Caswell County Family Tree

Entries: 75494    Updated: 2017-11-14 15:57:11 UTC (Tue)    Owner: Richmond Frederick    Home Page: Caswell County Historical Association  Note: You will leave RootsWeb

Index | Descendancy | Register

  • ID: I1492
  • Name: Captain Thomas Graves 1
  • Sex: M
  • Reference Number: 1506
  • Birth: ABT 1580 in Lamborne, Berkshire, England
  • Death: BET NOV 1635 AND 5 JAN 1636 in Accomack County, Virginia
  • MAP:
  • LATI: N37.7187
  • LONG: W75.669
  • Note:
    For detailed information on the Graves family go to the Graves Family Association Website. Please note the substantial revisions being proposed to the genealogy of Captain Thomas Graves as a result of DNA findings.
    _______________

    Not all Graves family researchers accept the conclusions of the Graves Family Association (GFA) DNA project with respect to the descendants of Captain Thomas Graves.

    The core problem is the starting point.

    Because the burial site of Captain Thomas Graves is unknown (and for other reasons even were the location known) no one can identify his DNA signature. Thus, the DNA structure of Captain Thomas Graves is not known. So what is used as a starting point to determine who descends from Captain Thomas Graves? What is used as a substitute for the DNA signature of Captain Thomas Graves in an effort to determine his descendants?

    The answer is: traditional genealogical research techniques.

    If we had a sample of Captain Thomas Graves's DNA the test results could be very reliable. However, as that DNA sample is not available, the GFA, using traditional genealogical research techniques, assumed that certain people living today potentially descend from Captain Thomas Graves. As explained below, it was this group of potential descendants that was used in the DNA project. This group was the starting point for DNA testing. In a sense, it was a substitute for the DNA of Captain Thomas Graves.

    Actually, the GFA did not conduct its own independent research to determine a starting point but relied upon "respected" authorities such as Mrs. Hiden, who published articles and books on the Graves family. While Mrs. Hiden is indeed highly respected, she made mistakes just like we all do in interpreting wills, deeds, Bibles, and the works of those who preceded her.

    The GFA, based upon the work of certain "respected" authorities, then collected the possible set of descendants of Captain Thomas Graves, located males within this set who were willing to submit to DNA testing, and had the results analyzed. Surprisingly (at least to the GFA), this generated four distinct and separate subsets within the main set. Moreover, each of these four subsets had a separate, but unknown, common ancestor. So much for the validity of the traditional genealogical research tools that had been used: three-quarters of the group identified as descendants could not be. Moreover, the DNA results could not be relied upon to determine which of the four groups actually did descend from Captain Thomas Graves. This is because the DNA signature of Captain Thomas Graves is not known.

    Obviously, only one (if any) of these subsets could descend from Captain Thomas Graves. And guess what was used to select the group that would be deemed to have Captain Thomas Graves as its ancestor? Yes, it was traditional genealogical research methods -- the type of research familiar to all interested in genealogy.

    Accordingly, Graves family researchers are advised not to rely on the GFA website to confirm or disprove a genealogical connection to Captain Thomas Graves. What the GFA has published is not absolute. It is another tool being used to help researchers understand the Graves family. The results should be viewed as skeptically and conservatively as any other results available from third parties. One should look very carefully behind the blanket statements.

    This is not intended to be overly critical of the GFA, but to focus on the limitations inherent in DNA research and the methodology used by the GFA to reach conclusions with respect to the descendants of Captain Thomas Graves.

    So, based upon the above factors, here is the most researchers reasonable can assume:

    Evidence indicates that a person identified as Captain Thomas Graves lived and had children. Traditional genealogical research techniques suggest that descendants of Captain Thomas Graves are living today. Based upon those traditional genealogical techniques, certain males in the defined group of potential descendants were selected for DNA testing. The DNA testing results revealed four distinct lines. That is, within the group of potential descendants of Captain Thomas Graves four sub-groups were identified with distinct (and different) common ancestors. Reason dictates that only one (if any) of these lines could descend from Captain Thomas Graves. However, which line descends from Captain Thomas Graves is not known. Moreover, it may be possible that none of the four are related to Captain Thomas Graves. Until Captain Thomas Graves is exhumed and a DNA sample taken, researchers may never know the identity of his descendants.

