Thanks for the reply, Emery.
There is no question Susannah’s John Stell was not the one buying land next to George at Bear Swamp in Prince George County in 1739.Clearly, as you point out, he was not born yet.But this also is not likely to have been the John Stell born in 1725 who was buying land next to George in 1739 because the latter John would have been only 14 years old at the time he bought the land.So unless George bought it in his son’s name, John (1725) was probably was not there and, moreover, was not George’s son.
What about the possibility that George and John (1725) were brothers?If you assume George was 25 years old when he made his land purchase at Bear Swamp, he would have been born in 1692, 33 years prior to John (1725).Perhaps it’s not completely impossible they were brothers, particularly if George had more than one wife.But the more likely possibility is that they were not.
Was it, as you describe him, “John father of John”?Possibly.And this, I think, is what Birdie is suggesting.This also is what I meant about a “missing link,” meaning there is the possibility, albeit a remote one because of their ages, that John (1743) was not the son of Joseph of Keighly but instead was the son of John (1725), the latter of whom might have been the son of either Joseph or George.Further, George and Joseph might have been brothers, or at least cousins, since we don’t show that Michael had a son named George.
Or maybe they weren’t related at all!Maybe, to paraphrase our cousin Birdie, God give her sweet rest, one line was made up of “French people coming from France” and the other was from Germany.
Now, I don’t have any reason to think Birdie entirely correct.More than likely, she wasn’t.I raise the point simply for the sake of curiosity.The evidence seems to be on the side of John (1725) being the son Joseph, both of whom came from England.But as you have said, there were lots of John Stells back then.And Birdie, for whatever reason, seemed to believe that George was an ancestor of the Stells who had “appeared” in Gwinnett Co. GA after 1810 (including Susannah’s John and Winnie Gentry’s Robert) after making their way from VA to GA with a layover in SC.In any case, to my knowledge George was not in our timeline, so I respectfully submit his name for some minor investigation and consideration.
On the point of the four brothers, what I was implying, and what you confirm, is that Birdie named four people as being brothers who were not, at least according to our data.John K., son of Robert Sr., had a brother Robert B., but no brothers Dennis or William.Robert Sr. had brothers Dennis and William and John W., but no brother John K.Either Birdie had confused three brothers plus one son/nephew as being four brothers, or else she had a name or two incorrect.
Oh . . . , Susannah!Really, I’m just wondering who the heck Charles Malone was and how Birdie came up with the name.Birdie seems to be citing a book called South Carolinians in the Revolution, although that seems an unlikely source for a father-in-law’s name.Are you familiar with the book?I’m not doubting the Malone and Allied Families treatise.I’m just telling you what she wrote and wondering why she believed it.