In discussing the implied Nash Co., NC, connections between the families of William6 Rose, Amos5 Rose, and Burwell4 Rose, as revealed by Y-DNA and by the tiniest little puddle of primary records, at least some brief background on William of Surry is required.
Using all the older and newer research, it became clear that there were only five Rose men in generation four of William of Surry (the generation of William6 Rose’s grandfather) who passed this pattern to current generations – and those five Rose men were found in only two households of generation three Rose men.
The first generation three household held the family of Richard3 Rose (Richard2, William1) of Surry and Sussex counties, VA. Richard3 Rose was named in the 1736 Surry Co. will of his father Richard2 Rose.
Richard3 Rose and his only son William4 Rose (as named in the 1751 will of Richard3 Rose) headed a descendant group that engaged in genealogically desirable behavior. Often land owners, they left records that identified themselves, used naming patterns that were predictable and reflective of their identities, and just in general did things that made the task easier for their descendant researchers. Consequently, this group has been well documented. As a result of the clear documentation, DNA evidence has been helpful and supportive, though not crucial, in this branch’s overall research success, with one important exception.
DNA evidence was actually crucial to clarify that Thomas[not 3] Rose, the second son named in the Richard2 Rose will, was not really Richard2 Rose’s biological son at all. Thomas[not 3] Rose instead carried a completely different Y-DNA pattern and hence was fathered by someone other than Richard2 Rose, someone who was not a William of Surry descendant. As a result, the household of Richard2 Rose of Surry/Sussex, housed only one generation three Rose male (as above, Richard3 Rose of Surry/Sussex) who successfully passed the crucial pattern into current times through his lone generation four son William4 Rose of Sussex Co. VA.This family did not have a branch in Nash Co., NC, the location of interest, and won’t be covered any further here.
The only other third generation household passing the Y-DNA forward both into generation four and then on into the present generations was headed by another Richard3 Rose – Richard3 Rose (William2, William1) of Southampton Co., VA, a first cousin of the Richard3 Rose of Surry/Sussex.
In his 1765 Southampton Co., VA, will, this new Richard3 Rose did have the good grace to name a daughter (Mary4 Rose) and one son (that famous Burwell4 Rose), but bless his heart, Richard3 Rose then shut up. He didn’t bother in his will to even hint he might have THREE MORE SONS of generation four who would also pass the family Y-DNA pattern forward. Fortunately, Richard3 Rose was done in by Y-DNA fingerprints from all four of those sons, the one named in the will and the three ignored by the will.
Those fingerprints showed that Richard3 Rose of Southampton, besides his named son Burwell4 Rose of Southampton Co., VA, and Nash Co., NC, also had: 1) William4 Rose (wife Martha) of Southampton Co., VA, and Franklin Co., NC; 2) John4 Rose Sr. of Southampton Co., VA, and Bute, Franklin, Surry, and Wilkes counties NC; and 3) Robert4 Rose of Edgecombe Co., NC.
These generation four sons, plus the lone son of the Richard3 Rose of Surry/Sussex, comprise the five ancestral lines of the present day Rose males whose test samples have matched the William of Surry pattern. The description of the overall research process that uncovered, narrowed, identified, and documented all five of these descendant lines out of William of Surry is detailed in the three 2008 issues of Tennessee Ancestors (a publication of the East Tennessee Historical Society).
That published discussion already covers the evidence used to tie together these descendant lines, including the limited primary evidence for all four sons of Richard3 Rose of Southampton. In the interest of compactness, a more narrow overview of those conclusions regarding Burwell4 Rose will be summarized here, after first providing thumbnail sketches of his three brothers.
All four of these brothers were genealogical scoundrels. The son actually named in the will – Burwell4 Rose – did his best to hide the identities of his descendant lines. As for the other three, they were less inclined to hide their descendants, but instead adamantly refused to identify their own father. Each of these four erected some sort of generational road block that, for their descendant researchers, obstructed the view of that old family homeplace in Surry Co., VA. Fortunately, all four also loosened the cords on their homespun trousers and let their Y-DNA do the talking for them (and for us).