    Does this mean that the GFA DNA study is worthless? Absolutely not.

    Does it mean that it has proved who is and who is not descended from Captain Thomas Graves? Absolutely not.

    So where do researchers go from here? Actually this is not much different from any other genealogical research matter. The GFA DNA study is just another piece of information. This piece of information should be processed like any other datum that a researcher takes into consideration when conducting genealogical research. Learn about it, dissect it, criticize it, question the source, test it against what is already known (or reasonably assumed), compare it to working hypotheses, and catalogue it for what it is then deemed to be worth.

    That DNA testing is "science" should not blind one to how it is being used or misused.
    _______________

    Note the following from Graves Family Association Bulletin, Vol. 9, No. 5, May 31, 2007:

    So far, the DNA test results have shown that there are four major groups of early Graves family descendants (that have been attributed to Captain Thomas Graves), each with a different DNA signature. Discussion of the evidence for 4 different immigrant ancestors is on http://www.gravesfa.org/gen169groups.html. A chart of the old and new structure for the lines from Capt. Thomas Graves is on http://www.gravesfa.org/chart169-changes.pdf. These 4 groups are descendants of:

    (1) John2, Ralph3, Ralph4.

    (2) John2, Thomas3, John4.

    (3) Thomas2.

    (4) Francis2.

    With the first two lines, the 4th generation is the earliest ancestor for whom the DNA result has been confirmed by finding at least two descendants for whom this is the common ancestor. For lines 3 and 4, we only have a solid common ancestor back to generation 5.

    Adventurers of Purse and Person, 4th edition, vol. 2, 2005, does not seem to support the conclusion that there were 3 or 4 separate immigrant ancestors of the descendants traditionally attributed to Capt. Thomas Graves. This is because there was insufficient proof at the time of publication to make changes, but in a conversation with John Frederick Dorman, compiler and editor of this work, he said he does not find our results at all surprising. Possible explanations for the results from DNA testing include: (1) male descendants of only one of the sons of Capt. Thomas Graves survived and had male children, (2) there are descendants out there but they haven't yet been found (or even possibly some of them moved to the New England colonies or back to England), (3) there were events such as adoptions or children fathered by non-Graves men, causing lines of descendants that didn't have the DNA of Capt. Thomas Graves, and (4) this book and previous researchers are wrong and have included people who are not really descendants. The first option is a definite possibility, but the second and third options are extremely unlikely. Option 2 is unlikely because we have found so many descendants of these lines and tested so many people, and there has been so much research and publicity over many years. Option 3 is unlikely because 3 of the 4 lines exactly match known Graves lines. The likelihood of a Graves couple adopting an unrelated Graves child, or of a Graves man fathering a child by the wife of an unrelated Graves man, seems remote. Option 4 is at least part of the problem; even with the best research, when documentation is incomplete there is a tendency to rely on less rigorous proof.

    Line 1 - John2, Ralph3, Ralph4

    Because the line of John2, Ralph3, Ralph4 is well documented and carries the name Crowshaw down through a number of generations, and that was supposedly the surname of the wife of Capt. Thomas Graves, that is most apt to be the line of his descendants. The DNA results of the tested descendants of this line exactly match the results for the descendants of Thomas Graves of Hartford, CT (gen. 168) and his brother Deacon George Graves (gen. 65). The documentation for the early generations of this line seems solid, supporting the premise that this is the true line of Capt. Thomas Graves.

