Re: William, George & Nathan Roshell Fly
To Joyce and the Forum,
Before you declared that you had blown up all of my hypotheses with your "placement" of George Fly,b. 29 Nov. 1929, son of Joseph Fly, it would have been a good idea to check with me to see if I could add anything or suggest a different conclusion.
As it happens, George Mitman Fly was indeed the son of Joseph Fly and wife Catherine Wildonger Fly.George Mitman Fly, b. 29 Nov. 1829 was Christened at St. Lukes's Union Church on 10 March 1830.His parents were his baptismal sponsors.
George was married 17 May 1864 to Mary Ann Shupe. It is thought the marriage was in Bucks Co., PA. She died 15 Feb. 1898. She is buried at St. Matthew's Union Church, Kellers Church, PA.(Kellers Church is a PLACE in PA.)(Also there IS a Keller's Church)
The couple had THREE children, Emma Jane (Fly) Cressman, b. 10 Sep. 1865 in PA. - Titus Shupe Fly, b. 23 March 1872; and John Shupe Fly, b. 2 Mar 1876. George and Mary Ann (Shupe) Fly were buried in St. Matthews Ch. Cem., Kellers Church, PA .Emma Jane (Fly) Cressman is buried in Allentown, PA and her brothers are buried at Kellers Church, PA. Titus Shupe Fly is buried at St. Matthew's Ch. Cem; John Shupe Fly, who did not marry (as of 1910) was buried at Kellers Church, PA, - Cemetery not known. Emma was born in 1865, Titus was born in 1872; and John was born in 1876.All born in PA.
These people did NOT leave Pennsylvania.There is absolutely NO foundation to the idea that you have found Pennsylvania Flys in West Tennessee, and as corellary - Jim Fly is an idiot for propounding his hypotheses without Joyce's blessing.
I've done everything I know to make peace on the net.Why, Joyce, do you POUNCE on something irrational like this present "George" placement and use it as a springboard to urge others to stay away from just one source for learning about the Flys? Obviously you are telling all and sundry to steer clear of my ideas.You privately tell me on e-mail between us that you consider my work "of considerable value", yet you discount it so fervently that you have people afraid to trust what I can tell them is MOST LIKELY THE WAY IT REALLY IS.
So I advise you to get off this present "George" horse and let's find the descendants of George and Nathan Rochell.It won't hurt to think of them as possible sons of John JESSE, b. ca. 1788.
Please reconsider your critical attitude about my approach to genealogy.
James W. Fly