This is a followup to my initial response that I posted earlier this month. You have William Pettus having married a Hart. This may or may not be true, as no Hart who could have been his wife has yet been identified, to my knowledge; however, the conjecture seems reasonable in light of the fact that he named a son Overton Hart Pettus. The frequent use of the name Overton among William's descendants also suggests an Overton connection. The same holds true with Thomas Pettus of Lunenburg County (died 1680)and John Pettus of Louisa County (died 1770). A family bible record shows that Thomas, born in 1712, was the son of John Pettus and his wife Ann. Possibly, Ann was an Overton, but no record exists to my knowledge that proves her maiden name. Possibly, Thomas Pettus of Lunenburg and John Pettus of Louisa were brothers, but in his will, John referred to William as his "loving friend," which does not fit with the assumption that they were blood brothers. John Pettus may have married a Minor, but that is another conjecture not supported by any evidence, so far as I am aware. Certainly, the Minor family is unaware of a Pettus connection. The John Pettus who supposedly was born in 1672 (where did the date come from?)could not have been the son of Col. Thomas Pettus, who had died by 1668, according to extant records. Col. Pettus was definitely not the son of Sir John Pettus. Sir John Pettus did have a son named Thomas, but he died in England in 1618. I saw a monumental inscription to that effect in England less than two weeks ago. In view of the many errors and questionable statements, one can only conclude that the supposed ancestral lineage of William Pettus is entirely conjectural and does not stand up to scrutiny in the light of the available evidence.