Covering first the three not named in the will, William4 Rose (wife Martha) of Southampton Co., VA, and Franklin Co., NC, had two sons Thomas5 Rose and William5 Rose. The NC settlement of the estate of the childless son Thomas5 Rose allowed his siblings to be identified, including his only brother William5 Rose, by then living in SC. All the Y-DNA samples descending from William4 Rose trace back to the SC connection of William5 Rose of SC, far from Nash.
My own John4 Rose Sr. (wife Elizabeth) of Southampton Co., VA, and Granville, Bute, Franklin, Surry, and Wilkes counties NC, generated sufficient records in Surry and Wilkes counties, NC, to allow his four sons Hosea5 Rose, John5 Rose Jr., Sterling5 Rose, and Benjamin5 Rose to be comfortably identified. Of these four, only Benjamin5 Rose has remained mute. All four however, including the stoically silent Benjamin5 Rose, had the good grace to leave the Nash Co. area early enough and remove far enough west to Wilkes Co. (and beyond) that their voices did not compete in the Nash Co. conversation. John4 Rose Sr. at least had the good sense to mention the actual name of [his father] Richard3 Rose in one of his own primary records, opening the front door just a crack for his other two not-named-in-the-will brothers.
In Edgecombe Co., NC., the county next adjacent to Nash, the last of the unmentioned trio, Robert4 Rose, left an 1816 will that identified his children. Robert4 Rose had some descendants who did remain in the general area sufficiently to slightly muddy the waters. However, there was enough clarity in the record production of those descendants that any resulting muddying was not as disruptive as it could have been.
For these three of the four sons of Richard3 Rose, William4 Rose, John4 Rose Sr., and Robert4 Rose, the DNA evidence was unusually important in breaking the one main logjam – the connection between them and their father Richard3 Rose. With their brother Burwell4 Rose, however, the problem was more pervasive and in the next two lower generations, where multiple logjams handicapped the research process. Consequently, the Y-DNA proved to be completely essential in shoring up the embarrassingly limited evidence found in primary records regarding Burwell4 Rose’s connection to his sons and grandsons.
Now, how was it concluded that William6 Rose of MS – who married in Nash Co., NC – was a son of Amos5 Rose of Nash and grandson of Burwell4 Rose of Nash? The process of elimination was used. The plan – get rid of all the competition by exhausting the records.
As mentioned, Burwell4 Rose’s father Richard3 Rose (William2, William1) actually named this son in his 1765 will. Other than that, however, Burwell4 Rose himself seemed determined to be as unhelpful as possible. He did not interact in ANY record with any Rose man of his own generation or younger. He left no estate, and he left no other paper record tying him to any son or grandson or any other male Rose descendant. However, there were five Rose men with Nash Co. records whose third party interactions and/or DNA results flagged them as potential sons of Burwell4 Rose.
Reddick5 Rose, first of Nash, quite a bit later of Robertson Co., TN, drew attention to himself by purchasing at the Edgecombe Co., NC, estate sale of Robert4 Rose of Edgecombe (the known William of Surry Y-DNA match in that location), despite not being descended from that man. Additionally, Reddick5 Rose later moved on to Robertson Co., TN, a location already home to descendants of that same Robert4 Rose. These activities was suspicious enough to warrant descendant DNA testing. The matching William of Surry results then led Reddick5 Rose of Nash to Burwell4 Rose of Nash. However, the fact that Reddick5 Rose’s only two sons were identified in Robertson Co., TN, estate records and were accounted for elsewhere led Reddick5 Rose AWAY from William6 Rose of MS.
Theophilus5 Rose, barely first of Nash, but always later of nearby Wayne Co., NC, was already represented by a William of Surry match when the most recent research started, though his lone Nash Co. record (with its resulting implications) and specific family connection had not yet been spotted. That first-of-Nash location, the William of Surry DNA match, and the use of the name Reddick7 Rose for a grandson ultimately led Theophilus5 Rose to Burwell4 Rose of Nash. However, the fact that all the sons of Theophilus5 Rose were identified in a family record and were accounted for elsewhere led Theophilus5 Rose AWAY from William6 of MS.
