Doug Tucker's Response re: Edward JOHNSON and Elizabeth [Doug's letter to me dated 12 APR 1996 contains some very inter esting points which I feel should be sent all around ASAP. The letter and enclosures are several pages long; therefore, I am ex tracting only those parts which pertain to Edward Johnson, father of Penelope. Doug makes some persuasive points for Edward as son of Dr. Arthur which also deserves everyone's study. However, in the interest of my impending lack of time next week, I'm sticking with Doug's comments on Edward in VA. Needless to say, credit goes to Doug for everything but typos, which are entirely mine. Doug occasionally makes comments within (); my occasional com ments will be enclosed in [] plus my initials. LSS] ... Still, no concrete information about the one child [of Dr. Arthur -- LSS] we really care about -- Edward Johnson. But the facts offered by Lorand Johnson on the other Johnston children seem solid enough. So why do we doubt the existence of an Edward as presented by Lorand Johnson? (Tying Arthur's Edward to "our" Edward Johnson of New Kent Co. is a completely different problem.) Based on our ability to substantiate much of the col lateral Johnston family evidence, I remain inclined to accept the existence of Edward Johnston as the youngest son of Arthur and Barbara Gordon Johnston. I would _again_ like to offer the "cousin" argument for accepting Edward as the son of Arthur. Elizabeth Johnston Keith wrote a letter to Quaker Missionary Mary Harris before the 1676 Quaker meeting in London in which she referred to "my cousin Edward Johnston" who was to accompany Ann Keith to Virginia after the London meeting. According to Lorand Johnson, the letter in ques tion is included in the Mary Harris collection at the Society of Friends Museum in London. It is extensively quoted by Lorand Johnson, who must have had access to the letter or a published copy. I simply don't believe it was a figment of his imagina tion. If Edward Johnson, son of Arthur, existed, he would have been a first cousin to Elizabeth Forbes Johnston, the daughter of Dr. William Johnston. I have searched Lorand Johnson's three books on the Johnson family thoroughly and there is _no other living Edward in this particular Johnston Clan of Caskieben who could have qualified as a "cousin" to Elizabeth Forbes Johnston Keith in 1676_. Keep in mind that Sir George Johnston of the genera tion following that of Arthur Johnston, had to document the en tire Johnston of Caskieben Clan in a court proceeding that estab lished his claim to the baronet title. Lorand Johnson specifi cially states that he had access to those court records. Also, Elizabeth Johnston had no Johnston second cousins because her grandfather had been an only child. Thus the cousin Edward referred to by Elizabeth Johnston Keith had to have been a first cousin -- one of the sons of her father's four brothers. Lorand Johnson gives the names of the sons of all of William Johnson's brothers and the _only Edward_ is the son of his brother Arthur. So, I am reasonably convinced that the Edward referred to by Elizabeth Johnston Keith is Arthur Johnston's son and that he was headed for Virginia in late 1676. True, the Edward Johnson who appears in NKC in 1677 does not have a sign hanging around his neck saying who his father was, but almost everything we know about him fits the few facts that we do have. .... Back to Edward Johnson. He reportedly arrived in Virginia in the later part of 1676 or very early 1677, in the company of Ann Keith who was to marry George Walker. The possibility that Quaker missionary William Edmundson was a passenger on the same voyage was new to me, but Edmundson later published his diaries and memoirs, so I expect that the date, vessel name and condi tions in VA at the time of his arrival are documented. Though I have read the Edmundson diaries, I don't recall anything spec cific about the 1676/77 voyage, though I really wasn't looking for anything. I doubt, however, that Edmundson (who was rela tively well-known) and his fellow Quaker travelers were allowed to openly enter the colony in 1676/77. (Perhaps Capt. George Walker, the James River pilot, had a hand in smuggling the Quaker dissidents ashore.) The fact that Edward Johnson signed the New Kent "Complaints" document did not mean he was a NKC land owner by April 2, 1677. As I recall, 19 year-old Thomas Moorman signed the document and I don't think he was a land owner of record at the time. I also suspect that "not signing" the complaints document may have been more risky for a "closet Quaker" than signing. (I note that Alexander and George Walker signed a similar document as resi dents of York Co. George was certainly a Quaker, and his father had been defrocked in Scotland for his Quaker