Appendix: Five Theories Explained

1.  Was John Bynum’s wife Rosamond Blow?

There is not a shred of evidence that John Bynum’s wife Rosamond was a Blow.  After examining the evidence, it is clear that there was a familial connection between the Bynum and Blow families, but it was not the one that virtually all family genealogists assume.

The hypothesis that she was a daughter of George Blow seems to be of relatively recent origin, and appears to stem from a cursory examination of Surry County records, specifically the fact that no consideration was noted in the deed from George Blow to John Bynum of 1663.    The absence of a consideration might suggest a gift, as from a father to his daughter’s husband.   However, inspection of other Surry deeds of the period discloses that the majority omit any mention of consideration, so that its absence signifies nothing in the Blow-Bynum deed.

The notion that Rosamond was a Blow first appeared in print, as far as I am aware, in 1977 in The Cleggs of Old Chatham by Harold Broughton, who recanted the theory subsequent to publication, acknowledging that it was not based on anything resembling proof.  Nonetheless, one person’s theory has a way of becoming another person’s “fact” in these days of endlessly repeated internet genealogies.

A careful examination of Surry County records shows no evidence whatsoever that John Bynum married a daughter of George Blow.   In fact, the evidence argues against it.

  • The only connection between George Blow Sr. and John Bynum was George Blow’s sale of land to John Bynum in 1663.   There is only one record of John Bynum being associated with George Blow’s children, when Richard Blow (who had by then inherited his father’s land) witnessed a land sale by John Bynum in 1679.   Thus, the Surry records contain no indication of any relationship between George Blow and John Bynum other than as neighbors.  The Bynum-Blow connections in the records occur in the next generation of both families, for which there is a different, and much more plausible, explanation.
  • A strong case can be made that Richard Blow, son of George Blow, married a daughter of John Bynum Sr. (see the topic below).   This explains the later connections between the children of John Bynum Sr. and the children of George Blow Sr.  And it eliminates any remaining possibility that John Bynum was married to a daughter of George Blow, since Richard Blow would then have married his own sister’s child.
  • Timing also works against the Rosamond Blow theory, since any daughter of George Blow would have been significantly older than her siblings.  George and Margaret Blow had two provable sons: Richard, born in 1654, and George Jr., born in 1664.   Margaret Blow later had a daughter by her second husband, Richard Smith, sometime in the 1670s.   John Bynum’s two sons were born between 1664 and 1666.   Clearly, it’s quite unlikely that George and Margaret Blow could have had a daughter who was having children of her own by 1664.  Given the relatively narrow window of childbearing age in the 17th century, it’s simply not credible that Margaret Blow could have had a daughter of childbearing age in 1664 and yet still borne another child herself several years later.
  • In another timing oddity, Margaret Blow remarried to a second husband who was considerably younger than John Bynum Sr.   Along with the sons’ birth dates, that suggests that George Blow and John Bynum Sr. were about the same age.  We know that Blow’s widow Margaret remarried to Richard Smith as his first wife, and that Smith was fathering children through nearly 1690 and did not die until 1713.  Surely Margaret was nearly the same age as, or at the very most a few years older than, her second husband.  That would make her nearly twenty years younger than her supposed son-in-law.

In short, there is no evidence at all even hinting that Rosamond was a Blow.  And there is some evidence that suggests that it is very implausible.

2. Richard Blow’s Wife was Elizabeth Bynum

There was a connection between the Bynum and Blow families, but one that occurs in the next generation.   The evidence leads us to conclude that Richard Blow, the son of George Blow, married Elizabeth, a daughter of John and Rosamond Bynum.

