d. A REFUTATION OF THE ALLEGED ROYAL ANCESTRY OF KATHERINE (DALE) CARTER / A FIBBING GENEALOGIST INVENTS EVIDENCE / THE WILL OF ELIZABETH (ELLIOTT) DALE: A QUIT-CLAIM USED TO WAIVE RIGHTS TO AN INTESTATE ESTATE
The following article appeared in “The American Genealogist,” Vol. 75, No. 1, January 2000. A copy of this issue may be purchased from:
The American Genealogist
P.O. Box 398
Demorest, GA 30535-0398
______________________________________
THIS ARTICLE APPLIES ONLY TO KATHERINE (DALE) CARTER AND MARY (DALE) HARRISON JONES. The evidence discussed in the article, for which there is no credible rebuttal, had long been known to descendants of Katherine (Dale) Carter. My ancestor, Elizabeth (Dale) Rogers, isn’t discussed here. Questions regarding Ward’s article should be directed to him.
_____________________________________
I had a brief online exchange with Charles Martin Ward in which I criticized his use of a transcription of the Thomas Carter Prayer Book when the original is available. I have a copy of the original, and copies of some transcriptions—and there are errors in the transcriptions. The approximate date of death for Mary (Dale) Harrison Jones is by 11 Apr 1683, when her father Edward Dale was granted administration on her estate. That should have been noted in the article, instead of remarking that “it is likely that she predeceased her father.” That Edward Dale’s first wife “was surely connected to Vincent Stanford or his wife” is a hypothesis.
Nonetheless, Ward has disproved the royal ancestry of Katherine (Dale) Carter.
__________________________________________
MichaelAnne Guido, a descendant of Katherine (Dale) Carter, falsely alleged that there are numerous lawsuits on record in Lancaster Co., Virginia between Maj. Edward Dale and his son-in-law William Rogers. Below is a scan of her comments dated 11 May 2006 on the Internet message board “soc.genealogy.medieval”:
That’s not true. The lawsuit Guido cited was the only lawsuit on record between Edward Dale and William Rogers at any time. Below is a transcription of that lawsuit made by Ruth and Sam Sparacio, which is identical to Guido’s quote, except for the capitalized surnames:
(Sparacio, Ruth; Sparacio, Sam. (1995). Order Book Lancaster County, Virginia 1691–1695. Arlington, Virginia: The Antient Press, p. 57.)
The 600 pounds of tobacco awarded Edward Dale is a relatively trivial amount.
And that’s not the only false statement in Guido’s post. Edward Dale didn’t disinherit any of the Harrison children. Sometimes administrators of intestate estates engaged in sharp practice and heirs sued to pry their property from them. In April 1695 William Rogers obtained a new patent for the tract which had been deeded to Elizabeth (Dale) Rogers on 12 Mar 1677/8; but the new patent was obtained prior to the deaths of Edward and Diana (Skipwith) Dale in 1696. That’s important (see below).
This entire section of Guido’s post is very clever misdirection.
Lying about evidence is egregious because it corrupts the very basis of genealogical research. It’s disruptive to everyone researching the line. I have no choice but to set the record straight. Guido can’t produce evidence of these lawsuits, because they don’t exist.
Guido, an accountant in upstate New York, is also a genealogist with a minor reputation, the author or co-author of 8 articles in “Foundations,” the journal of the UK based Foundation for Medieval Genealogy. According to the website of St. Louis Catholic church in Pittsford, New York, Guido was a contributor to a parish history.
Guido isn’t a member of Association of Professional Genealogists, and hasn’t been certified by Board for the Certification of Genealogists or International Commission for the Accreditation of Professional Genealogists.
All genealogists working with colonial Virginia records know lawsuits are recorded in the county court order books, the same “source” Guido cited. There’s no secret cache of lawsuits. In fact, there are no such lawsuits anywhere—The Antient Press provided me with an overall index to their publications for my surnames of interest (a very useful thing to have).
Guido’s remarks on the Internet message board “soc.genealogy.medieval” were visible to anyone reading the board. When I confronted Guido in posts on “soc.genealogy.medieval,” she didn’t appear to explain herself. Nathaniel Lane Taylor (now a Fellow of the American Society of Genealogists), who claimed not to know Guido, said her research methods were merely “not optimal.” I then received the following e-mail from Douglas Richardson, author of Plantagenet Ancestry and Magna Carta Ancestry, both published by Genealogical Publishing Company of Baltimore. At the time I was using the stuffed shirt nom de plume Peter W. Pesterhaus III.
