no image
Privacy Level: Open (White)

William Lunsford Esquire (bef. 1650)

William Lunsford Esquire
Born before in Englandmap [uncertain]
Son of [father unknown] and [mother unknown]
[sibling(s) unknown]
Husband of — married [date unknown] [location unknown]
Husband of — married [date unknown] [location unknown]
Descendants descendants
Died [date unknown] [location unknown]
Profile last modified | Created 9 May 2011
This page has been accessed 5,296 times.
US Southern Colonies.
William Lunsford Esquire resided in the Southern Colonies in North America before 1776.
Join: US Southern Colonies Project
Discuss: southern_colonies

Note: It is possible William Lunsford is a descendant of a Magna Carta Gateway Ancestor, Sir Thomas Lunsford, or a gateway ancestor himself. Pre-1700 Profiles require reliable sources. Magna Carta Project requires consensus among researchers and clear primary sources to change a parent/child relationship in a Magna Carta trail. It is important to recognize these higher standards when considering the level of confidence associated with the origins of William Lunsford. Any significant change to this profile should be discussed with the profile managers, which includes US Southern Colonies Project, and consensus reached before making the change.

Contents

Biography

Little is known about William Lunsford, Esquire. He was one of 65 headrights of Sir Thomas Lunsford in a 1650 land grant,[1][2][3] presumably arriving in Virginia with Sir Thomas before February 1649/50.[4]

Sir Thomas Lunsford's Land Grant

On 7 August 1649, the English Council of State granted a pass to "Sir Thomas Lunsford, his wife, and children" to go to Virginia.[5][6] Sir Thomas is then reported to be in Virginia in February 1649/50.[4]

On 24 October 1650, Sir William Berkeley granted unto "Sir Thomas Luntsford Kn't. & barronett," 3,423 acres of land, lying upon a bay on the south side of the Rappahannock River. The grant was made for the transportation of 65 persons into the Colony:[1][2]

"Sr. Thomas Luntsford, Knight Baronet; The Lady Luntsford;[3] Mrs. Elizabeth Luntsford;[3] Mrs. Phillippa Luntsford;[3] Mrs. Mary Luntsford;[3] Wm. Luntsford, Esqr.;[3] Mr. Foster; Mr. Henry Buffkin; Mr. Bird; Mr. Cooke; Mr. Warren; Mr. Cartwright; Mr. David Phillips; Mr. Wm. Caldwell; Mrs. Peirce; Mrs. Ann Bradley; Mr. Thomas Marshall; James Randall; Robert Beard; Edmond Roberts; William Rush
"Valentine Harvey; Thomas Aludge (or Aldridge); Thomas Davis; Francis Roberts; Rich'd. Millard; Rich'd. Greene; Isabell Maidstone; John Butcher; John Beech; Nicholas Menloe; John Madby; Nicho. Church; Antho. Griffeth; Wm. Fletcher; Richard Holdich; Cassainainjrus (?) Smith; John Williams; George Weeden; Edmond Hawkes; John Bradbury; Thomas Menloe; Thomas Hodskins
"William Velley; Tho. Maidstone; Yarmer Jones; Mrs. Jones; Jones his Child; Jones his Child; Robert Hallowes; Wm. Griffeth; Wm. Copeland; Mary. Copeland; James Wheafeby; Old Buck; Wm. Harpay (?); Christofer Godson; Eliz'a. Scotchwoman; Martha; Isaac Cavalier; Gregory; Dandall; our Called the Indian; Penellope Harris; Mrs. Maidstones Child"

The list of headrights begins with Sir Thomas Lunsford, his wife, and three known daughters. William Lunsford is listed next, and no additional persons with the name Lunsford are listed.

