, on 2 October 1662, very near the location where his UNCLE Governor William STONE resided. (see http://www.mdarchives.state.md.us/megafile/msa/speccol/sc2900/sc2908/000001/000053/html/am53--257.html )
There is a rather continuous and curious juxtaposition of ROSIERS and ROPERs throughout the early Colonial period in Virginia and Maryland. For example, Capt. William ROPER dies and Thomas ROPER appears immediately thereafter in Anne Arundel, Maryland, while coincidentally, John ROYSER, who had settled on Kings Creek in Accomack, a few miles from Capt. William ROPER's plantation on Old Plantation Creek, immediately moved to Westmoreland County.
ROPERs and ROSIERs seemed to often interact with the SAME families in Maryland. And there are several records where ROSIER and ROPER seem to be used interchangably in Maryland.
You are very observant to note the apparent "disappearance" of most ROSIERs after a certain point.
ROYSERs/ROSIERs/ROZIERs appear predominantly in a few very early records. But then there are suddenly no more Virginia Wills or land records reflecting this family in Virginia at all.
About the same time that the ROSIERs disappear ambiguous ROSSIER/ROPER records appear in King George and Fauquier County.
One MIGHT be inclined to conclude that a few ROSIERs/ROSSIERs/ROSSERs had simply been CONFUSED with ROPERs, but we have at least ONE very interesting ROPER Genetics Study result that is possibly suggestive that ROSIERs/ROSSIERs/ROSSERs and ROPERs might be the SAME family.
That is the Genetic Test result of Steven Glenn Roper, who is descended from a Richard ROPER (b ca 1700). That Richard ROPER emerges precisely from the geography and era of the ROSIER/ROSSIER/ROSSER/ROPER confusion in King George/Fauquier County and appears to me to be very likely to be a son of a ROSIER!
And Steven Glenn Roper's test result shows him to be IDENTICAL to all other Southern ROPERs tested to date on the 12-marker test. For details, see:
http://www.roperld.com/RoperGenetics.htm
Of, course, this is far from conclusive, because we have only a result showing that a ROPER tests as a ROPER and the connection between Richard ROPER and the ROSIERs is purely circumstantial.
One could certainly interpret this result as proving that Richard ROPER was NOT connected to the ROSIER family. But such an interpretation would NOT be conclusive absent Genetic test results from ROSIERs demonstrating that their markers are actually DIFFERENT from the predominant ROPER markers in North America.
If one or more MALE ROSIER/ROSSIER/ROSSER/ROZIER test subject volunteers to participate, there is now already a very good base of ROPER results against which to compare the samples.
I would WAGER that a ROSIER with a genealogy going back to Westmoreland/Northumberland/Accomack Counties or to the early Maryland ROSIERs is going to turn out to actually be a ROPER!
Notify Administrator about this message?
Followups:
|
| http://genforum.genealogy.com/rozier/messages/195.html | ||
 |
Link to GenForum Add Forum |
|