Evidently Guido was upset about the above article in “The American Genealogist” by Charles Martin Ward and wanted her readers to believe that these words: “I give unto my daughter Elizabeth now wife of William Rogers twelve pence in full of all claimes whatsoever” were inserted into Edward Dale’s will made 24 Aug 1694 were because he was angry with William Rogers about the lawsuits.
However, there’s a similar clause in lines 9–12 of the will of Elizabeth (Elliott) Dale (proved London 8 Feb 1632/3), Elizabeth Rogers’ probable great–grandmother, which concerns the estate of her deceased son Richard Dale:
“I give and bequeath unto James Rudarde and Mary his wife the full some of five hundred pounds of currant money of England in full payment and satisfaccon of all claymes, somes of money part and portion which they or either of them shall or may clayme to part or out of the estate of Richard Dale my late deceased sonne either by the customs of London or otherwise.” (“customs of London or otherwise” means the Common Law.)
The use of the word “claymes” in Elizabeth (Elliott) Dale’s will indicates what this term actually means. And it’s proof that Elizabeth (Dale) Rogers was the daughter of Diana (Skipwith) Dale. Had Elizabeth (Dale) Rogers’ “twelve pence” clause had any other purpose, it would have voided the Rogers’ title to the land Edward Dale conveyed to them on 12 Mar 1677/8, which they obtained prior to the deaths of Edward and Diana (Skipwith) Dale, and this prior to the probate of Edward Dale’s will. These clauses were used to waive rights to an intestate estate, which was the only legal claim permissable. And according to the court records of Lancaster County, no one applied for administration of an estate for Diana (Skipwith) Dale. Had they done so, the proceeds of her estate would have been the property of the executors of Edward Dale.
But why did Guido want to muddy the meaning of Elizabeth Rogers’ “twelve pence” clause?
The Thomas Carter prayer book states: ”With this Book pr Rv Mr John Sheppard on Wednsday ye 4h Day of May 1670–wsas Mard Mr Thomas Carter of Barford in ye County of Lancaster in Virga & Katherine Dale ye eldest Daughr of Mr Edw: Dale ye same County.”
Edward Dale had three daughters: Katherine, Mary, and Elizabeth. All three daughters were living when Thomas Carter married Katherine Dale. Therefore, Mary Dale was younger than Katherine. Mary Dale died ca. 1683, but she left a son named Humphrey Jones Jr. by her second husband, Humphrey Jones. Humphrey Jones Jr. was living and had a guardian when Edward Dale made his will. Edward Dale didn’t extract a “twelve pence” clause from the guardian of Humphrey Jones Jr.; therefore, Mary Dale wasn’t a daughter of Diana (Skipwith) Dale. And that ends the claim that Katherine (Dale) Carter was a daughter of Diana (Skipwith) Dale.
Several years later I decided to look at the lawsuits myself and discovered the deception. It cost almost $200.00 to find the truth. I own a complete run of Lancaster Co. court orders (published by The Antient Press), spanning the years 1678 to 1706, well beyond the 1693–1695 range specified by Guido. I can assure readers there are no other lawsuits between Maj. Edward Dale and William Rogers in the court orders. Occasionally, lawsuits appear in Hening’s Statutes, but there are no lawsuits involving Edward Dale and William Rogers in those records, either.
For those who think Guido might actually produce evidence of “a number of lawsuits,” this is her response to Charles Martin Ward in a thread on “soc.genealogy.medieval” dated 10 Feb 2000 regarding the deeds that disproved Katherine (Dale) Carter’s royal ancestry:
None of the promised material ever appeared on “soc.genealogy.medieval”.
Lying about genealogical evidence isn’t illegal (unless, for instance, it’s part of a probate procedure), but it’s unethical. Ultimately, this fibbing “genealogist” only dishonored herself and made fools of those who believed her. When any genealogist lies about evidence, it’s disturbing. This sort of flagrant dishonesty is usually confined to the field of medieval royal and noble genealogy. Genealogists must carefully check the sources for those pedigrees.
This deception was possible because most genealogists researching colonial VA ancestors have little or no grounding in colonial VA law, even though reference works on the subject are readily available. Had I not discovered the deception, it would have continued indefinitely. I regret I must keep this post online.
_________________________________________
For full citations see the publications of The Antient Press by Sparacio, et. al., that pertain to Lancaster Co. in the “Tobacco Road” bibliography . The Antient Press publishes verbatim transcriptions of colonial Virginia court records. ALL lawsuits for Lancaster Co. during this period are recorded in those books.
The Antient Press publications are scholarly transcriptions of the highest quality. Having worked with 17th century documents, and knowing first hand the difficulty of deciphering the often alien script, the authors of these very useful books cannot have been driven by prospect of material gain, but rather by love of the subject matter.
The Antient Press
P.O. Box 822
Arlington, VA 22216