This land on the Rappahannock River was named Portobago, and was at first in Lancaster County. As new counties were created, the land was in Rappahannock (old), Essex, and Caroline counties.[7]

Elizabeth, Phillippa, and Mary Lunsford are identifed as the daughters of Sir Thomas and Katherine Neville in an 11 January 1654/5 order made for Sir John Thorowgood to maintain these three children who were carried away by their parents to Virginia, remained there until their parents' demise, and were then sent back to the parish of St. Andrew, Holborn, England.[6] Therefore, these three daughters were presumably born after 1633.

Katherine Lunsford, daughter of Sir Thomas by a later marriage, was granted this land called Potobacco in a 12 October 1670 order of the General Court, subject to the three daughters in England not making their claim.[8] On the same day, Sir Thomas' widow was allowed land at Port Tobacco.[8]

Research Notes

Uncertain Origins

Nugent describes Sir Thomas' 65 headrights as "members of his family, friends, and servants, many of whom were doubtless indentured, or bound for a period of service."[2] Genealogists, noting the 1650 land grant, naturally infer William was a close relative or son[9] of Sir Thomas—expressing varying degrees of stated certainty, but all based on this single source.

Family genealogies[10][11] have a tradition of also identifying William as a son of Sir Thomas, usually also noting the 1650 land grant, but offering no other primary sources directly proving this relationship. Tradition also has it that William was the son of Sir Thomas' second wife Katherine Neville, and that William married a Miss Blackwell in Northumberland County, Virginia, or a Miss Griffin. Various birth dates and locations (abt. 1638, Framfield, Sussex, England) and death dates and locations (abt. 1663, Northumberland County, Virginia) are offered for William, but these are based on conjecture or circumstantial evidence, rather than primary sources.

Vital Statistics

William Lunsford was probably born before February 1649/50 in England based on Sir Thomas Lunsford first being recorded in Virginia on this date.[4] It is presumed William arrived in Virginia with Sir Thomas.

DNA Information

A DNA study[12] of autosomal matches between reported descendants of Sir Edward Neville and reported descendants of William Lunsford is attempting to establish that William's mother is Katherine (Neville) Lunsford, wife of Sir Thomas Lunsford. A significant number of matches have been identified. The reported lineage of the descendants of William however has a multi-generational gap that needs to be researched.

Sources

  1. 1.0 1.1 Colony of Virginia, Virginia Land Patents and Grants, Patents No. 2, pp254-255; digital images, Library of Virginia (http://image.lva.virginia.gov/LONN/LO-1/002-1/002_0290.tif, http://image.lva.virginia.gov/LONN/LO-1/002-1/002_0291.tif).
  2. 2.0 2.1 2.2 Nell Marion Nugent (abstractor, indexer), Cavaliers and Pioneers, Abstracts of Virginia Land Patents and Grants, 1623–1800, Vol. One (Richmond, Virginia: The Dietz Printing Co., 1934) pxxiv, p200; digital images, Archive.org (https://archive.org/details/cavalierspioneer00nuge/page/n11/mode/2up?view=theater&q=lunsford).
  3. 3.0 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5 George Cabell Greer, Early Virginia Immigrants, 1623–1666 (Richmond, Virginia: W.C. Hill Printing Co., 1912) p211; digital images, Hathitrust.org (https://hdl.handle.net/2027/uva.x002706133).
  4. 4.0 4.1 4.2 "Col. Norwood's Voyage to Virginia, in 1649," The Virginia Historical Register, and Literary Advertiser, Vol. II, No. III (July, 1849), pp121-139 (specifically p136); digital images, Hathitrust.org (https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=mdp.39015027784167&view=1up&seq=337&skin=2021).
  5. “Virginia in 1641–49 (Continued),” The Virginia Magazine of History and Biography, Vol. 17 (1909), pp14–26 (specifically p19); digital images, Archive.org (https://archive.org/details/virginiamagazine17bruc/page/n9/mode/2up).
  6. 6.0 6.1 Peter Wilson Coldham, The Complete Book of Emigrants, 1607–1660 (Baltimore, Maryland: Genealogical Publishing Company, 2008 (Sixth Printing)) p244, p269.
  7. “Note—Sir Thomas Lunsford,” The Virginia Magazine of History and Biography, Vol. 17 (1909), pp26–33 (specifically p33); digital images, Archive.org (https://archive.org/details/virginiamagazine17bruc/page/n9/mode/2up).
  8. 8.0 8.1 H. R. McIlawine (editor), Minutes of the Council and General Court of Colonial Virginia, 1622–1632, 1670–1676, … (Richmond, Virginia: The Colonial Press, Everett Waddey Co., 1924) p227, p517; digital images, Archive.org (https://archive.org/details/minutesofcouncil00virg/page/n11/mode/2up).
  9. William Armstrong Crozier (editor), Virginia Heraldica, Being a Registry of Virginia Gentry Entitled to Coat Armor with Genealogical Notes of the Families, Vol. V (New York: The Genealogical Association, 1908) p40; digital images, Archive.org (https://archive.org/details/virginiaheraldic00croz/page/n8/mode/2up?view=theater).
  10. John E. Manahan and A. Maxim Coppage, The Coppage-Coppedge Family, 1542–1955 (Radford, Virginia: Commonwealth Press, 1955), pp29-31; digital images, Archive.org (https://archive.org/details/coppagecoppedgef00mana/page/n5/mode/2up).
  11. Robert M. Sharp (creator), The Lunsford Family Line (http://freepages.rootsweb.com/~sharprm/genealogy/lunsford.htm : accessed 26 February 2022).
  12. Virgil Owens, DNA Evidence for William Lunsford, Esquire, as Son of Sir Thomas Lunsford & Katherine Neville (http://www.genealogybyvirgil.com/Lunsford/nevilleDNA.html : accessed 1 Mar 2022).