    Line 2 - John2, Thomas3, John4

    The results from the descendants of John2, Thomas3, John4 almost exactly match (24 of 25) the results for the descendants of William Greaves of Whitfield, Northamptonshire, England (gen. 47). Since there is not good documentation from John4 back to John2, it is not difficult to believe that this lineage is in error. The most uncertain link in the early generations of this line is John4 as a son of Thomas3, and that is where any error probably is.

    Line 3 - Thomas2

    The most surprising result is for the line of Thomas2, Thomas3, John4, John5. The documentation for this line is fairly good, and it was expected that it would match the John2, Ralph3 line. We have not yet found an English family whose DNA result matches this line. However, we may be able to find and test descendants of other branches of this family group, so it is still possible that the ancestral haplotype for this part of the family may change. On the other hand, another possibility is that Thomas2 was an adopted or illegitimate son of Capt. Thomas Graves, since his descendants are the only ones not yet matching a Graves or Greaves family in England. In any case, we should eventually find a match either with a Graves or Greaves family in England or with another surname.

    Line 4 - Francis2

    For Francis2, it is now believed that the documented youngest child of Capt. Thomas Graves was a daughter, Frances Graves, as discussed in an appendix to genealogy 169, and the male Francis Graves was a son of some other immigrant, presently unknown. We unfortunately have only two tested descendants of Francis Graves (with a third one in process as of May 2007), but the name Francis was carried on in other families (including genealogy 150) whose tested descendants exactly match the results for the Francis descendant. The results from Francis2 also exactly match the results of descendants of Rear Adm. Thomas Graves (gen. 28), John Graves of Concord, MA (gen. 166), John Greaves of St. Mary's Co., MD (gen. 247), and others.

    For a detailed look at the evaluation of whether Francis Graves was a son of Capt. Thomas Graves, look at the appendix in the Capt. Thomas Graves genealogy at http://www.gravesfa.org/gen169app1.htm.

    Captain Thomas Graves

    The following is from Adventurers of Purse and Person: Virginia 1607-1624/5, John Frederick Dorman (Fourth Edition 2005):

    Thomas Graves came to Virginia in the Mary and Margaret and is listed among those arriving in the second supply, 1608. Shortly after his arrival, while on an exploring expedition, he was taken captive by the Indians who held him in Opecancanough's town subject to an uncertain fate when a timely rescle was effected by Ensign Thomas Savage. [Thus, he was saved from the savages by a Savage!]

    An undated letter from Governor Yeardley to Sir Edwin Sandys concerning Smythe's (Southampton) Hundred, written after 29 April 1619, recites circumstances of the affair between Capt. William Epes, Commander, and Capt. Stallings in which the latter was slain and the former placed under arrest, and states "I have entreated Capt. Graves, and Antient officer of this Co[mpa]ny to take charge of the people and the workes." Capt. Graves was sent as one of two representatives from Smythe's Hundred to the first Representative Legislative Assembly which convened at Jamestown, 30 July 1619.

    As a member of the Virginia Company, Capt. Graves had agreed to transport 100 persons to Virginia and accordingly was allowed a patent for land, 20 Nov. 1622. His grant for 200 acres "on the Easterne side of the Shoare of the bay of Chesepeacke [Eastern Shore] and abutting Southerly on the Land of Capt. Henry Fleete" is of record, 14 March 1628/9, and recites that the land was due him "by vertue of an Adventure" of L. 25 paid to "Sir Thomas Smith, late Tresurer for the Company of virginia." A tract of 100 acres due to Capt. Thomas Grayes "for his per[sonal] devident as being an Ancient Planter" was assigned to Capt. Thomas Purifye 29 February 1631.

    Capt. Graves, referred to as Esquire in the Accomack-Northampton County court records, was appointed commander of the "Plantation of Accawmacke" by the General Court, 8 Feb. 1627/8, and headed the list of commissioners at the first extant court of record held for Accawmack, 7 Jan 1633/4. He served as Burgess to the Assembly, 1630 and 1632, and was a member of the first vestry of the parish, 14 Sept. 1635. His death occurred between Nov. 1635, when he was witness to a deed, and 5 Jan. 1635/6, when suit was entered against a "servant to Mrs. Graves."