sympathies.) Fur thermore, though Quaker males would not have volunteered to serve with Bacon's rebels, they certainly had little sympathy for the colonial government of Berkeley. You mention that no land patent has been found for Edward Johnson. The land patent records published by Nell Nugent are fairly comprehensive and were not among the records destroyed by fire during the Civil War. If Edward Johnson was awarded a land patent in New Kent Co., I think the record _would exist and would be in Nugent_. I talked to Minor Weisiger (804-786-2306) of Ar chival Reference at the Virginia State Library about the apparent absence of "expected land records" in Nugnet (I was looking for early Moorman and Clark patents). He said the absence of a re corded land patent after 1650 usually meant that the land in ques- tion was purchased outright or inherited. Weisiger said there are "no significant numbers of unrecorded land patents after 1650 in Colonial Virginia. Before 1650 is a different story". You have correctly pointed out that the 1670's were tough economic times for the tobacco farmers of colonial Virginia. However, the Johnson/Johnston clan was relatively wealthy and the immigrant Edward Johnson probably was in a better position to ac quire land than were the majority of the local colonial farmers. (Note that older brother George accumulated 2,400 acres in ap proximately 10 years between 1664 and 1674.) Also, I have puzzled over the name Anthony which is shown as the firstborn son of Edward and Elizabeth Johnson. However, if the name was taken from a handwritten record, consider how very close the letters of a scrawled Anthony and Arthur would look. Tall short-tall-tall-short-short. I think Anthony was a mistake of the transcriber -- the name was probably Arthur. (My earlier sug- gestion that we should substitue Alexander for Anthony is super seded by this current sudden insight. It's just that Anthony makes no sense at all! The fact that another Arthur appears on the list of children does not matter because it seems to have come from a marriage record rather than a birth record. They are the same person.) By the way, the Phares family were Quaker and did live in NKC during the appropriate period. They later spelled their name both Phares and Faris. On the stormy 1669 colonization voyage of the "Three Sisters" from Barbadoes to South Carolina, with unscheduled stops at Ber muda and Hampton Roads (Nansemond River), might it be possible that the Captain of the "Three Sisters" was the Capt. James Tur ner who patented land near Whiting Swamp in New Kent Co. in June, 1670 and claimed tranportation of one Thomas Moreman? Remember, Thomas Moorman's land was later located close to Whit ing Swamp. Might not the 12 year-old Thomas have been indentured to Capt. Turner, perhaps in return for giving the Moorman family a lift from Barbadoes to Virginia? After the end of his inden ture, Thomas may have acquired land on Whiting Swamp from his former master. One problem I have with this "pure speculation" is that the land patent seems to be dated too close to the time frame of the voyage of the "Three Sisters". Or, perhaps Capt. Turner served as a surrogate for Zachariah Moor- man, and part of the land patent taken out by Capt. Turner was subsequently "assigned" to Zachariah, just as Renny and Massey did for Quaker George Johnson in Accomac Co. Again, just idle speculation at this point. [Obviously I "cut out" the portion of Doug's letter dealing with George Johnson. Sorry. LSS] A cautionary comment regarding the vessel "Glasgow" which family legend says brought the Moormans and Clarks to Barbadoes. The paternal side on my family came from Devon and I have a list of the Devon vessels that were inventoried for possible military service by the Crown in 1664. This has nothing to do with the particular "Glasgow" that took the Moormans and Clarks to Bar badoes in 1669. However, in 1664 there were 16 vessels regis tered at Devon ports with the name "Glasgow" or a variation such as "City of Glasgow". Eleven of these are described as being "colonial traders". I suspect there were numerous other "Glasgows" scattered among other English ports. My point is that a vessel named "Glasgow" would not have been unique in the mid-17th century colonial trades -- I suspect there were many with that particular name. However, we have no knowledge that the particular "Glasgow" that carried the Moorman's to Barbadoes ever called at Virginia. All we know is that it reportedly sailed from Southampton to Barbadoes in 1669. Since it carried passengers, chances are there is a record of the voyage if not a passenger list. We should make an effort to track down the voyage record from the Southampton end where records are more likely to have been preserved. By