Re: Ralph Elkins (died 1690 in Stafford Co., VA) and the Ashton Family
You are not stating anything more about the residences in England than I have already acknowledged.There is not any dispute about that.It is also true that the 100 acres of land inherited by Richard Elkins from James Ashton is not "proof" that Elkins was his nephew.I have not seen where anyone, including myself, said that it was proof, but it indeed helps to support the tradition of the Elkins connection to the Ashton family.I am sure that you CAN cite "dozens of examples" of gifts of property given to children of friends who were not relatives, but that type of bequest is very minute when compared to all of the others that WERE given to relatives.I am sure that you are not in the position, in many of the cases that you can give examples for, to state that the recipients were NOT relatives, as, with the great loss of records from that period, it is an impossibility to know for certain who was related.
I do not understand why you say that you "have always found it odd that Ralph Elkins, who was a man of limited wealth, married into the Ashton family, which was a gentry family with roots that can be traced back more than 500 years."If you are a single man, maybe I can understand where your values reside.If you have a wife, it should make her wonder if you married her for love or status.My dear fellow, "love" is the answer to your question.The Indian wives of John Rolfe and Giles Brent were certainly of much more limited wealth in comparison to that of Ralph Elkins.My ancestor, Thomas Monteith (1694-1747), was the next brother to the Baronet of Binns, a family of incredible wealth, whose ancestry can be traced back much more than 500 years, and he married a woman, Phyllis Gallop, of very limited wealth.Did Queen Elizabeth II's uncle not give up the throne of England to marry a commoner?It is not ODD at all that one of the Ashtons may have married Ralph Elkins.
In regard to your comments to Mr. Cullen Wagoner, you say that they were "perfectly civil," but they were still uncalled for.The quote from my teacher and mentor, George H. S. King, is perfectly valid when used in the appropriate context.Mr. Wagoner was not deserving of its use, however.By its use in answer to him, it will be received by most people that you are insinuating that he is guilty of unethical practices in genealogy.The use of such a quote was an insult to the character of a man whom you know nothing about.I think that you owe him an apology.