    Thomas Graves married Katherine ___________ who, with his two sons, came to Virginia after 1616, as is shown in a patent granted to John, 9 Aug. 1637, reciting that the 600 acres granted to him in Elizabeth City was "due . . . in Right of descent from his Father Thomas Graves, whoe transported at his owne proper costs . . . himselfe, Katherine Graves, his wife, John Graves the pattentee and Thomas Graves, Junr. and eight persons. Mrs Graves was living at the "Old Plantation," 20 May 1636.

    Issue: John; Thomas; Ann; Verlinda; Katherine; and Francis.
    _______________

    The following from Graves Family Association Website arguably has been superseded by the above excerpt from Adventurers of Purse and Person, but is retained because of the confusion that surrounds much of the Graves family genealogy due to, among other things, recent DNA findings:

    Thomas Graves (1), gentleman, arrived in Virginia in October of 1608, coming from England in the ship "Mary and Margaret" with Captain Christopher Newport's second supply. Although John Card Graves (R-915) states that Thomas was accompanied by his wife Katherine, sons John and Thomas, and eight others, including Henry Singleton and Thomas Edge, most other historians agree that he did not bring his wife and children over until later. It is likely that he did not even marry Katherine until 1610, and his first child was born about 1611.

    Thomas Graves was one of the original Adventurers (stockholders) of the Virginia Company of London, and one of the very early Planters (settlers) who founded Jamestown, Virginia, the first permanent English settlement in North America. He was also the first known person named Graves in North America. Captain Thomas Graves is listed as one of the original Adventurers as "Thomas Grave" on page 364, Records of the Virginia Company of London, vol. IV. Although the Records of the Virginia Company state that in 1622 was granted "a patent to Thomas Graves of Doublin in the Realm of Ireland, gent.", this may be a clerical error. As stated in the original charter of the Virginia Co. of London, the first Adventurers to Virginia were to be from the city of London.

    King James I of England, on April 10, 1606, granted letters patent (charter) to Sir Thomas Gates, Sir George Somers, Richard Hakluyt, Edward-Maria Winfield, Thomas Hanham, Raleigh Gilbert, William Parker, and George Popham, in whose names the petition for the charter to the Virginia Company of London had been made, for the founding of two colonies in Virginia.

    In 1606 the name Virginia designated the North American coast north of Spanish Florida. The First Colony was to "begin their first plantation and place of their first sojourning and dwelling in any place along the aforesaid coast of Virginia or America where they thought it suitable and convenient, between the aforesaid thirty-four and forty-one degrees of the aforesaid latitude." The Second Colony was to locate at some point between thirty-eight degrees and forty-five degrees of northern latitude. (Rec. Va. Co., vol. IV, p. 368)

    The First Colony (consisting of knights, gentlemen, merchants and others of the city of London) made a settlement at Jamestown on May 13, 1607, which became permanent. The Plymouth grantees (from the English cities of Bristol and Exeter, the town of Plymouth, and other places) established the Second Colony at Sagadagic (on the coast of what became Maine) in August 1607, but abandoned it in the spring of 1608.

    On May 13, 1607, Captain Christopher Newport's fleet of three small ships, the Susan Constant, the Godspeed and the Discovery, with 105 colonists, reached the site of this first permanent English settlement, and called it James Towne. Captain Newport returned to Jamestown on Jan. 8, 1608 with the first supply in the John and Francis. The Phoenix, commanded by Captain Francis Nelson, which had sailed as part of the first supply, finally arrived on 20 April 1608. More than half the settlers died that first winter.

    Captain Newport sailed again for England and arrived at Blackwell May 21, 1608. Capt. Nelson returned to England in the Phoenix early in July 1608, with requests from Virginia to be sent by the second supply. Capt. Newport left England in the Mary and Margaret, a ship of about 150 tons, with the second supply, probably in August of 1608. Many sources give the arrival date of this second supply as being early in October 1608. We do know that it was after Sept. 10, 1608.

