Humphrey Quisenberry

AUDITED 2 Aug 2026 (consolidated; supersedes two separate notes of 26 Jul 2026, both of whose content is carried below in full). [26 JUL 2026 - JUNCTION #6, IDENTITY] Son of John, by the 1714 will; b. not later than 1674; d. 1719x1728. HIS OWN WILL IS LOST - the King George County first will book was carried off during the Civil War - but his paternity is proven by his son Thomas's 1728 deed. Three impossible children were detached. See ancestry/quisenberry-junction.md. [26 JUL 2026 - DE-DUPLICATION] Absorbed [3141] 'Humphrey Quisenberry 100%E' (1647-1723), a duplicate of this record (both die 1723) whose name still carried '100%E', a DNA-match artifact left in the name field by a merge. [2 AUG 2026 - HIS RECORDED WIFE 'ELIZABETH JACKSON MOTHERSHEAD' [3069] WAS DELETED] She carried no citation, no child link, no media and no note, and A. C. Quisenberry, Memorials (1900), p. 7 - read on the image 2 Aug 2026 - prints for this man literally: '11. Humphrey Quesenbury, born in Westmoreland county, Virginia, NOT LATER THAN 1674: died in King George county, Virginia, NOT LATER THAN 1727. MARRIED ____ and had'. The wife is a BLANK. A.C.Q. is explicit elsewhere: 'Who his wife was is not known, nor is it definitely known how many children he had, though he certainly had two sons - Humphrey and Thomas.' ⛔ BUT THE DELETION IS NOT THE WHOLE QUESTION, AND THE 2 AUG NOTE WRONGLY IMPLIED IT WAS. THE TREE HOLDS TWO CANDIDATE WIVES, NOT ONE, AND BOTH ARE UNSOURCED: [3042] MARY MUSE (b. 1677, d. 7 Jun 1723) in family F733, and the deleted Elizabeth Mothershead (b. 1680, d. 7 Jun 1723) in F737. THEY SHARE AN IDENTICAL DEATH DATE - 7 June 1723 - which is the signature of ONE woman entered twice under two surnames, the same defect class as the 'Mary Hamblin Prewitts Chism' string split across two generations elsewhere in this branch. CURRENT STATE, WHICH NEEDS OWEN'S DECISION: F737 holds all six children and now has MotherID = 0; F733 holds Mary Muse and NO children. So the children are motherless and a childless duplicate family survives. DO NOT simply re-point F737's mother to Mary Muse - that would pick a winner between two unsourced names. ⭐ THE NAMED DOCUMENT THAT WOULD SETTLE IT, and nobody has looked: A.C.Q. says Humphrey bought land in 1695 in 'old Rappahannock county ... now comprised in King George'. But old Rappahannock ceased to exist in 1692, splitting into Essex and RICHMOND. In 1695 that land was in RICHMOND COUNTY, WHOSE RECORDS SURVIVE. A.C.Q. corresponded with the King George clerk, whose will book was gone, and appears never to have written to Richmond County at all. A DOWER RELEASE IN THAT 1695 DEED WOULD NAME THE WIFE. [ALSO FLAGGED, NOT CHANGED] This tree's 'b. 1674' is an UPPER BOUND in the source ('not later than'), and the death '7 Jan 1723' is a precision the source does not carry - it gives only 'not later than 1727'. See ancestry/quisenberry-junction.md and db-write-queue.md. [2 AUG 2026, LATER - THE TWO FAMILIES MERGED AND THE SECOND CANDIDATE WIFE DELETED] Owen's decision. This man had been carrying TWO families that were one family duplicated: F733 (x [3042] Mary Muse, holding [3043] John and the marriage of 6 Jun 1695 at Westmoreland) and F737 (x [3069] Elizabeth Jackson Mothershead, holding the other five children and a marriage event with a blank date). The two wives share an IDENTICAL DEATH DATE, 7 June 1723 - the signature of one entry duplicated under two surnames. Both were unsourced and both are absent from A.C.Q.'s books. RESOLUTION: [3043] John moved into F737; the real 6 Jun 1695 Westmoreland marriage re-pointed onto F737 and the blank-dated duplicate marriage deleted; F733 deleted; [3042] Mary Muse deleted. He now has ONE family, SIX children, and NO recorded wife - which is exactly what A.C.Q. says: 'Who his wife was is not known.' ⛔ NEITHER CANDIDATE NAME IS LOST - both are recorded above and in quisenberry-junction.md, and the named document that would settle it is the 1695 RICHMOND COUNTY deed. ⚠️ NOTE FOR ANYONE RE-EXAMINING THIS: the marriage date 6 Jun 1695 and the 1695 land purchase are the same year, so the deed and the marriage are plausibly the same transaction window - which is a reason to go and read it, not a reason to assume anything. TREESHARE CANNOT DELETE REMOTELY: [3042] and [3069] both survive on Ancestry until deleted by hand there.