To address your question as to the identity of Ruth, wife of John GAITHER (you say John III, I say John II, more on that later): Joseph MORLEY made Robert PROCTOR and John GATHER the executors and legatees of his entire estate, real and personal.There is no statement they were sons-in-law, that is only an assumption made by WARFIELD in "Founders of AA and Howard Counties."In fact this assumption is disproved by a court case.See Archives of MD 51:543 which can be viewed online from: http://www.mdarchives.state.md.us/megafile/msa/speccol/sc2900/sc2908/html/volumes.htmlhttp://www.mdarchives.state.md.us/megafile/msa/speccol/sc2900/sc2908/html/volumes.html
The actual case begins several pages earlier, but on that page it specifically states that "Joseph Moorely dyed leaveing no heyres and soe the interest of the premisses would escheat to his Lordpp after their decease."The case involved legal wording that MORLEY had not stated leaving it to the "heirs of the body" of PROCTOR and GAITHER after their deaths, and that they therefore only had a life interest.After their deaths it would go to the heirs of MORLEY, and being none it would escheat to the Lord Proprietorship.
For the thought she was Ruth, daughter of Richard BEARD.I have seen this commonly given, but have yet to see anyone supply any evidence of this.Richard BEARD in his 1675 will left to his daughter Ruth "and her sons" part of the tract "Timber Neck."John GAITHER who married Ruth ---- had no children, much less sons in 1675.If Richard BEARD's daughter Ruth married John GAITHER, who was her first husband?There is also no evidence of any sons of John and Ruth owning any part of "Timber Neck."
Regarding John I's wife Joan.There is no evidence that she was MORLEY.The source for this is an article on the unpublished papers of George Riggs GAITHER that appeared in "The Gaither Connection," Newsletter of the Society of John Gaither Descendants, Inc.Considering there are many easily provable errors in his research to accept his undocumented statement it was MORLEY is to play Russian roulette with GAITHER ancestry.
The records are also clear that it is John GATER (GAITHER) I who after the death of his wife Joan, remarried to Mary -----, moved to MD, and died there about 1652. It would be John I's son John born mid 1640s that is the person who married Ruth.This tends to discount the idea of the younger John GATER (born ca. 1620) being a son of John I.There are no other records of this younger John, and he either died young or returned to England.
This raises the question of which of John I's wives, Joan or Mary was the mother of John born mid 1640s?Considering that John and Ruth named a daughter Mary, had at least 4 granddaughters named Mary, and Joan is not found among the names of his known children or grandchildren, the evidence would point to Mary being more likely.
As for John I's second wife Mary -----.There are many claims her surname was WATERS.The only record is that John had a brother-in-law named Henry WATERS/(WALTERS).That means that either one of John's wives, (either Joan or Mary) was a sister to Henry WATERS, Henry WATERS wife was a sister to John GATER I, or their wives were sisters, surname unknown.Since satistically there is only a 1/3 chance that the mother of John GAITHER (born mid 1640s) was a WATERS, to assume this is the surname of Mary, is again to play Russian roulette.