Fauquier County Tapscotts - Robert Francis Tapscott, Revisited

Over the years this blog has often brought up the mystery of Robert Francis Tapscott (see, in particular, the posting of 26 Jul 2014). The second edition of my book Henry the Immigrant, the First Tapscotts of Virginia, contains the following page about Robert:

This information remains essentially correct (though the birth name of Lucy Frances Wood’s mother may have been “Kirk” rather than “Kirtley”). Until very recently, we were still searching for Robert Francis Tapscott's origins. But thanks to DNA we have the answer.

First, yDNA results for two male descendants of Robert Francis Tapscott show conclusively that Robert Francis was not a descendant of Henry Tapscott, the Immigrant, at least by an all-male line. The name “Tapscott” may have come from Robert Francis’s mother, but not his father. In fact, the DNA results provide extremely strong evidence that Robert’s father (or possibly his paternal grandfather, etc.) was named "Holder." Robert's male-line descendants show strikingly close matches to many males with the surname "Holder" — genetic distances as close as an exact match for 111 markers.

Second, four descendants of Robert Francis Tapscott show autosomal DNA matches to eight different descendants of Elizabeth Percifull (abt 1790 – abt 1855), daughter of Elijah Percifull of Lancaster County, Virginia. (See posts of 13 Jan 2015, 15 Jan 2013, 17 May 2013, 13 Mar 2014, 30 Mar 2014, 21 Jul 2016, 19 Oct 2016.) Moreover, several Fauquier Co Tapscotts, known descendants of Elizabeth Percifull, show autosomal DNA matches to other descendants of Robert Francis. And, finally, a descendant of Robert Frances Tapscott shows matches to the Percifull family of Lancaster County, Virginia.

Third, Robert Frances's 1843 Clarke Co, Virginia, wedding license gives his residence as Fauquier Co, a statement now verified by Fauquier Co property tax records in which Robert Tapscott appears in 1839 (when he had just turned 22) and in 1840. The 1840 tax record also shows Elizabeth "Tappscott."

Fourth, in 1834 Robert Tapscott, "child of Betty Tapscott" was indentured to Robert Gordon in Fauquier County to learn the trade of blacksmith. An 1842 Chancery Court case shows "Bob Tapscott" running the blacksmith shop of James McLearen in Warrenton, Fauquier Co. By 1850 our Robert Francis Tapscott was in Clarke County, Virginia, just north of Fauquier, working as a blacksmith. "Betty" is, of course, a name often used by those with the name "Elizabeth." 

                              What does all this mean?

Robert Frances Tapscott Marker, Old
Chapel Cemetery, Clarke Co, Virginia.

Elizabeth Percifull was the wife of James E. Tapscott, her only legal husband and a son of Ezekiel and grandson of Edney. Of particular importance is that Elizabeth and James lived in Fauquier County, Virginia, where, according to his marriage record, Robert Francis Tapscott had lived. James E. is known to have been deceased by 23 Jun 1817, but could have died as early as 1812. After James’s death Elizabeth continued to use her married name and bore several children out of wedlock, children who were given the name “Tapscott.” And a child, Telem, born prior to Elizabeth's marriage to James, also took the name "Tapscott." (Telem's descendants also show DNA matches to Robert Frances's descendants.) Elizabeth’s children born after James’s death, had birth dates between 1814 and 1828, encompassing that of Robert Francis, who was born in 1817. All in all, it is almost certain that Robert Francis Tapscott was a child of Elizabeth and a male by the name of “Holder,” several of whom were living in Fauquier County at the time. This would explain the DNA results.

Among the ten or so male Holders living in Fauquier Co at the time of Robert Francis's birth, one stands out as having the appropriate age - Taliaferro, who would have been 25 when Robert was born, and in later years was living in Turner's District, where many of Elizabeth's descendants were living. But we still need more DNA work to confirm this.

And we now know that in 1834 a Robert Tapscott, son of "Betty" (almost certainly Elizabeth) Tapscott, was living in Fauquier Co and was trained as a blacksmith, Robert Francis Tapscott's trade when he was a resident of Clarke Co.

