A fair-minded genealogist MUST admit when the nature of a record allows TWO (or more) possible interpretations.
Unfortunately Joyce Ford ABSOLUTELY INSISTS that the inheritors of the 255 acres of land on the North side of Kirby's Creek in Northampton County, NC that were bought by William Fly, b. ca, 1726/27 in 1772 and 1774 HAVE to be his sons.No one would deny that as a possibility (even a probability under certain circumstances); but I find it hard to believe that Joyce REALLY can't see that GRANDSONS are a possibility here. There is reasonable evidence that there were TWO William Flys in the picture, - the purchaser, b. ca. 1726/27 and William Fly, the younger, b. ca. 1753, whom I will call "Wm. Fly", (with the abbreviation) the way he signed his Revolutionary Pay voucher.The older William always signed the petitions on which he appears, "William Fly", fully spelled out and with a flamboyant capital W.
The older one, b. ca 1726/27 was the one born in England, and most of us are descended from this man, for his brother John stayed in PA and his brother Jeremiah went to GA.
Old William stands to be the father of John b. ca. 1744, Jeremiah, b. ca. 1746, Elisha, Sr.,b. ca. 1748 Charles, Jesse, and William, jr. b. ca. 1753. It is much more reasonable to place Elisha, b. ca. 1767 and John, b. 1772 and Jeremiah, b. ca. 1773 under Elisha, b. ca. 1748 than under the old William, b. ca. 1726/27 (his indicated birth year in the 1786 census when he figures to be the father of grown sons in an OLDER household than the WM. found in a YOUNGER household in 1790.
It is NOT REASONABLE for Joyce or ANYONE to say, on the basis of present evidence, that those three who sold the 255 acres in 1796 COULD NOT have been grandsons. To deny the POSSIBILITY that they were grandsons is to forfeit credibility.
Anyone will quickly find that trying to make ANY sense whatsoever out to the early list of names that I gave above and put them into a TOTALLY MEANINGFUL relationship is elusive to impossible for the average person with any genealogical experience to speak of. If you insist that OLD William is FATHER of those three instead of grandfather, I challenge anyone who insists on the father/son relationship (as opposed to father/grandson relationship) to support your efforts to relate the others to each other and to old William, b. ca. 1726/27 in a manner equally satisfying and feeling "right".