See also:

Lunsford

Sir Thomas Lunsford

William Lunsford, Esquire

Acknowledgements

See the Changes tab for contributions to this profile.





Sponsored Search by Ancestry.com

DNA
No known carriers of William's DNA have taken a DNA test.

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



Comments: 31

Leave a message for others who see this profile.
There are no comments yet.
Login to post a comment.
The comments are very interesting. Please be advised that DNA evidence has been discovered concerning William Lunsford, Esq father through the Cozier and Coppage Family lines.
posted by Dianne (Dixon) Myers
This profile is generating an Error: "Father is too young or not born" since his dob is listed as 1650, only five years prior to his son, William.
posted by Janne (Shoults) Gorman
edited by Janne (Shoults) Gorman
This profile's birth date is a "before" date based on a reliable source. The son's birth date is unsourced, so it should not be used to estimate the father's birth date at this time. The errors don't appear to factor in the "before" and "after" settings.
posted by Ken Spratlin
Any idea what the Capt. Robt. Massey 2ed, son of Sir Thomas Lunsford, husband of Susanna Blackwell, father of William Lunsford, story is? This relationship appears in 293 trees on Ancestry.com. And, drumroll please, it is unsourced.
posted by Ken Spratlin
The profile for William Lunsford Esquire was just revised by the US Southern Colonies Project. The revision was coordinated with and reviewed by the profile managers and the Magna Carta Project.

This revision focuses on what is known about William Lunsford from primary sources, while also identifying family tradition as to his origins.

posted by Ken Spratlin
Lunsford-739 and Lunsford-60 appear to represent the same person because: These are the same person. The Lunsford-739 profile is as described in the Coppage source that is listed in the Lunsford-60 profile I just updated. Lunsford-739 relationships would then be moved to the research notes of Lunsford-60.
posted by Ken Spratlin
I approved this merger, but I note that John Lunsford (Lunsford-61) is not shown on the Lunsford-739 profile. Will this cut off my line?
posted by David Williamson
Simple answer is yes.

