Comments On The Analysis of George Brewer's Will

Back in late 2014 a post was published on the will of George Brewer of Brunswick County, Virginia. That was followed by a post titled "The Family of George Brewer of Brunswick County, Virginia," in which I used the contents of George Brewer's will to reconstruct what I believe was the composition of his family. Just recently, Foy Varner, one of the co-administrators of the Brewer DNA Project, and the author of Brewer Families of Southeast America, contacted me via e-mail and offered his comments on my analysis of George Brewer's will. My suggestion was that his comments, which include some cautions, should be published online so that others might consider them when doing their own analysis of George Brewer's will. And so, with Foy's permission, what follows are his comments.

     "I re-read your 2015 discussion about the children of George Brewer (ca 1685-1744) of Brunswick County, VA, and I have re-studied his will and read part of your blogspot.

    The following comments are given with my best intentions, and I mean no disrespect or antagonism.

      I appreciate your thoughtful analysis, and I think I understand most of your reasoning.  However, I disagree with some of the wording of your conclusions.  I think you have fallen into the trap of theorizing something in one place and then stating that theory as fact in another place.

     One statement says, “All of George Brewer’s living children were named in his will.”  I know that you believe that, and I understand your reasons why, but your line of reasoning does not constitute proof.  I still think it is possible that George had one or more young children by his second wife Alice who might not have been named in the will for various possible reasons.

      Parts of the will are somewhat confusing.  In one place, George gave his son Oliver “all the rest of this tract of land whereon I now dwell to him and his heirs forever.”  Then, he bequeathed to his wife Alice “that estate whereon we now dwell, (the comma is inserted by me) together with all my household goods and stock .... for the maintenance of all my younger children that hath please God to give me by her, (again the comma is mine) during her life or until she marry again.”  It sounds as if George gave the land to both Oliver and Alice, but gave the stock to Alice.  Perhaps he meant to give Alice the house and livestock and not the land, but the will does not say that.  The phrase “during her life or until she marry again” is also confusing.  Who was to get the stock if she died or remarried?  Who was to maintain the “younger children” if she died or remarried?  In that regard, the will is ambiguous, and some of his children were obviously half-siblings or perhaps even step-siblings, so I can understand why there were reportedly some squabbles about the bequests after George died.

     We have no way of knowing George’s real mental status at the time of the will or how he felt about each child.

       You stated, “Oliver, Henry, and Nathaniel were the younger children George referred to.”  While those three might have been the “younger children”, I do not think that is certain.

       You reasoned that the fact that those three received property implied that they were younger than the five who did not.  I can not accept that argument.  A younger son might have married and received or acquired land, while older sons remained single and at home with their parents.  The fact that some of the sons appear to have been independent does not prove their ages, land ownership, marital status, mental status, physical status, or financial status.

       You reasoned that the son George, Jr. must have been the eldest because of his name.  The fact that he was named George, Jr. does not prove his position in the family.  In my experience, most men named their eldest son after a father, father-in-law, or brother and did not use their own name(s) until a later son.  While I, also, believe that George, Jr. was one of the older children, I do not think the fact that he was “George, Jr.” proves that he was the eldest.  In one place, you stated that George, Jr. was “likely” the eldest, but, when you listed the children, you implied that it is certain that he was the first son.
      Lastly, I think it might be a mistake to theorize that George, Sr. was Irish based on the name of a horse. [In his will George gave his son Henry, "a young horse we call Patrick." He gave son Howl (sic) "a young horse that we call Snip."]    

      Inexperienced and naive genealogists might repeat such an idea as fact

    Likewise, some might read only parts of your discussion and quote theories as facts without reading your explanations and reasons.  The Brewer literature already has too many confusions and too much misinformation."

As a supplement to Foy's comments I would also strongly suggest that those researching the beginnings of the George Brewer family consult Foy's e-book mentioned above, Brewer Families of Southeast America. Article 14, "George Brewer of Brunswick County" begins at page 193, and Foy's begins with the second paragraph on page 209. I would also recommend backing up to page 186, where Article 13 "George Brewer of Charles City County" begins, and where a possible father and grandfather are suggested. Researchers should also consult copies of Marvin T. Broyhill's, The Brewer Families of Colonial Virginia, 1626-1776, and it's two supplements, published in 1992 by Brewer Researcher, which was previously available online through the Family History Library's Catalog, but no longer appears to be so. Although it cannot be ignored if you are researching the Brewer families originating in Virginia, I do caution that many of Broyhill's conclusions are off the mark. The value of his publications lie in the sources provided. He pretty much tells you where you can find things, in which case, my advise is to locate those sources yourself and do your own analysis. That's what genealogy research is really all about.

BGB 598