the way, the "Glasgow" part of the Moorman legend was in print long before either Lorand Johnson or Jesse Bryan did their genealogical research. I found an 1853 book on "The Quakers of South River" at the DAR library which presents the essential parts of the Moorman family legend, including the "Glasgow" and the Clark family. (This particular book had names and dates pretty mixed up, and seems to have been the beginning of the "Green Springs" confusion, but the "Glasgow" is there, with the Clarks, in black and white. The source of the Moorman legend material seems to have been interviews with Moorman descendants that were still living in the Lynchburg VA area in the 1850's.) One last item on Edward Johnson. His wife is reported to have been Elizabeth Walker, who I believe was a sister of George Walker and Daughter of Alexander Walker. I can't prove that Elizabeth was or wasn't Edward's wife, but I did find record of her birth in Old Machar, Aberdeen on 13 JAN 1658. Her father, Alexander Walker, is listed in the church record, but we know from Scottish history that Alexander Walker was the minister at old Machar Parish until 1661 when he was excommunicated for his vocal support of the Quaker movement. (I read somewhere that he and his family were "transported" to America as undesirables, but haven't been able to find the source.) A 1658 birth would be just about right for a 1677 marriage -- except that Edward Johnson would have been 20 years older than his new wife. Wonder if Edward had been married earlier in Scotland? That's all for now. Just a bit more food for thought. [One of Doug's enclosures belongs here too. I'll leave the data on Dr. Arthur Johnson for another time. LSS] Thomas CLARKE, Possible Father of Christopher The Thomas Clarke in the 1689 NKC processioning orders, if re lated at all, is more likely Edward's older brother than his father. Based on the traditional age range of the Clark children, Thomas was a couple of years older than Edward. Both legally could have been landowners by 1689, but only Thomas shows up in the processioning order. To be on the 1689 order, he prob ably had to have been a property owner of record in 1688 when Ed ward would have been just 21. Can we place these Clarke's in Vir- ginia that early? I also believe we can place this same Thomas Clarke in adjacent Charles City Co. after 1689, which suggests that his land may he been in the border area between NKC and Charles City Co. The border shifted between 1689 and 1704. That also is why Alex. McKenney's land ended up in Charles City Co. [Doug had not received my McKeney report, which has data on this CCC Thomas Clark, when he wrote this. LSS] Instinct (but few hard facts) tells me that survivng members of the Barbadoes Clark tribe were all resident in Virginia, or perhaps Carolina, by the late 1680's. There is no clear record of any of "our" ClarKs remaining in Barbadoes after the 1680 Cen sus, with the possible exception of Francis. If they had remained, wouldn't their marriages or their children's births have showed up in the Church of England registers? As you know, I do not think the Barbadoes Clarks were Quakers. There are three known lists of Barbadoes Quakers reprinted in ap pendices to _Barbadoes Families_. There are two Clarke's on the list, a Thomas who was a leader of the Barbadoes Friends move ment, and a William who appears to hve been Thomas' brother. Both were still in Barbadoes in 1696 when they signed travel cer tificates for fellow Quakers leaving for Philadelphia. Impor tantly, this Thomas Clarke is much too old to have been a member of "our" Clark family. There is also a list of 186 Quaker women in Barbadoes circa 1677, but no Margaret Clark or Clarke. This list is probably fairly comprehensive because it covers all six Barbadoes meetings and there were supposedly fewer than 300 Quakers on the island in 1679. If other Clark brothers migrated to VA, logic says they did so together but may have scattered after they arrived. Someone with the time may check to see if any adult male Clark's (named Fran cis, William, Christopher, or Thomas) suddenly appear on the Vir ginia scene between 1680 and 1690 with ready-made families and no other apparent family ties. We probably ought to check North Carolina as well because there are Quaker Clark's in Pasquotank (near Elizabeth City) and New Hanover (near Wilmington) Counties in the late 17th and early 18th centuries. One Virginia Clark family that I know about did migrate to Carolina before 1700. That was the family of Humphrey Clark of Nansemond Co. Humphrey was a VIP of sorts and there is a solid historical track, both backward and forward for him. He was not Quaker but there is some sentiment that he was distantly related to "our" Clarks. I don't know about that.