Elizabeth Bynum’s First Husband: Richard Blow

Richard Blow, oldest son of George Blow, was tithable with his stepfather Richard Smith in the tithables of 1673, 1674, and 1675.1   He reached majority 4 before October 1675 when, as “son and heir of George Blow” he renewed his father’s 1664 patent for 635 acres.2  A month later, he petitioned the court to have his father-in-law [meaning stepfather] Richard Smith deliver his share of his deceased father’s estate.3  From 1677 through 1679 he was tithable as a head of household, a period when he began selling off his father’s lands.4  In early 1680 he sold the remaining portion of his father’s land in Lawnes Creek parish, which adjoined John Bynum Sr.5   He then moved several miles west into Southwarke parish, buying 100 acres on  Pidgeon Swamp in early 1681, and patenting an adjacent 210 acres in 1684.6

At about the same time, John Bynum Sr. sold his land and moved a few miles south – thus separating the two families for the first time in several years.  Why then, were John Bynum’s sons tithable in the Blow household a few years later?  A plausible answer is that they were living with their sister, the wife of Richard Blow.

The first mention of a wife of Richard Blow is in 1685.  That year, Richard Blow’s younger brother George Blow turned 21, and received his share of his father’s estate from Richard Smith.7   On 2 November 1685 Richard Blow and his wife Elizabeth gifted to George Blow the 100 acres on Pidgeon Swamp which Richard had bought in 1681.8  Thus Richard and George Blow were now living on adjacent land, several miles from John Bynum Sr. and in a different parish.  In the Southwarke parish tithables of 1685, Richard Blow had John Bynum Jr. in his household and James Bynum was tithable with George Blow, while John Bynum Sr. was in Lawnes Creek parish.  John Bynum Jr. was again tithable to Richard Blow in 1686, and in early 1687 George Blow sold him part of his 100 acres, thus making him a neighbor to both Blow brothers.9

Richard Blow died in late 1686 or early 1687, and his widow Elizabeth remarried to Robert Grice.  Richard Blow was alive for the June 1686 tithables, but  was dead by 3 May 1687 when his widow Elizabeth Blow was granted administration of his estate.10   Richard and Elizabeth Blow had no children, for his brother George inherited his land, declaring himself to be “the only brother and heir of Richard Blow” when he sold the land in 1688 and 1690.11

Elizabeth’s Second Husband:  Robert Grice

Richard Blow’s widow Elizabeth was still “Elizabeth Blow” when she released her dower interest in the 1688 sale of her late husband’s land by his brother George Blow.12  But by 2 July 1689 she had remarried to Robert Grice, when “Robert Grice as marrying Eliza. Blow, admx of Richard Blow deced” sued George Blow for her dower interest in the remainder of her late husband’s land.13   John Bynum II and Robert Grice were jointly listed in the tithables the same year.

Robert Grice continued to be listed in the tithables through the last surviving list, dated in 1703.  Beginning in 1697, the precincts were defined so that James Bynum and John Bynum appeared in different tax precincts.  Robert Grice consistently appears in the same precinct as James Bynum.  That suggests he had moved closer to James Bynum, though he apparently owned no land in Surry.  A 1704 record, in fact, tells us that Robert Grice was then living on land next to James Bynum.  The will of William Browne, dated 4 December 1704, speaks of an “agreement with Robt. Grice for a plantation where he now lives containing about 270 acres” for which Grice was to have eight years to pay.14  On 5 September 1710 William Browne, the son, sold Robert Grice the land he was then living on, describing it as a patent to William Browne and William Foreman of 1684.15   This land adjoined the parcels which James Bynum had bought from Luke Mizell II in 1691 and from Luke Mizell III in 1703.  It was this land which Robert Grice’s 1720 will left to his two sons and to “my well beloved couzen John Bynum.”16  Robert Grice’s will, dated 19 December 1720 and proved on 15 February 1720/21, did not mention his wife who evidently predeceased him.  It divided his land among his two sons and “my well beloved couzen John Bynum” to whom he devised “a piece of land belonging down at the burcheon island bridge.” Both William Bynum and John Bynum witnessed the will.

This will seems to prove what we already suspected, that Robert Grice’s wife was Elizabeth Bynum.  Some family researchers have interpreted this will, out of context with the earlier records, to mean that John Bynum Jr. married a daughter or sister of Robert Grice.  There is no evidence for that notion, since Robert Grice first appears in Surry the same year he married the widow Elizabeth Blow.  No one named Grice appears in any Surry records until Robert Grice makes his first appearance as a joint tithable with John Bynum Jr. in June 1689 and sued George Blow the following month.  There is certainly no evidence that he had any parents or siblings in the Surry or surrounding counties.