We can make but one conclusion. We now have another line of "Fauquier County Tapscotts," the Robert Francis Tapscott line. See Fauquier Tapscott Lines .

Another Gauntlet

The email I cited earlier had a second paragraph (some deletions):

“I do not accept the appropriation that … Henry, son of Edney , was a son of  Edney's wife, Judith. There is no one named Judith in Henry's family nor anyone bearing her family name of Purcell. That he distanced himself from the other children of Judith is also very telling. He very quickly disposed of the land his father left him and moved to NC.”

I love it when someone throws down a gauntlet. It brings back my days as a research professor. From the 2nd Edition of Henry the Immigrant:

“Sometime before 8 April 1735 he [Edney] wedded his first wife Judith Purcell, daughter of Thomas and Elizabeth (Woodward) Purcell. Some say that Edney had an earlier marriage, which produced most or all of his children, a claim based on the absence of the names “Judith” and “Thomas” among Edney’s offspring. But in view of a total lack of other evidence, the assertion is weak and unconvincing.”

My statement that the “assertion is weak and unconvincing” is itself weak and unconvincing. Sorry to bore you readers, but you deserve something more. Here is a summary of the evidence presented in my book. See Henry the Immigrant for details and sources.

On 11 Jul 1734, Edney sued his mother and her second husband Benjamin George for a portion of the estate of Henry, his father. Henry's gift of deed stated that Edney would receive his share when he turned 21. Edney probably instituted this “friendly” suit shortly after he turned 21, and was, therefore, likely born a little before 11 Jul 1713. This seems quite reasonable since Edney was the oldest and his parents were married between 15 Mar 1709 and 16 May 1711. He and Judith Purcell were married by 8 Apr 1735 because the Lancaster County will of Judith Purcell’s grandmother Elizabeth, signed on that date states “I do appoint my Grandaughter Judith and her husband Edney Tapscott Executors of this my Last Will & Testament.” On Apr 1735, Edney was around age 22, somewhat young since most Colonial Virginia men first married around age 25 or 26 (a reliable statistical number). In fact, Edney was sufficiently young, 22 or younger when he married Judith, that it is highly unlikely that he had a previous wife.

How long were Judith and Edney married? There is no way to tell for certain. Certainly they were no longer married when Edney took Mary, the widow of William Waugh Jr., as his second wife around 15 Feb 1762 (bond). That was 27 years or more after his first marriage, and more than sufficient time to have the seven children that we know Edney had, presumably with Judith. Even had Judith died well before Edney married Mary Waugh, there was more than sufficient time.

Judith and Edney’s first child was Henry, who would become known to us as “Henry of Caswell.” In the 1800 census, he was aged 45 or older, corresponding to a birth year of 1742 or earlier. When he married Winifred Hill around 1763 (based on a chancery court record) he would have been aged 21 or older. As we have pointed out, Virginia men tended to marry around 25 or 26, making it likely that Henry was born around 1737 or 1738, the birth year one might expect for a marriage of Edney and Judith in 1735 or earlier. No matter how one juggles the numbers, Henry of Caswell was almost certainly a child of Judith.

So far everything holds together. There are no conflicts, no negative evidence, nothing that needs to be resolved. But we still have to look at the names of descendants.

For the second generation of Edney's descendants, counting Judith Purcell and Edney as the first, no one is named “Thomas” or “Judith.” One must go to the third generation, where we find Judith Clayton, daughter of Edney’s daughter Elizabeth and Judith George, daughter of Edney’s daughter Susannah. Thus we have two granddaughters of (presumably) Judith Purcell and Edney who are named “Judith.” Many (including the writer of the above memo) would say that this provides good evidence that Elizabeth and Susannah Tapscott were daughters of Judith Purcell. I'm not convinced that this evidence is all that good though I do believe that Elizabeth and Susannah were daughters of Judith. And these two “Judiths” are all we have, even going through six generations (admittedly some of the lists of descendants are incomplete).