    A comparatively complete record, with the names, of the little band of first planters who came in 1607 and the two supplies of 1608 is given by Captain John Smith in his Historie. These three expeditions brought a total of about 295 people -- the first settlers numbering about 105, the first supply 120, and the second supply about 70. Of the whole number, 92 are described as "gentlemen."

    Regarding the title of "Captain" which is attached to Thomas Graves in Virginia historical records, he had no such designation in the Charter of 1609 wherein all the Adventurers (stockholders) of the Virginia Company are listed, and is shown by Captain John Smith on his arrival in Virginia simply as "Thomas Graves, Gent." Thus it appears that he acquired the title of Captain after arriving in Virginia.

    Thomas Graves early became active in the affairs of the infant colony. On an exploring expedition he was captured by the Indians and taken to Opechancanough. Thomas Savage, who had come to Virginia with the first supply on the John and Francis in 1608, was sent to rescue him, in which he was successful.

    The winter of 1608-09 was much better than the previous winter, but soon after Capt. John Smith returned to England for medical treatment in October 1609, the "Starving Time" reduced the population of about 500 to no more than sixty men, women, and children. In June of 1610, the survivors were in the process of abandoning the settlement, when Lord Delaware arrived as governor of the colony. From that time on, there was apparently no further serious thought of abandoning the town. However, even by 1616, the colony had a total population of only 351, of whom 81 were farmers or tenants.

    In 1617 the Virginia Company, hoping to expand population and agricultural production in the colony, encouraged private or voluntary associations organized on a joint stock basis to establish settlements in the area of the Company's patent. The Society of Smith's (or Smythe's) Hundred (later called Southampton Hundred) was organized in 1617. In addition to Captain Thomas Graves, the Adventurers included Sir Thomas Smith, Sir Edwin Sandys, and the Earl of Southampton. Soon after April 29, 1619, Governor Yeardley wrote to Sir Edwin Sandys: "I have entreated Capt. Graves, an antient officer of this company, to take charge of the people and workes."

    Capt. Thomas Graves was a member of the First Legislative Assembly in America, and, with Mr. Walter Shelley, sat for Smythe's Hundred when they met at Jamestown on July 30, 1619. The time of Capt. Thomas Graves' removal to the Eastern Shore is not known. It was, however, after August 1619, since he was then a representative from Smythe's Hundred to the first meeting of the House of Burgesses. It was also prior to Feb. 16, 1623, for "A List of Names: of the Living in Virginia, Feb. 16, 1623" shows Thomas Graves "at the Eastern Shore". His patent for 200 acres on the Eastern Shore is of record 14 March 1628 (Patent Book No. 1, p. 72, Land Registrar's Office, Richmond, Va.). This land was in what was then known as Accomack, now a part of Northampton Co. It was granted by Dr. Thomas Pott, Governor of Virginia, and was on the eastern side of the Bay of Chesapeake, westerly of the lands of Capt. Henry Flute, an explorer of the Bay, "by virtue of the adventure of five and twenty pounds paid by the said Capt. Thomas Graves to Sir Thomas Smyth, Treasurer of the Virginia Company." He paid a "quit rent" of one shilling for fifty acres, payable at the feast of St. Michael the Archangel (Sept. 29) each year on a part of his land.

    In the census of February 1625, Capt. Thomas Graves was one of only 51 people then living on the Eastern Shore. He was put in charge of the direction of local affairs later in 1625. In Sept. 1632 he, with others, was appointed a Commissioner "for the Plantacon of Acchawmacke". He was one of the Burgesses to the Assembly, representing Accomac, for the 1629-30 session and the 1632 session. He attended many of the meetings of the Commissioners, but he was absent from Dec. 30, 1632/3 until Oct. 23, 1633/4. It appears that he was out of the country.