Although “couzen” could have meant several different relationships, it seems the only possibility in this case was the most common one of that era, that it meant “nephew”.  There are only two possibilities: either Grice’s wife was a Bynum or one of the Bynums had married a Grice.  The aforementioned records make it obvious that the former was the case.  That is, that Grice’s wife, formerly Richard Blow’s wife, was a daughter of John and Rosamond Bynum.

Identifying Which  John Bynum Was Named in Robert Grice’s Will

Although it matters little to the genealogy, there is a legitimate question as to the identity of the John Bynum who was Robert Grice’s “couzen”.  John Bynum II had died five years earlier, so Grice’s cousin John Bynum was a third-generation Bynum, either the son of John Bynum II or the son of James Bynum.  The next section addresses this question.

3. Sorting Out the Third-Generation John Bynums

Whether there were one or two third-generation John Bynums is an unresolved question.  We are certain of one, the son of John Bynum Jr.   However, a circumstantial argument can be made that there were two.  If so, we cannot be certain which was named a cousin in the will of Robert Grice, dated 19 December 1720 and proved on 15 February 1720/21, which left land  to “my well beloved couzen John Bynum.”17

It is quite tempting to conclude that he was a son of James Bynum.  From at least 1696 onward, Robert Grice had lived nearer to James Bynum than to John Bynum.18   We know he lived adjoining James Bynum’s land as early as 1704.  As mentioned above, the land Robert Grice owned at his death and distributed in his will was a parcel he had purchased 1710 described as the land Grice then lived on and a patent to Browne and Foreman of 20 April 1684.19   In 1691 Luke Mizell II had purchased a patent to Thomas Warren which adjoined the Browne-Foreman patent to the northwest, and immediately sold parts of this patent to James Bynum (150 acres) and to his brother Lawrence Mizell (100 acres) whose heir sold to James Bynum in 1703.   Thus, at the time Robert Grice bought the land, it adjoined James Bynum’s 250 acres.  Although James Bynum had sold part of his land in 1706, the 100 acres he bought in 1703 still adjoined Grice when Grice’s will was written.

Francis Grice and his wife Elizabeth sold his share of the land, 100 acres, on 18 June 1723.20  John Grice of North Carolina sold his share, 250 acres, on 12 July 1726.21  Our mysterious John Bynum sold 250 acres on 15 July 1734, which appears to be comprised of both the land inherited from Robert Grice and the remaining 100 acres of James Bynum’s.22  This is mysterious, for it’s not clear how he came into possession of James Bynum’s land.  There is no conveyance for that 100 acres, and he could not have inherited it unless there is a missing will for James Bynum.23  Nevertheless, this raises the genuine possibility that John Bynum was the son of James Bynum rather than the son of John Bynum Jr.

There is no conclusive indication in Surry records of two John Bynums, other than an indication that one could sign his name and the other could not.24   This is perhaps explained by one John Bynum being listed along with William Bynum in the quit rent roll of Edgecombe County, North Carolina in 1735.  He was perhaps the same John Bynum “of Surry County, Virginia” who purchased land on the Meherrin River, in the part of Bertie that became Northampton County, in 1740.25  He sold that land as a resident of Northampton County in 1746.26  There is no obvious later record of him for another ten years, until 10 November 1757 when a John Bynum entered a claim for 640 acres in Orange County, North Carolina in the same location where Luke and James Bynum would later settle.27   He may be the John Bynum who died in Edgecombe County in early 1761.28

John Bynum, son of John Bynum, by contrast, seems to have remained in Surry County.  He witnessed deeds in early 1735 and in mid-1736 in Surry, at a time when a John Bynum was appearing on the Edgecombe County, North Carolina quit rents.  And his own deed of 1736 in Surry was described as the land he lived on.  He is mentioned indirectly in several later Surry records, and was clearly a Surry resident in 1740 when the birth of his son was recorded in the Albemarle parish register and was still a Surry resident in early 1749 when he was sued in the Surry court before removing to Lunenburg County later that year.  It was thus presumably the other John Bynum who owned land in Northampton County from 1740 through 1746.