But we do have a slug of descendants named “Thomas” when we go through six generations (admittedly a little far). There are a whopping eleven for Henry of Caswell (two 4^th generation, five 5^th generation, and four 6^th generation). For Ezekiel there is one with a middle name "Thomas," 6^th generation. Are any of these named for Thomas Purcell? For 4th generation and beyond, as all these are, I doubt it. The relationship distances appear to be too great.

But, the thing to realize is that people didn’t always name children after ancestors. Indeed, the brother of Edney, Capt. Henry Tapscott, first married Margaret Stott and had a huge number of descendants by this first marriage, 254 by my count through the 6^th generation, but there are only five named “Margaret” (and these do not appear until the 4^th generation and 5^th generation) and nobody is named “Stott”. What is particularly striking is that Margaret’s father was named “John,” an exceedingly common name, but out of all of the descendants of Capt. Henry and Margaret, only one John is found before the 5^th generation. There are no “Margarets” at all among the 61 identified descendants of William, the last child of Margaret and Capt. Henry. Does this mean that William was not a child of Margaret and Capt. Henry? Certainly not. The will of John Stott shows William to be a child of Margaret. I'll say it again. People did not always name descendants after ancestors, as is demonstrated here.

One final note. I and other descendants of Edney Tapscott have autosomal DNA matches with a number of people descended from Purcells of the Isle of Wright County, Virginia. This is where Thomas Purcell appears to have originated. At this point it is far too early to draw any conclusions, and perhaps we will never be able to do so.

All evidence strongly indicates that Edney had but one marriage producing children, and that was with Judith Purcell.

Fauquier County Tapscotts and DNA Testing, Once Again

Classical “paper-trail” genealogy is a challenge when researching the Tapscotts of Fauquier County, Virginia. Most were black or mixed-race descendants of slaves, without good records. And, there were often name changes and births outside of matrimony. Thus, only with the inclusion of unreliable family history and questionable conclusions, can classical methods indicate that some Fauquier County Tapscotts are descended from Henry the Immigrant. Of course, some Fauquier County residents bearing the name "Tapscott" were actually descendants of Elizabeth (Percifull) Tapscott by relationships with men other than descendants of Henry the Immigrant. This site has proposed the use of autosomal DNA to provide additional evidence of relationships between at least some Fauquier Co Tapscotts and Henry the Immigrant (see, e.g., Fauquier County Tapscotts; DNA Testing, Revisited; Once Again. Needed has been a DNA match between a descendent of the Fauquier County Tapscotts and a descendant of The Immigrant outside of the Fauquier County group.

We now have not one match, but two. Two separate individuals indicated by classical, though questionable, genealogical research to be descendants of Harriet Tapscott of Fauquier County, great granddaughter of Edney Tapscott, show autosomal DNA matches (one "moderate," one "good") with a descendant of Edney’s son Henry of Caswell County. Paper studies indicate that the matching individuals are 6^th cousins once removed. The DNA-predicted relationship for both is 5^th to 8^th cousin. To protect individual privacy, names are not being released.

    

Is all of this exact proof? Not exactly. The matching descendant of Henry of Caswell is 7 generations from Edney Tapscott, the common link. That person has 126 total parents and grandparents going back to Edney. The ancestral distance from Edney is even greater for the two Fauquier County subjects—8 generations, with 254 ancestors. Thus, there could be non-Tapscott connections between the individuals, though it isn’t likely since the Henry of Caswell line was located geographically far from Fauquier County. Due to the site containing the data and the small number of matches, chromosomal mapping and phasing, which could increase reliability, cannot yet be carried out.

Nevertheless, we can now say that autosomal DNA evidence indicates that some Fauquier County Tapscotts are descended from Edney Tapscott, presumably though his son Ezekiel, grandson James, and great granddaughter Harriet.

Edgehill

Edgehill manor house.

Recently I received an email stating that the sender, Judy, was a great granddaughter of William Fairfax Tapscott and asking if I knew anything about her origins. Indeed I do, Judy. William Fairfax was a great grandson of Samuel Chichester Tapscott, a GG grandson of Chichester Tapscott, and a GGG grandson of Capt. Henry Tapscott. It was into Chichester’s and then Samuel Chichester’s hands that Capt. Henry’s Edgehill Plantation eventually passed. I was going to suggest that Judy take a look at my posting on this site about Edgehill, but found to my amazement that no mention of Edgehill has previously appeared in these pages. Here is a post long overdue.

