THESE RELATIVES ARE NOT ABSOLUTE

Some lists begin with a ? Petty born at St. Peters at Moncroft, Norfolk, England (whatever that means) at an unknown date NOTE: December 17, 2000 I now believe that the entry above should read "St. Peter Mancroft, Norwich, Norfolk,England." There are still mysteries here. Is "St. Peter Mancroft" the name of a saint other than the well-known Saint Peter? Or is the church named after the same "Saint Peter" and located in a section of Norwich known as "Mancroft"? Also, what connection does the Petty ancestor listed here have with the church? The next generation sometimes listed is Thomas Petty I, who supposedly was born in 1608 at Norwich, England, was married to Katherine Morris, and died in 1663 or 1664 at Rappahannock County, Virginia. That might be true, but does not make sense when joined with the next entry, which makes Thomas II born about the same time Thomas I died. That's possible, but it isn't likely that Thomas I fathered his first son at the age of 56! From here on, we will hope that the record is correct. Keep in mind that it is  patchwork done by an amateur.  Beyond the time of my great-great grandparents I am not sure of the facts. Thomas Petty II was a son of Thomas Petty I and Katherine Morris Thomas Petty II was born in Rappahannock County, Virginia in 1664. He married Rachel Wilson He died in Rappahannock County, Virginia on May 17, 1720 Thomas Petty III was (POSSIBLY) a son of Thomas Petty II and Rachel Wilson ??? ANOTHER RECORD STATES THAT THE ABOVE IS AN ERROR PERPETUATED FROM A 1940'S PUBLICATION. THOMAS PETTY, WHO MARRIED CATHERINE GARTON, IS SHOWN BY COURT RECORDS TO BE A SON OF HUBERT, WHO CAME TO AMERICA AS THE INDENTURED SERVANT OF WILLIAM TURNER IN 1650.

When I created this site, I wrote on the first page, "None of our ancestors were famous but all of them were important--" After about six weeks of following tangled ancestral lines, I discovered the possibility that we are, in fact, descended from royalty. I cannot prove anything in this site, beyond my great-grandparents' time, and this page should be taken with even more "grains of salt" than the others. I'll try to explain here why I believe we may be related to some famous people.

WILLIAM THE CONQUEROR

William the Conqueror was the illegitimate son of the Norman Duke Robert I. When William conquered England, he became the first of a royal line that continues today. Thus, if we are, in fact, descended from King William I, we are "umpteenth" cousins to the current British royal family. This is one of those cases where I "don't understand all I know." Internet sources seem to indicate that we are related to William the Conqueror through the Avent line (on my Davis/Hawk page), which may be connected to the Claiborne line. I'm getting dizzy from looking at all these lines. It would please me to discover that our relationship to William I is through a son other than the one who became William II. William I was a Christian and a faithful husband but his son was the opposite. William II has been accused of dabbling in witchcraft.

POCAHONTAS

Pocahontas had one son, Thomas Rolfe. His daughter, Jane, married our ancestor Robert Bolling. They had been married only a year when Jane died, leaving one son, John. Robert married again and had several children by his second wife. The two Bolling lines are called "the red Bollings" and "the white Bollings." Those descended from Jane Rolfe are "red" because of their Native American ancestry. I am not sure whether I am descended from the "red" or the "white" Bollings. It depends on whether my 8th great-grandmother was Robert's first or second wife.

DAVY CROCKETT, KING OF THE WILD FRONTIER