    The old Hungars Episcopal Church is located about seven miles north of Eastville, on the north side of Hungars Creek. Hungars Parish was made soon after the county was established, and the first minister was Rev. Francis Bolton, who was succeeded by Rev. William Cotton. The first vestry was appointed in 1635. The first vestry meeting was on Sept. 29, 1635, at which Capt. Thomas Graves headed the list of those present. The first church edifice was erected in 1690-95 and was still standing around 1900, one of the oldest churches in the country. In addition to Capt. Thomas Graves, the other persons named by the court as vestrymen of Hungars Church were William Cotton, minister, Obedience Robins, John Howe, William Stone (first Protestant Governor of Maryland), William Burdett, William Andrews, John Wilkins, Alexander Mountray, Edward Drews, William Beniman and Stephen Charlton.

    Captain Thomas Graves died between November 1635 when he was witness to a deed and 5 Jan. 1636 when suit was entered against a servant to Mrs. Graves (Adventurers of Purse and Person, pp. 188-189). His birth date is not known, but is believed to be about 1580. That would have made him only about 55 years of age at his death.

    Very little is known about Katherine, wife of Capt. Thomas Graves. Her maiden name may have been Croshaw. (There was a Raleigh Chroshaw, Gent., who arrived with the second supply with Thomas Graves.) Just when she came to Virginia is not recorded. She and her children are not included in the 1625 census of the Eastern Shore, although Capt. Thomas Graves is. The patent granted to John Graves (son of Capt. Thomas Graves) on Aug. 9, 1637 states that the 600 acres granted to him in Elizabeth City was "due in right of descent from his father Thomas Graves, who transported at his own cost himself, Katherine Graves his wife, John Graves the patentee, and Thomas Graves, Jr., and 8 persons." (Cavaliers and Pioneers, Nugent.) The 50 acres assigned for each person transported shows they came after 1616. The other 8 persons transported did not include any members of Capt. Graves' family. The girls, Ann, Verlinda, and Katherine obviously came later, and Francis was born in Virginia. The last reference to Mrs. Graves shows her living at the Old Plantation, Accomac, as of May 20, 1636.

    Since Captain Thomas Graves had been active in the affairs of Virginia from his arrival, the absence of any mention of him during certain periods indicate he had returned to England. This is also confirmed by patents issued to him and to others in which he is mentioned. Mrs. Hiden stated: "Even a cursory reading of Northampton (formerly Accomack) records reveals how frequent were the trips to England, Ireland, Holland, and New England" of those living on the Eastern Shore. Mrs. Hiden also stated (R-909, p. 34): "We know from the land patents that Capt. Thomas Graves made several trips out of the country, to England presumably, and on one of his return voyages his family accompanied him."

    Thomas Graves was probably unmarried when he arrived in Virginia in 1608. He was young, and adventure was probably the reason for his coming to Virginia. He was obviously educated, of some "social status" and financial means, and a leader.

    It is likely that he returned to England, possibly in Oct. 1609, either on the same ship with Captain John Smith (who left Virginia for England for treatment of his wounds resulting from an explosion), or on one of the other seven ships which arrived in Virginia in August 1609. In that way he would have missed the "Starving Time" of the winter of 1609-10, which so few survived.

    He may have then married in England in about 1610, fathered John Graves and Thomas Graves, remained in England for several years, and returned to Virginia prior to the formation of Smythe's Hundred in 1617, or possibly a little later. It is known that he was "entreated to take charge of the people and workes" at Smythe's Hundred in April 1619, and was there then.

    Also, there is no record of his being in Virginia after the meeting of the Burgesses in July-August of 1619 until he is shown as living on the Eastern Shore in 1623. It seems reasonable that he was in England at the time of the Indian Massacre of March 1622, and upon returning to Virginia settled on the Eastern Shore where it was less perilous to live. The fact that he fathered three children, the first three girls, during this period certainly lends support to his being in England.