Until recently, on the east side of Virginia State Highway 354 (River Road) in Lancaster County, where Belle Isle Road enters from the west, at the end of an unpaved driveway heading up a small hill, stood a white, two-story, frame house dating from around 1770. This was the manor for Edgehill, Capt. Henry Tapscott’s home plantation.

An upstairs room.

Edgehill was large plantation, almost 200 acres, and the manor was a fine house. Capt. Henry was, after all, far wealthier than his brothers, Edney and James. But eventually the plantation passed to those not bearing the Tapscott name through a complex series of marriages, inheritances, and sales, until in 1910 part of the land containing the plantation house was sold to someone with no (known) Tapscott relationship. And Judy lost a possible inheritance. The complicated ownership saga appears in my book, Henry the Immigrant, but to tell you the truth the drawn-out tale is a little boring to nonhistorians.

Slave entrance.

The plantation house has quite a history. It was in that house that Chichester’s daughter Alice Martin Tapscott and granddaughter Mary Alice Tapscott were reportedly born. The two Alice’s are the matriarchs of the Pierce’s of Lancaster County. One of their descendants was Chichester Tapscott Peirce (“Chit”), a loved and renown Lancaster County physician. That story is particularly complex since “Chit” was descended from Chichester Tapscott by two different routes, a case of cousins marrying.

Oldest part of the house, eighteenth century.

A variety of questionable secondary sources claim that prior to heading off to battle at the opening of the Civil War, the Lancaster Cavalry (9th Virginia Cavalry, Company D) assembled at Edgehill for receipt of its company banner, presented by the girls of St. Mary’s White Chapel Church. Among the Confederate troops were the two sons of Samuel Chichester Tapscott, William Chichester, company bugler and standard bearer, and Aulbin Delaney, also a standard bearer. When William was killed in action, his surviving brother saved the Lancaster flag from capture, wrapping it around his torso and secreting it under his uniform. He returned to Edgehill with the banner, which was kept by the family until the 1920s when his niece gave it to the Museum of the Confederacy for safe keeping. Some of this, however, may be only legend, for Aulbin Delaney Tapscott was reportedly taken prisoner in May 1863 and could not have been present when his brother was mortally wounded. It was William Chichester Tapscott’s death at the Battle of Upperville that led to the eventual loss of Edgehill by the Tapscotts, since the plantation went to William’s wife, who remarried.

When I visited the Northern Neck in 2005 I got a tour of the Edgehill plantation house from the present owner. And I got some photographs, several of which are shown here. Unfortunately, the manor is no more. Deemed too expensive to renovate, it was demolished.

Fauquier County Tapscotts, once again

I recently received an email from a descendant of residents of Fauquier County, Virginia, having the name "Tapscott." The email noted that some Fauquier County Tapscotts had been tested and that other potential candidates would be contacted for testing. My response, slightly modified, may be of interest to others.

Remember that, because of female members of all reasonable descendancy lines, yDNA testing will almost certainly show no Tapscott matches for Fauquier County Tapscott descendants. Only autosomal testing has promise to show a genetic relationship between Fauquier County Tapscotts and James/Ezekiel Tapscott (members of the Edney line).

I have been autosomal tested on both Ancestry.com and FamilyTreeDNA. So far I have found no autosomal matches between myself and people originating in Fauquier County who show Tapscott names in their ancestry. This is true even though I have found several matches with non-Fauquier County Tapscott descendants on the Edney line, one going all the way back to the original Henry, eight generations! There are three possibilities: (1) Potential matches thus far are too far back with too few and too small identical DNA sequences showing up to be declared a match. (2) There is no genetic relationship between any Fauquier County Tapscott and the descendants of Henry the Immigrant (though I believe there is). (3) People undergoing testing are not providing information on their ancestry when they take their tests, something I discuss at the end of this email.