Robert5 Rose, always of Nash, never directly drew attention to himself at all, much less said anything as far as William of Surry was concerned. Instead, his in-laws’ estate records revealed the fact that Robert5 Rose’s wife was Patsy Jones, a daughter of John and Ann Jones of Nash. Later, in an item recorded in Nash Co. in 1847, a younger generation man, Allen6 Rose of MO, indicated he was a son of Robert5 Rose of Nash (without explicitly mentioning his father’s name) by sending a power of attorney from MO back to Nash to secure any monies due him from the estate of “… his grandmother Jones …” That Allen6 Rose document originated from Greene, Co., MO, a location populated by known William of Surry families. It was hand-carried back into Nash Co. by Richard M.6 Rose, a proven son of Reddick5 Rose. This activity was eye-catching enough to warrant DNA testing, revealing a William of Surry match. The mention of Jones in the power of attorney led Allen6 Rose to the known Jones husband Robert5 Rose, and the matching William of Surry DNA results then led Robert5 Rose of Nash to Burwell4 Rose of Nash. However, Robert5 Rose’s remaining census slots appear to be filled by generation sixers other than William6 Rose of MS, leading Robert5 Rose AWAY from William6 Rose of MS as well.
And then there was Burrel5 Rose. Although Burrel5 Rose had Nash census records for 1790 and 1800 that indicated the potential for Rose children in his household, he left an 1809 Nash estate that made no mention of any children. Other records suggest that Burrel5 Rose was step-father of the children of the Revolutionary War soldier Willis Ward (married Margaret Batchelor) and that Burell5 Rose’s widow in 1809 was Margaret (Batchelor) Ward, daughter of Stephen Batchelor. Those Ward step-children would likely account for only some of the household members suggested by Burrel5 Rose’s census. Thus, Burrel5 Rose could have had sons of his own. However, everything now suggests he had no children at all, though that conclusion is NOT absolute. What is absolute is the inescapable fact that Burrel5 Rose was dead a good two or three years before the 1812 William6 Rose of MS was born. Though Burrel5 Rose’s name led him to Burwell4 Rose, the lack of sperm banks in that period made fathering an 1812 son a bit awkward for Burrel5 Rose, leading him AWAY from William6 Rose of MS.
Finally there was one. Like the rest, Amos5 Rose of Nash was mainly in hiding. To his credit, he purchased some items at the 1809 estate sale of Burrel5 Rose, drawing attention to himself in that respect. Other than that, he was a very low profile man, never leaving an estate, all the while carefully hiding the identities of his sons.
When Nash records were discovered that proved William6 Rose of MS was from Nash Co., NC, was married there, and was the son-in-law of John Glover of Nash, William6 Rose suddenly needed a Nash parental household. Looking around, the 1820 census of Amos5 Rose and the 1830 census of Lydia Rose, likely widow of Amos5 Rose, both offered welcoming spots. After a closer inspection, when both Amos5 Rose and John Glover (later to be father-in-law of William6 Rose of MS) were spotted making purchases at the same estate sales in Nash, it certainly looked like these family branches had the necessary contact to allow for a tasteful intertwining. The fact that the first son of William6 Rose of MS was named John A.7 Rose certainly looked like a possible use of the names of both the Glover (John) and Rose (Amos)grandfathers for the first and middle names of that boy.
And that’s it. Seriously. Plausible deniability by the others and these embarrassingly small whiffs of evidence tying William6 Rose of MS to Amos5 Rose and Amos5 Rose to Burwell4 Rose is all there is. And the DNA. I wish it weren’t so – but it is. While in Nash County, these Roses typically were found in just a half hand full of records. Still, the Y-DNA would not let them off the hook. Despite the weak underpinnings, heaven help me, I do believe this little path leading to the Amos5 Rose lean-to in Nash Co. is the route William6 Rose walked on his way home. The mutation posting will add a little weight.