The Lunsford descendants of William (for all 3 versions of William I've identified today for merges) are not sourced. I've adopted several of these "children" that had been abandoned. At the moment, there are no known primary sources for William as father of anyone. While I intend to research them, it would be great to identify someone that is interested in collecting all available primary sources for the surname Lunsford, at least around Northumberland VA from early 1600's to say 1750, to help flesh out the tree. There appears to be some amount of conflation or risk of conflation for some of the popular names already identified in some of the profiles.

posted by Ken Spratlin
edited by Ken Spratlin
Should have also said that the children will initially remain attached until this is worked through. It appears like they will all need to be unattached to William, and the tradition of relationship to him being documented in Research Notes or something like that.

Unaware that anyone has a primary source for William other than the Sir Thomas 1650 Land Grant naming William as a headright.

posted by Ken Spratlin
Much of the info in the "Died in Infancy" research notes seems like a conspricy theory and is, at best, pure speculation. That William was somehow related to Thomas is likely (nephew, cousin, etc.). That William is Thomas' son has definitely not been proved.
posted by Traci Thiessen
update - Virgil deleted the text moved to the space page ("Lunsford_Conspiracy_Theory") so that page was subsequently deleted.
posted by Liz (Noland) Shifflett
edited by Liz (Noland) Shifflett
You are quite right, it is speculation and theory. I posted it for two reasons:

1) A possible explanation to counter the thesis that William did not inherit the estate of Sir Thomas therefore he is not his son. This is only one of several explanations as to why a son would not inherit his fathers estate under 17th-century English (and Virginia) Common Law. 2) To stimulate additional research and discussion to once and for all prove/disprove the theory. Unfortunately, It turns out that I've only ruffled some feathers--sorry for ruffling feathers but not sorry for introducing the theory.

It should be pointed out that William's mother and his estimated birth of about 1638 in Framfield, Sussex, England is also pure speculation, not backed up by any 17th-century source.

I posted the theory under Research Notes and clearly identified it as a theory--not a fact. Of course, it's highly unlikely that any hard evidence of a crime would be left lying around. I certainly have found none. But there are some books and online sources that fit the narrative and thus enhance its plausibility but fall short of actual proof.

Almost certainly, William Lunsford, Esquire was not the nephew of Sir Thomas. The evidence for cousins of Sir Thomas is sketchy. So far, I've been unable to find a cousin named William Lunsford, Esquire. If anyone out there has found evidence for this mystery relative, please let us know.

If one is to accept the 17th-century definition of Esquire as given to the heralds from the College of Arms prior to their visitations then there is indirect proof with a high probability that William was the son of Sir Thomas. Don't be swayed by those who try to draw conclusions from unsourced notions or modern definitions of Esquire, Squire, Peer, Gentleman, Mrs., etc. The way a 21st-century person understands these terms in original documents can be quite different from what a 17th-century person would have understood.

posted by Virgil Owens Jr.
When saving this profile, I received a "Warning: Check the data." for one of his children (Lunsford-60 died 1663 & Lunsford-241 born 1669), but only one of the six profiles attached has a birth year within his current lifespan (the first profile attached as William Jr.; Lucille's profile does not have a date).

The Lunsfords of Virginia suffer from a lack of primary sources.

I will be re-doing this profile's text on behalf of the US Southern Colonies Project, retaining in the Biography section information that is supported by reliable sources and moving other information to the Research Notes section (or deleting it).

No reliable sources have been found to date that connect this William Lunsford as a son of Thomas Lunsford,* although - as stated on Thomas's profile - "William is clearly a relative, perhaps a close one, but the exact relationship is uncertain."

* Crozier saying he is "probably" Thomas's son is not sufficient.