I suggest that if your cousins, etc. do autosomal testing through FamilyTreeDNA ("Family Finder"), they join the "Tapscott Project" hosted by FamilyTree. Joining a project costs nothing and can be done through the FamilyTreeDNA website. Joining the "Tapscott Project" allows me, as project administrator, to more easily check for matches.

I also suggest that if they test through Ancestry.com, they download their results to FamilyTreeDNA and then join the "Tapscott Project." The download is done through the Family Finder Transfer Program (see https://www.familytreedna.com/learn/imports/transfer-autosomal-ancestry/family-tree-dna-family-finder-transfer-program/). Unfortunately it does cost ($69 last time I checked), but the charge is worth it. Transfer not only allows joining a project, it greatly expanding the database of potential matches.

Whether they test through Ancestry or through FamilyTreeDNA, if people you are in contact with would send me the test name they used, I can easily check for matches. Some people use strange test names that have no relation with the submitter's actual name. I have no problem with your giving out my email address.

Unlike many of those tested, I use my actual name for my test results. The name for my Ancestry.com results is "Robert Tapscott" and for FamilyTreeDNA it's "Robert Edwin Tapscott." Thus, your contacts can quickly check for matches with me. (They should also search the name "Tapscott" in their match results.)

As a final note. It is absolutely essential that individuals undergoing testing include a ancestral tree (even if it is inaccurate) or at least (in the case of FamilyTreeDNA) a list of ancestral surnames (a list that includes "Tapscott," otherwise why be concerned with Tapscott matches?). Without a family tree or a list of descendants is is almost impossible to find Tapscott matches. If a person's tree is kept private or if there is no tree, they will not show up when I search for my Tapscott matches. When people make trees private they greatly hinder effective use of DNA testing. They might just as well save their money by not doing the testing. One of my major frustrations is people who for some reason or other feel that names of their fathers, mothers, grandfathers, etc. should be kept secret. Why? All it does is greatly reduce the potential for collaboration in family history research. My name is Robert Edwin Tapscott, my mother was Mary Emaline Imle and my father was Glenn Daniel Tapscott, and I don't care if the whole world knows it. Giving the names of ancestors is not equivalent to passing out social security or bank account numbers.

Autosomal DNA Match

I have received notification of a very distant autosomal DNA match with a 6th great granddaughter of Henry the Immigrant. I am a 6th great grandson of Henry. She is descended from James, son of Henry the Immigrant. I am descended from Edney son of Henry the Immigrant. It is surprising that we show a match, albeit small, since she and I are 7th cousins. Usually autosomal testing will not show matches over this distance.

Henry C. Tapscott and Robert C. Tapscott

I have posted this also on Ancestry.com to see who reads what.

It is often stated that Robert C. Tapscott, son of Edney and Sarah (Windsor) Tapscott had the middle name "Conway," a name that he used in Caswell County, NC, but not after moving to Missouri. One often cited record (Property for Methodist Episcopal Church, 28 Aug. 1828, Caswell County, North Carolina, Deed Book Y, pp. 61-61) which names a "Conway Tapscott" as a grantee. But this was certainly not Robert C. Tapscott, who would have been at most 14 years old in 1828 (1850, 1860, 1870 Missouri censuses) and could not have been a grantee. Moreover Robert C. had no known Conways in his line. On the other hand, Henry C. Tapscott, son of Henry and Nancy Tapscott and first cousin of Robert (through his mother, Nancy) was 28 years old in 1828 and had a paternal grandmother who was a Conway. I believe that Henry C. was probably the "Conway" in the 1828 transaction (along with his close relatives, brother James and uncle John). I know of no evidence for Robert having the middle name "Conway". I am requesting comments on or arguments against this.

I haven't died. I've just been spending all my time on the Wehner book instead of finalizing the Tapscott book as I should. I will get it done. Mary Frances and I are planning an extended trip to North Carolina and Kentucky next year for research on a second book, the descendants of William Tapscott, son of Edney (my line). Keep checking back here. I hope to say "it's finished and out" in the near future.