It is, of course, possible to construct a scenario in which only one third-generation John Bynum exists.  Such a scenario requires us to explain two oddities, however.  First, we would need to explain the coincidence of this John Bynum selling both the land inherited from Robert Grice and the land formerly owned by James Bynum.  Second, we would have to accept that this John Bynum undertook an usually active migratory pattern, from Surry to Edgecombe County, North Carolina, back to Surry, thence to Northampton County, North Carolina, thence back to Surry.

4. On the (Bogus) Bynum – Mizell Connection

In the 1983 version of this book, I wrote that “Elizabeth, the wife of James Bynum, is thought to have been a Mizell.”  While a number of Bynum genealogists thought this possible (but not certain) at the time, a closer examination of Surry County records shows no evidence of any such connection.

This theory was originally offered up, I think, based on the earliest abstracted records of Surry County – that is, on an incomplete set of facts.  There are only four records that associate any Bynum with any Mizells, all within a 12-year period, and all are explainable if we look at them closely.  There is nothing in the records that suggests a Bynum-Mizell marriage.

If there were such a marriage, it would have been to a daughter of Luke Mizell Sr. (c1614–1669/70).  His two sons, Lawrence (c1651) and Luke Jr. (1660), did not marry or have children until about the time James Bynum himself was married. (See separate Mizell manuscript for more on this family.)

If we look closely at the records, we see a complete lack of any evidence of a connection:

  • There is no association at all between any Bynums and Mizells prior to 1691.  They lived in different parts of the county, were enumerated in different tax districts, and their paths never crossed in any record.
  • The first connection in the records is James Bynum’s purchase of land from Luke Mizell Jr. in 1691.29   Elizabeth Bynum’s witness of Luke Mizell Jr.’s will two years later, and James Bynum’s appointment as an appraiser of his estate can be explained by the fact that they were next-door neighbors.  We don’t need to theorize a marriage to explain those records.  After all, the other witnesses to the will and the other appraisers were also neighbors.
  • The only other association between the two families is James Bynum’s purchase in 1703 of land from Luke Mizell III.  Since he was buying land adjoining the land he already owned, that makes perfect sense.  Again, we don’t need to theorize a familial relationship to explain that purchase.

Some early researchers thought that James Bynum married a daughter of Luke Mizell Jr.  However, he was roughly the same age as James Bynum, and already had an infant daughter named Elizabeth whom he named in his will.  Therefore, if James Bynum’s wife was a Mizell she would have to have been a sister of Luke Mizell Jr. and not a daughter. (I believe early researchers didn’t realize that Luke Mizell Jr. was only 33 years old when he died.)  There is absolutely no evidence that Luke Mizell Sr. had a daughter.  Even if he did, there is no evidence that the Bynums and Mizells even knew one another until twenty years after Luke Mizell’s death.

5. The (Bogus) LeRoy Kramer Genealogy

One of the earliest published Bynum genealogies dates back to the 1920s when LeRoy Kramer of Wichita, Kansas provided his genealogy to The Compendium of American Genealogy.30   This genealogy is summarized as follows:

John Baynum [or Baynham] (1569-post1624) from Eng. in the “Susan” 1616 to Va. wife Elizabeth
John Baynum (c1590-16123) of James-City settlement, Va.
John Baynum (1616-1691) [of Surry County]  wife Rosamond
John Baynum (1655-1715) first wife Elizabeth
William Baynum (1695-1764) second wife Mrs. Elizabeth Fort
John Baynum (1726-1771)
Lt. John Baynum (1750 or 1751 – 1777) died in Revolutionary service
James W. Baynum (1773-1814) died in US Privateer service during War 1812-15
James Baynham (1796-1863) wife Mahala Pritchart, daughter of James and Phoebe Abbott Pritchart
John W. Baynum (1824-1905) of Bourbon County, Kentucky and Wichita , Kansas, wife Empress Sellman.
America Baynum (1852-1935) husband Henry Theodore Kramer
LeRoy Kramer (1875 –  )

This genealogy is almost entirely bogus, however well-meaning the motivation.  As we have seen in prior chapters the first eight generations, as given by Mr. Kramer, mix three separate and independent lines of Baynhams into a single tree.   Furthermore,  Mr. Kramer was not descended from anyone in the first eight generations shown in his chart.  His line is correct only back to his great-grandparents, James Baynum and Mahala Pritchart.   James Baynham was actually descended from George Baynum of Maryland (see Chapter 1).  His father was William Bainum, son of William Bainum and grandson of Bartholomew Bainum.