    One of the most disputed issues regarding his children is the last one, Fra. Graves, who has been believed by some to be a son Francis and by others to be a daughter Frances. This child was originally said by genealogist William Montgomery Sweeny in a published article in 1935 (R-906) to be a son of Capt. Thomas Graves. This was repaeted by Mrs. P. W. Hiden in 1936 (R-907). However, others provided evidence that the last child of Capt. Thomas Graves was a daughter, and that the male Francis Graves was a son of someone else unknown. After a thorough search and examination of the documentary evidence, it was decided that this last child of Thomas probably was a son, as explained in the Appendix at the end of this book. However, the results of the Graves DNA Study indicate that Francis was a son of another Graves immigrant, and the child of Capt. Thomas Graves was a daughter. Since the documentary evidence is ambiguous and the DNA evidence is conclusive, there is now no question that the youngest child of Capt. Thomas Graves was a daughter. As a result, the male Francis Graves and his descendants have been removed from this genealogy and placed in a separate genealogy 220. (R-14, R-901, R-915)

    Children - Graves

    +2. John Graves, b.c. 1611, m. ______ Perrin, c. 1624 or later, d.c. April 1640.

    +3. Thomas Graves, b.c. 1616, wife unknown, d.c. 1674.

    +4. Verlinda Graves, b.c. 1618, m. William Stone, d. 13 July 1675.

    +5. Ann Graves, b.c. 1620, m (1) William Cotton, before 10 July 1637, m (2) Nathaniel Eaton, by 1642, m (3) Francis Doughty, 8 June 1657, d. 2 March 1683/4.

    +6. Katherine Graves, b.c. 1622, m (1) William Roper, c. 1636, m (2) Thomas Sprigg, 3 March 1650.

    7. Frances Graves, b.c. 1630.

    Source: Graves Family Association Website
    ______________

    Ancestry of Captain Thomas Graves of Virginia (Genealogy #169): The information that I know about the family of Capt. Thomas Graves is summarized on the Ancestral Research page (under the Research tab at the top of every page of the GFA website). At the bottom of that page is a list of ?Specific Research Projects?, including one for Capt. Thomas Graves. Perhaps the most common ancestry claimed for Capt. Thomas Graves is that he was a son of Thomas Graves and Joan Blagrove, both of Lamborne or Lambourn, Berkshire, England. I have hired a couple of genealogists in England and Salt Lake City to try to find substantiation of this claim, and they could find nothing to support it. I have asked many people who have included this ancestry in their family tree to provide a source, and no one has been able to do so. If anyone can provide evidence of this ancestry, I would very much like to see it. If there is no evidence, it should be removed from family trees.

    Source: Ken Graves in the Graves Family Association Newsletter, Graves Family Bulletin, Volume 14, Number 9, 29 September 2012.




    Marriage 1 Katherine Unknown [Graves]
    • Married: 1610 in Accomack County, Virginia
    Children
    1. Has Children John Graves b: ABT 1611 in England
    2. Has Children Thomas Graves b: ABT 1616 in England
    3. Has Children Verlinda Graves b: ABT 1618 in England
    4. Has Children Ann Graves b: ABT 1620 in England
    5. Has Children Katherine Graves b: ABT 1622 in England
    6. Has No Children Frances Graves b: ABT 1630

    Sources:
    1. Details: Graves Family Association Genealogy #169 (Captain Thomas Graves)
  • We want to hear from you! Take our WorldConnect survey

    Index | Descendancy | Register

    Printer Friendly Version Printer Friendly Version Search Ancestry Search Ancestry Search WorldConnect Search WorldConnect Join Ancestry.com Today! Join Ancestry.com Today!

    WorldConnect Home | WorldConnect Global Search | WorldConnect Help
    We want to hear from you! Take our WorldConnect survey

    RootsWeb.com is NOT responsible for the content of the GEDCOMs uploaded through the WorldConnect Program. The creator of each GEDCOM is solely responsible for its content.