Issue with deed commonly used to identify Martha (Brasseur) Moseley as dau of Robert Brasseur?

Question

On 2 Dec 2022 T Stanton wrote on Brasseur-11:

Is there a problem with the deed commonly used to identify Martha (Brasseur) Mosely as a daughter of Robert Brasseur (Brasseur-19)? The deed is recorded 31 Jan 1659 in Rappahannock, Virginia and clearly states "...whereas Robert Brusner [sic] gent new deced [deceased] did by his last will and testament give unto his daughter Martha now wife me William Mosely..." goes on to specify some land in Nansemond. This states that the father Robert is deceased on 31 Jan 1659 (presumed 31 Jan 1660 n.s.). However, the will claimed to be that of Robert Brashears [sic] found in Maryland records is dated 1665 (citation found on Brasseur-19).

Answer 1

I don't recall seeing such a document but would be more than happy to see it used as a source as I am a direct descendant and sources get scarce that far back.

Comments

The issue is the dating. The document used to establish the parentage appears to state the father deceased five years before the man's will was written and probated.

Answer 2

It seems like the problem is with the will and identification of this Calvert Co MD man with Martha who m. Wm Moseley and George Taylor, not the deed, although I suppose it depends on the perspective.  The person who wrote this will doesn't even mention anybody named Martha. The only person named Brashieur at all is his "Couzen Mary Brashieur". That's a lot of kids that Brasseur-19 has, to have a will mentioning nobody with his surname. Seems like there is some conflation in that profile. Here is the will https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:3Q9M-C914-L4FM-8?i=131&cat=259693

Here is a profile, which has a trans. of the deed, and asserts that the Robert who was her father was married to Florence and died in Isle of Wight Co.

https://www.colonial-settlers-md-va.us/getperson.php?personID=I82470&tree=Tree1

(a) we see no probate for him in Isle of Wight and (b) the deed seems to suggest he could have died in Nansemond, which county's records were burned... maybe that's where the will was?

EDIT: N.b., having studied George Taylor, Martha's other husband, I would just point out that he has a wife missing on Wikitree and on the above mentioned site, who was Martha Tomlin, which means he had two wives named Martha. To be specific:

* Martha (Tomlin) (Jones) Taylor was living (as George Taylor's wife) on 7 March 1683 when her brother Robert Tomlin executed his last will.
* Martha (Brasseur) (Moseley) was married to George Taylor by 2 October 1684 (Old Rappahannock OB 1683-5:44, in which George Taylor is married to Martha, William Moseley's widow).

... and unlike the Richard Alsop matter that I have been dragging my feet on, in this case I do have notes I can give you, if you are interested. They've been lying around waiting for me to formalize them and start disputing things with PMs, etc.

Comments

Thanks, Daphne. I will have to look at this in some detail. That Elizabeth Fowke was wife of Robert is said to be discredited but I am uncertain about a Florence (or if Florence would be a Fowke). The most recent detailed research (of which I have not been able to locate a copy) says Robert's wife is unknown. Some of this appears on the Robert profile (which until two days ago even had the wrong given name and was conflated with Benois/Benjamin). I do think his birth in 1618 as shown at the link is improbable--then most these children cannot be his. The Kent connection is also questionable, so I have read. There was a Brashears found there with a child or two of similar name but that this is the family that came from France and is later found in the colonies supposedly cannot be documented.

Yes, I noted the questions with the Maryland will but had not yet looked at which documented children would have survived the father.

I'd be happy to look at any of your notes on any of this. I am trying to clean up a lot of misinformation found in WT. The book by Charles Brashear is cited several places but the person who cites Charles never says if Charles' work is supported by primary sources of substantial secondary evidence. I've been unable to locate a copy of that book.

Many of the profiles are also citing one of the Huguenot societies. I will have to review my own notes to recall which is the 'good' one and which is the one whose database is full of unverified user-submitted data from member applications. (The latter still contains a false DeMoss family heritage which has been thoroughly and completely debunked.)