A quick look through the source list for this profile does not look promising (aside from Richardson, who doesn't mention William, and Nugent, which is probably just the headrights where William is listed). If you have reliable sources for William's wife/children, please share!

posted by Liz (Noland) Shifflett
edited by Liz (Noland) Shifflett
I intend to add The Coppage-Coppedge Family 1542-1955 by John E. Manahan and A. Maxim Coppage; as a source for William's name, his father, his marriage and children,, and his residence,

This source will not change any existing information in William's biography but it will add a new residence

posted by Virgil Owens Jr.
thanks Virgil! Please also include the supporting source the book has for the information.
posted by Liz (Noland) Shifflett
I have removed the suggestion in the Research Notes that Esquire denoted the son of a knight. Esquire was used for lots of people who were not sons of knights. It just denoted a rank in society below people with knighthoods.
posted by Michael Cayley
Wikipedia notes that there have been multiple definitions of esquire throughout the years and they have provided original source references for 16th-, 17th-, 18th-, and 19th-century definitions all of which included "eldest son of a knight" as one of (usually) 4 or 5 definitions at each time period. Check it out at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Esquire.

in 1650, when William's name was followed by the suffix Esqr. on a land grant, "eldest son of a knight" was the only definition that would apply to a child. Sheriffs, Justices of the Peace and certain other adult occupations or positions used the suffix "Esquire" but since William was not an adult in 1650, the suffix "Esquire" could only mean that William was the son of a knight.

Since William Lunsford, Esqr. appeared with the family members of Sir Thomas Lunsford, Knight in the 1650 land grant and since Sir Thomas was the only Knight listed, we can logically infer that William Lunsford, Esqr. was the son of Sir Thomas Lunsford, Knight.

posted by Virgil Owens Jr.
Not so. William may have been a son of Sir Thomas Lunsford, or he may not. The land grant and the use of Esquire - which would be unusual for someone still only a child, just as the use of Mrs for the young daughters is unusual - do not tell us anything conclusive.

The land grant does not tell us that William was a son of Thomas. It tells us that a William Lunsford "Esqre" was in the group that went with Thomas Lunsford to Virginia. He may have been a son, or he may have been some other relative. Evidence is at present lacking to decide. The land grant also tells us nothing about William’s age: if he was a son of Thomas, he would have been a minor and possibly still a very young child; if he was some other relative, he may have been of full age. We should keep an open mind unless and until further evidence emerges. I will not repeat the more detailed exchanges we have had separately on this.

There is also no evidence, as I have said to you privately, to support the conspiracy theory about what happened in 1670 with the claims of Sir Thomas Lunsford's daughter Katherine to some of his lands or the suggestion that William was deprived of any rights. The terms of the Virginia General Court decision on that claim safeguard potential rights of Katherine's half-sisters, and suggest that the Court was careful not to give Katherine rights to which she was not entitled. The Court awarded land to Katherine but on condition that her half-sisters did not subsequently lodge claims. There is no mention in the decision of any son, just of Thomas's three other daughters. This would prima facie indicate

- that, if William was a son of Thomas, he was likely to have died before 1670, and

- that, if William was still alive, he was not a son of Thomas.

There is no basis in the court decision on which to deduce more about William.

In the absence of real evidence, the conspiracy theory should be regarded as no more than speculation, and to me the terms of the Court decision make that speculation look implausible.

posted by Michael Cayley
edited by Michael Cayley
Please see http://www.genealogybyvirgil.com for proof, using 17th-century sources, that William was the son of Sir Thomas Lunsford. I believe you'll find that all of your objections have been answered in the document.
posted by Virgil Owens Jr.
I am really sorry but this adds nothing of any substance to the debate about whether William was a son of Thomas Lunsford-515. The fact remains that all we actually know that is relevant to this question is that

- a William Lunsford, referred to as Esquire, was named in a Virginia headright where Thomas Lunsford is the first name, with no indication of relationship, and was listed after Thomas's daughters. This is the only evidence linking a William Lunsford who went to Virginia with Thomas.

- in a Virginia Court decision of 1670 relating to Thomas's lands, no son of Thomas was held to have an interest, nor were any heirs of a son of Thomas, while the interests of daughters were safeguarded.

Anything beyond this is, I am afraid, surmise and speculation.