  1. Richard Smith appears in the 1673 and 1674 tithables with a second male tithable who is not named.  That was surely Richard Blow who is his second tithable in 1675.  The tithables for the years 1671 and 1672 are lost, as is the 1676 list. []
  2. Virginia Patent Book 6, p563. []
  3. Surry County Order Book 1671-1691, p106. []
  4. Surry County Deeds & Wills Book 2, p203. []
  5. Surry County Order Book 1671-1691, p106 and Davis, p250. []
  6. Surry County Orders 1671-1691, p442.  The transaction is referenced later by George Blow.  And also see Virginia Patent Book 7, p372. []
  7. Surry County Orders 1671-1691, p477. []
  8. Surry County Deeds & Wills Book 3, p41. []
  9. Surry County Deeds & Wills Book 3, p80. []
  10. Surry County Orders 1671-1691, p565-6. []
  11. Surry County Deeds & Wills Book 4, p32 and p191.  Incidentally, this means that Richard Blow was childless, else a child would have inherited.  The widow, of course, could not inherit from her husband.  []
  12. The widow had a lifetime interest in the land, regardless of who inherited it.  She had to release that dower interest in the sale. []
  13. Surry County Orders 1671-1691, p710. []
  14. Surry County Deeds & Wills Book 5, pp305. []
  15. Surry County Deeds & Wills Book 6, p36.  The patent to Browne and Forman, which Grice purchased, adjoined the Thomas Warren patent which Luke Bynum bought in 1691 and which he had conveyed part of to James Bynum. []
  16. Surry County Deeds & Wills Book 7, p307 []
  17. Surry County Deeds & Wills Book 7, p307. []
  18. See above, and also the chronological list of records for the details of this conclusion. []
  19. Surry County Deeds & Wills Book 6, p36. []
  20. Surry County Deeds & Wills Book 7, p449. []
  21. Surry County Deeds & Wills Book 7, p678.   The acreage is not given in the deed, but was 250 acres from a later resale.  Francis Sharp acquired both of the Grice brothers’ parcels. []
  22. Surry County Deed Book 8, p394. []
  23. The eldest son would have inherited all the land if James Bynum died intestate.   From other records, the eldest sons of both John Bynum II and of James Bynum were named William Bynum.  So this John Bynum, not being the eldest son, could not have inherited from an intestate James Bynum.  Given the absence of any record of James Bynum’s death, it is possible that he died leaving a will, now lost, and that the will devised the land to a son named John. []
  24. The John Bynum who witnessed the will of Elias Fort in  1732 signed by his mark. []
  25. Bertie County, NC Deed Book F, p34 []
  26. Abstracts of Deeds Northampton County, North Carolina 1741-1759, Margaret M. Hofmann, p252. []
  27. NC Archives files of Granville grants.  The file contains the notation that the warrant was the second one issued to John Bynum, the first having been lost.  The land was on New Hope Creek. []
  28. See Chapter 6. []
  29. In early 1691, Luke Mizell Jr. bought a 350 acre parcel from Robert Warren located on the north bank of the Blackwater River in the fork formed by the Blackwater and Cypress Swamp.  He sold 100 acres of this parcel to Lawrence Mizell and 150 acres to James Bynum.  The remaining 100 acres were distributed in his will two years later.   In 1703 James Bynum bought Lawrence Mizell’s 100 acres from Lawrence’s son Luke. []
  30. The Compendium of American Genealogy, Frederick A. Virkus, ed., Volume 7, p596. []