Re: Carter wives of Goochland - Susannah Baynes
-
In reply to:
Re: Carter wives of Goochland - Susannah Baynes
Chester Bays 2/14/11
I must say, I am confused by all of these various spellings of the name.
Baynes
Bays/Baze/Baize
http://genforum.genealogy.com/baze/messages/508.htmlhttp://genforum.genealogy.com/baze/messages/508.html
"There are presently only six (6) valid surname phonetic equivalents (or near equivalents) that can be consistently documented in the written records for the Bays/Baze/Baize lines (of the E3b1a2 Y-DNA haplogroup) going back to 1684 (in Henrico County, VA). These are: Bays, Baze, Baize, Bayes, Baise and Base."
"The key thing to remember is that it's not the appearance of the word that matters, but rather it's PRONUNCIATION."
As I understand it, it was the 26 Sep 1730 Henrico County deed that originally connected (some) Thomas Carter (possibly Sr., possibly Jr.) and a Susannah Baynes.I have always seen the spelling with the "n".
And we have that Thomas Carter, Jr. named two of his children Baynes Carter and Susannah Carter.It has been generally assumed that these two children were named for the Susannah Baynes on the 1730 deed.
This Baynes Carter, son of Thomas Carter, Jr., named a son Baynes Carter.This Baynes Carter, Jr. is later found listed as Banes Carter.I'm assuming "Banes" is how it was pronounced.
Are you saying that the Susannah Baynes in question didn't actually have the "n" in her surname?
More Replies:
-
Re: Carter wives of Goochland - Susannah Baynes
Dan Wallace 2/16/11
-
Re: Carter wives of Goochland - Susannah Baynes
Holly Hampton 2/16/11
-
Re: Carter wives of Goochland - Susannah Baynes