The use of "Esquire", by the way, tells us nothing about the relationship. The great majority of people described officially as Esquire, and officially referred to as such, were people who at some time in their lives held some sort of official position, not sons of knights. This is abundantly clear from official records, heralds' Visitations, and the like, and is entirely consistent with what contemporary pundits of the time said. The great majority were state officials (many not that senior), people appointed to commissions, Justices of the Peace and the like. As you recognise, Esquire was used in practice rather more widely than contemporary pundits advocated, even though this was subject to a degree of disapprobation and was the subject of occasional satire by 16th and 17th century writers.

There are, I am afraid, some other misunderstandings, and also some irrelevancies, and in places unevidenced speculation, in the document which you have drawn together and given the link to.

The evidence is also pretty conclusive that IF the William of this profile was a son of Thomas, Lunsford-515, he died before the 1670 court decision mentioned in the bio, and did not leave heirs. Anything else suggests a very very implausible theory about a conspiracy to deny William, or William's heirs, their rights.

At the moment, the position remains that there is no reliable evidence that Thomas Lunsford had a son called William. He may have, or he may not. Until better evidence can be found one way or the other, it would be inappropriate to attach William as a son of Thomas. Instead, the possibility should just remain as something discussed in Research Notes.

I should add that if we ever come to a point where there is sufficient evidence to attach William as a son of Thomas, all the currently shown and unsourced children of William will almost certainly need to be detached. The 1670 court decision is strongly indicative that no son of Thomas left heirs.

posted by Michael Cayley
edited by Michael Cayley
We know your position but please let others at Wikitree judge if this document adds substance. You are just repeating the same objections that have been addressed privately and also resolved in the document. Evidence from authoritative 17th-century sources proves William's relationship to Sir Thomas. Neither you nor anyone else has presented evidence from any 17th-century source to dispute this. Wikitree is all about collaboration and evidence from original sources--not biased opinions and positions. If you can give me any specific examples of misunderstandings, irrelevancies, or unevidenced speculation in the document, I will be happy to remove them or address them--I seriously tried to avoid them in the first place.
posted by Virgil Owens Jr.
edited by Virgil Owens Jr.
Virgil - As you know, I agree with Michael's assessment. I have read through your website and it does not contain sufficient proof to attach this William to the profile of Thomas Lunsford-515 - a profile protected by the Magna Carta Project, which detaches children not documented by Richardson's Royal Ancestry or Magna Carta Ancestry (2nd edition) or having clear primary proof of parent/child relationship.* Richardson does not include William as a son of Thomas, as you note in the following paragraph at http://www.genealogybyvirgil.com/
Wm Luntsford, Esqr is said, by some sources, [Crozier], & [Coppage] to be William Lunsford, Esquire, the son of Sir Thomas; yet, other sources[ODNB] & [Richardson] claim he is not.

Although Crozier's Heraldica is not listed specifically by the US Southern Colonies Project Reliable Sources page, one of Crozier's works is, under "Reliable with Conditions", which has the introduction: "Sources here are colony-neutral or cover multiple colonies. Reminder: books, databases, compilations, and websites are only as reliable as the sources they cite." Heraldica is listed under Reliable with Conditions, under "Biographical Compilations by the Colony of Virginia Reliable Sources page.

Although Crozier frequently cites reliable sources, and the source referenced for William being Thomas's son is a reliable source for the presence of William in the colonies, William's name in a list of headrights is not a reliable source for his relationship to any other names in the same list or to the person claiming him. Crozier acknowledges this by the qualifiers he uses in stating the relationship (page 40): "...probably a son, William, the latter, it is thought, being the William Lunsford, Esq., who is mentioned as being one of the headrights in the grant to Sir Thomas in 1650." [emphasis added]

"...probably... it is thought" is not clear primary proof of the relationship, as required to meet Magna Carta Project standards.*

Your website also states that "Crozier’s credibility certainly carries more weight than that of Richardson and the ODNB." Regardless of your opinion about credibility (or mine, for that matter), the fact remains that Richardson does not include William as a son of Thomas and, therefore, the Magna Carta Project requires clear primary proof that he was, and Crozier does not provide that. The Coppage-Coppege Family book that you also reference does state that William was Thomas's son (page 31), without the qualifiers that Crozier included, but also without any source to support the statement. The book was published in 1955, which falls at the tail end of the popularity of publishing family genealogies that connected those living in the United States with noble and/or royal ancestors. These family genealogies 1900s are not considered reliable,** although they often cited reliable sources. The Coppage-Coppege Family book does not cite such sources for stating the relationship.

