Mary (Armistead) Lightfoot
Privacy Level: Open (White)

Mary (Armistead) Lightfoot (abt. 1696 - 1775)

Mary Lightfoot formerly Armistead aka Burwell, Morehead
Born about in King George, King George, Virginiamap
Ancestors ancestors
Wife of — married [date unknown] [location unknown]
Wife of — married 1711 in Virginiamap
Wife of — married 1717 in Virginia,map
Wife of — married 1721 in Virginia, Virginia Colonymap
Descendants descendants
Died in Sandy Point, Charles City, Virginiamap
Profile last modified | Created 6 Aug 2010 | Last significant change: 17 Jun 2021
Armistead-1-2.jpg23:37: Debbie (Johnson) Ferguson uploaded Armistead-1-2.jpg for Mary (Armistead) Lightfoot (abt.1696-1775).
[Thank Debbie for this]
This page has been accessed 1,987 times.

Biography

Disputed Spouse

This Mary Armistead never married a John Morehouse/Moorhouse.

Mary Burwell (Armistead) 1700-1768 Parents: William Armistead 1871-1711 and Anna Lee 1675-1754 Husbands: James Burwell 1690-1718 Philip Lightfoot Children with James Burwell: Nathaniel Bacon Burwell c.1716- Lucy Burwell c.1718-c.1719 Children with Philip Lightfoot: Armistead Lightfoot John Lightfoot Philip Lightfoot William Lightfoot 1722- Sources:

In "The Virginia Gazette" (Williamsburg, Va), Friday, June 30, 1775, page 5, column 2: "Died, Mrs. Mary Lightfoot at York, relict of the late Hon. Philip Lightfoot, Esq, one of his Majesty's council of this colony, in the 79th year of her age. Her Corpse passed through town this morning to be deposited in the family vault at Sandy Point."

Links: http://www.ronulrich.com/rfuged/fam01098.htm


Updated from MyHeritage Match via father Cannon Cumbo by SmartCopy: Sep 29 2014, 20:43:25 UTC

Sources




More Genealogy Tools



Sponsored Search




Is Mary your ancestor? Please don't go away!
 star icon Login to collaborate or comment, or
 star icon contact private message the profile manager, or
 star icon ask our community of genealogists a question.
Sponsored Search by Ancestry.com

DNA Connections
It may be possible to confirm family relationships with Mary by comparing test results with other carriers of her mitochondrial DNA. However, there are no known mtDNA test-takers in her direct maternal line. It is likely that these autosomal DNA test-takers will share some percentage of DNA with Mary:

Have you taken a DNA test? If so, login to add it. If not, see our friends at Ancestry DNA.

Sponsored by Ancestry ®

Family History Search.

Simplified.

Enter a grandparent's name. Just one grandparent can lead you to many discoveries.

Comments: 17

Leave a message for others who see this profile.
There are no comments yet.
Login to post a comment.
The Mary Armistead who m1 Burwell, m2 Lightfood did NOT marry John Morehead or have children by him. See: https://www.jstor.org/stable/1914585?seq=3#page_scan_tab_contents
posted by Jillaine Smith
Hi again!

I found an Ancestry page I could view that showed Mary Armistead m Morehead with children born from 1714 to 1749 & her death in 1768 in (John Morehead b Fauquier County, died Halifax County): http://www.motherbedford.com/Muirhead405.htm

Not the same Mary (but I'm not an Ancestry member, so I couldn't see who Ancestry thinks her parents are; additional spouses are not shown).

posted by Liz (Noland) Shifflett
Hi again!

I found an Ancestry page I could view that showed Mary Armistead m Morehead with children born from 1714 to 1749 & her death in 1768 in (John Morehead b Fauquier County, died Halifax County): http://www.motherbedford.com/Muirhead405.htm

Not the same Mary (but I'm not an Ancestry member, so I couldn't see who Ancestry thinks her parents are; additional spouses are not shown).

posted by Liz (Noland) Shifflett
Jennifer - I posted to the two duplicates who are also married to Morehead. One needs to stay behind to be Mrs. Morehead, but the other should merge with this profile.

I just found an Ancestry page I could view that showed Mary Armistead m Morehead with children born from 1714 to 1749 & her death in 1768 in (John Morehead b Fauquier County, died Halifax County): http://www.motherbedford.com/Muirhead405.htm

Not the same Mary (but I'm not an Ancestry member, so I couldn't see who Ancestry thinks her parents are; additional spouses are not shown).

I'll post this info on their page also.

Cheers, Liz

posted by Liz (Noland) Shifflett
ok. I just looked at descendants for William Armistead & I see the problem.

One of the Mary Armisteads needs to remain unmerged to be mother of all the Moreheads (which she couldn't be if she never was with a Morehead/Morehouse - see note on Armistead-96).

We need a separate "Mrs. Morehead" profile so she can be moved when her home is discovered.

Let me know if you object to this plan, since making this profile "Mrs. Morehead" will mean that she'll need to drop Burwell & Lightfoot husbands. I suppose she could stay with her parents if we change her given name to Unknown? She can't stay Mary, daughter of William & Miss Lee, m Burwell & Lightfoot AND stay as wife of Morehead/mother of his children.

Thanks!

posted by Liz (Noland) Shifflett
Hi! Think that we need to have on profile for the wife of Burwell who then married Lightfoot and another for the wife of Morehead.

Armistead-1 is all Morehead children; this profile has just one Morehead child attached; Armistead-96 has no Morehead connection (and a note "This Mary Armistead never married a John Morehouse/Moorhouse." - assuming Morehead stemmed from same source as Morehouse?)

I think best bet is to disconnect the Moreheads from this profile (merging them if needed with the ones attached to Armistead-1) and merge this profile with Armistead-96.

Is that ok with you?

posted by Liz (Noland) Shifflett
ps - disputed husband does not alter the fact that these are duplicates that should be merged (Armistead-1 & Armistead-96, Armistead-1141).
posted by Liz (Noland) Shifflett
Armistead-96 and Armistead-1 appear to represent the same person because: same dates, attached to same parents, with same husbands. whatever research was pending that had them in an unmerged match appears to have been completed. Please merge (or explain what's still needed). Thanks!
posted by Liz (Noland) Shifflett
Armistead-1 and Armistead-1141 appear to represent the same person because: Duplicate
Armistead-96 and Armistead-1 are not ready to be merged because: There is some duplication between the data of these 2 individuals that should be cleaned up before merging.

A  >  Armistead  |  L  >  Lightfoot  >  Mary (Armistead) Lightfoot