Anne Toadvine

Audited 31 Jul 2026 — her first. ⭐⭐ HER PARENTAGE IS PROVEN, AND THIS ONE WAS VERIFIED BY HAND FROM THE RECORD, not taken on report. Archives of Maryland vol. 859 (Somerset County Judicial Records) p. 37, administration account passed 30 January 1735/6: 'Henry Toadvine adm.r of NICHOLAS TOADVINE ... To be secured & disposed according to law among the dec.ds Representatives ... as follows ss.t HENRY TOADVINE, ANN CROUCH, ISAAC TOADVINE, MARY HAYMAN & SARAH SHOCKLEY - which is to each 1..8..7 3/4'. FIVE REPRESENTATIVES TAKING EQUAL SHARES = FIVE CHILDREN. Corroborated by the orphans' bond, vol. 851 pp. 310b-311 (March Court 1736), naming the same group. ➡️ She is a daughter of NICHOLAS TOADVINE of Somerset Co., MD (d. 1713), with siblings HENRY, ISAAC, MARY HAYMAN and SARAH SHOCKLEY. Three further corroborations: Anne Crouch and Henry Toadvine appear at the SAME probate folio (Testamentary Proceedings Liber 27 f.168, 1725-26); the Somerset tax lists show a dependent 'Nicholas Crouch' in John Crouch Jr.'s household 1731-1736 when NO earlier Crouch bears that name — and this tree independently carries [2649] Nicholas Crouch as her son; and both families sit in Wicomico Hundred every year, on the same grand jury. ⛔ NO PARENTS WERE CREATED FOR HER, DELIBERATELY. This Somerset family is real and documented, but it reaches Owen only through [115] NATHAN CROUCH, who is attested nowhere — so whether it is OWEN'S family is an open question. DOCUMENTED IS NOT THE SAME AS OURS. Memo: ancestry/crouch-branch-research.md. ⛔ NOTHING WAS DELETED AND NO LINK WAS CUT: a negative removes support, it does not supply a replacement. Flags are 3=DISPUTED rather than 2=disproven because the case rests on a COMPILED WEBSITE plus census ABSENCES, not on a primary record naming someone else.