You state that "none of the authored sources actually prove or disprove the father/son relationship" yet conclude that your discussion of them shows that William is a son of Thomas "beyond all reasonable doubt". I disagree. The only thing that is beyond all reasonable doubt is that William Luntsford was listed as a headright claimed by Thomas Luntsford in 1650. As I said in my more detailed e-mail to you:

As noted on https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Space:US_Southern_Colonies_Project_Reliable_Sources
  • After finding a reliable source, care must be taken to establish that the source belongs to your profile.
This is especially true of headrights, which seldom include mention of family relationships (even “his wife” isn’t reliable, as it could mean the wife of the person claiming headrights or of one of the other persons being claimed). In addition, headrights could be sold or transferred, so the person claiming them may not have actually transported the person claimed, and the people listed might not (and often weren’t) transported together. Also, it seems that headrights were sometimes being claimed when transportation was just from one colony to another. Therefore, the reliable source listing William as a headright proves he was in the colony. The only other fact that it supports is that he arrived in America prior to the date he was claimed as a headright. It does not even reliably support that he was still living/in the colony at the time the headright was claimed, as people accumulated headrights before claiming them in order to obtain a single large tract of land).

* Magna Carta Project Policy and Procedures (this section): "Generally, a child not included in Richardson would be detached (see tips, below) unless the evidence for the child meets project standards. The following addresses that process. If you wish to attach a child to a badged profile, you can proceed if the child is listed by Richardson. If not, first contact the project by posting to the badged profile your intent and reasoning."

** From US Southern Colonies Project Reliable Sources page: "These [family genealogies] are much like the online trees of today-- their quality varies depending on the extent to which they cite their sources."

posted by Liz (Noland) Shifflett
[Comment Deleted]
posted by Virgil Owens Jr.
deleted by Admin WikiTree
flagged by Traci Thiessen
for anyone interested in details about Virginia's land grants/headrights system, I found these pages while working on a different family:
posted by Liz (Noland) Shifflett
I agree with you Virgil. My 6th great grandmother was a Lunsford. Charity Lunsford Gough. Ancestry DNA has found cousins linked to Sir Thomas for me. One of them links through Catherine Wormsley. A couple link thru the Coppedge family. I also have Swanson cousins.
posted by Linda (Burks) Jiron
edited by Linda (Burks) Jiron
I have removed him from his previously shown parents Thomas Lunsford and Anne Hudson. Douglas Richardson and others say Thomas and Anne had just one son who died in infancy.
posted by Michael Cayley
Under the Genealogy Standards published by the Board for Certification of Genealogists, Richardson's information falls into the category of an authored source (as opposed to Original or Derivative) whose informant's degree of knowledge is unknown. In other words it may be hearsay. We know of at least one other instance where Richardson published hearsay information about Thomas Lunsford that was later refuted by an original 17th-century source.
posted by Virgil Owens Jr.
Lunsford-3362 and Lunsford-60 appear to represent the same person because: clear duplicate; 1693 prob. correct DOD given DOBs of children
posted by Mark Burch
Samuel Lunsford, William Lunsford Jr., Charles Lunsford and John Lunsford all were born after William Lunsford's death in 1663. Either they are not his son's or there is an error on the year of his death.
posted by Cheryl (Stone) Caudill
Lunsford-60 and Lunsford-598 appear to represent the same person because: After more research believe that these are indeed the same person,
posted by Cheryl (Stone) Caudill

Rejected matches › William LunsfordWillie Lunsford

L  >  Lunsford  >  William Lunsford Esquire

Categories: Virginia Colonists