Col. Joseph Temple

Audited 18 Sep 2026 (K722, K723). MOTHER half graded ARGUMENT by Owen on his mother's own will of 11 Dec 1781 - 'My son Joseph's daughter Ann.' FATHER half unchanged. The will was in hand from 11 Aug and was never read against this link. Audited 13 Sep 2026 (K670); FATHER half upgraded the same day (K675) after the deed was read on the ORIGINAL MANUSCRIPT, not Crozier's 1905 abstract. The argument below is unchanged. No flag moves. PROOF CLASS: FATHER = DIRECT (13 Sep 2026, K675; flag 1 unchanged). The ORIGINAL manuscript, Spotsylvania Deed Book E p. 829: land granted to Joseph Temple of King William, Gent., decd, 'and by him Devised to the said Joseph Temple his son'. PROOF CLASS: MOTHER = ARGUMENT (Owen, 18 Sep 2026). Shape B: her own will of 11 Dec 1781 names 'My son Joseph' and makes him an executor; F17 is the only family either parent stands in, so no rival mother survives. THE ARGUMENT. A single testator - 'Joseph Temple of King William Co., Gent., Decd.' - is recited across six Spotsylvania County deeds between 1760 and 1770 as having devised land to two named sons. (1) Deed Book E p. 221, 29 Jul 1760: 'Joseph Temple and Mary, his wife, of St. Stephen's Par., King and Queen Co. ... part of a tract granted Joseph Temple of King William Co., Gent., Decd., and by him devised to the sd. Joseph Temple, his son'. Witnesses include Humphrey Hill. (2) Deed Book G p. 275, 5 Jun 1770, twice: 'Joseph Temple of King and Queen Co. and Mary, his wife ... part of a tract devised sd. Jos. Temple by the will of his father, Joseph Temple'. (3) THE IDENTITY CONTROL - the same testator devising to a SECOND son, in deeds that say nothing about Joseph: 27 Jul 1762 'by his last will and testament devised to his son, the sd. Benjamin Temple'; 7 Dec 1763 'purchased by Joseph Temple (father of the sd. Benjamin)'; 5 Oct 1765 'devised it to his son Benjamin Temple'; 2 Jun 1770 'devised sd. Benja. Temple by the will of his father, Jos. Temple, Decd.' [535] Benjamin Arnold Temple is [33]'s son in this tree. (4) AN INDEPENDENT INSTRUMENT, different archive and different compiler (register B2): the PCC will of Joseph Temple of King William Co., dated 20 Dec 1744, proved 23 Jan 1762, register St Eloy - wife ANN; sons William, Joseph, Liston, Benjamin, Samuel; daughters Hannah, Ann, Sarah, Mary, Pattee; lands in King & Queen, Spotsylvania, Louisa and Caroline; '180 acres of Frank Arnold's track'; contested probate 1749, which is [33]'s death year. All ten children match [33]'s ten in this tree, name for name. WHY THE GRANTOR IS THIS MAN AND NOT HIS OWN SIRE - settled OUTSIDE the relationship being proved: (a) the grantor's wife is MARY, the decedent's wife is ANN; (b) the grantor is of King and Queen, the decedent 'of King William Co. ... Decd.' - [33] died 1749 at Presque Isle, King William, and [32] died at Chatham Hill, King and Queen; (c) Humphrey Hill witnesses the 1760 deed and [85] Mary Molly Hill, [32]'s wife, is [2032] Humphrey Hill's daughter in this tree, so the deed's 'Mary, his wife' is our Mary independently of any Temple filiation; (d) E78, [33]'s own Audited note, records Keys 1906 marrying 'Joseph to Mollie daughter of Col. Humphrey Hill' - a separate compiler reaching the same pairing. WHY ARGUMENT AND NOT DIRECT. The deeds STATE the relationship, six times over. But what this project has read is CROZIER'S PRINTED ABSTRACTS (1905), not the original deed books, and this tree's own Crozier citation on [2032] already calls them 'printed abstracts (1905) of the county order/deed books - an informant about the originals'. Grading DIRECT here would contradict our own standing characterisation of the same source. ⭐ THE UPGRADE IS CHEAP AND NAMED: Spotsylvania is NOT a burned county - the original deed books survive and are filmed; reading Deed Book E p. 221 on the image would make this DIRECT. WHAT THE DEEDS DO NOT CARRY, AND WHAT DOES. The maternity is not established by any of the deed evidence in this section: the 1744 will names a wife Ann but does not state that Ann bore this son. It IS established by her own will of 11 December 1781 - see the MOTHER section at the foot of this note, added 18 Sep 2026. Crozier volume 1 was read in full for her and does not name her: 'Ann Temple' returns 0 across the volume against 'Ann, his wife' = 288 and 'Humphrey Hill' = 39, so the controls fire and the zero is a fact about the record. That negative was recorded 10 Aug 2026 and independently reproduced 13 Sep 2026. SOURCES READ: Crozier, Virginia County Records I: Spotsylvania County Records 1721-1800 (New York, 1905), local full text at sources/temple-joseph-parentage-2026-08-10/ with page images for Deed Book E p. 221 and Deed Book G p. 275; register rows B2, B34 and the recorded negative row following B34. K675, 13 SEP 2026 -- THE ORIGINAL, ON THE MANUSCRIPT. This is what carried the father half from ARGUMENT to DIRECT, and it is an upgrade of PROVENANCE, not a new argument. Spotsylvania County Deed Book E, MANUSCRIPT pp. 829-831 (FamilySearch film 008153248 / DGS 8153248, image 425 of 935, ark 3:1:3Q9M-CSKV-54PJ; receipt and acknowledgment on image 426, p. 831). Read on the page images at full resolution, signed in; images saved to sources/temple-spotsylvania-deedbook-original-2026-09-13/. The clause, on the manuscript: '... part of a Tract of twelve Hundred and fifty Acres formerly Granted to Joseph Temple of King William County Gentl: dec'd. and by him Devised to the said Joseph Temple his son Containing four Hundred Acres ...'. The deed is signed 'Jos: Temple (Seal)' and 'Mary Temple (Seal)', and witnessed by Lark: Chew, John Smith, R. Tunstall, HUMPHREY HILL and Baylor Walker -- Humphrey Hill being the father of [85] Mary Molly Hill, this man's own wife. Acknowledged 11 Octor 1760. WHY THE GRADE MOVED. K670 graded this half ARGUMENT for consistency rather than caution: the deeds do state the relationship, but what this project had read was Crozier's 1905 printed abstracts, and cit 6997 in this tree already calls Crozier an informant about the originals. Grading DIRECT off an abstract would have contradicted our own standing characterisation of the same source. The original manuscript removes that objection entirely, and nothing else about the case changed. CITATION-PRECISION CORRECTION, recorded because it would cost the next reader a wasted trip: 'Deed Book E, p. 221' -- the form used above and in register row B34 -- is CROZIER'S OWN PRINTED PAGE, not a manuscript page. His running head there reads 'DEED BOOK E-1751-1761 221'. THE MANUSCRIPT PAGE IS 829. The maternity is not carried by the Spotsylvania deeds. It is carried by Ann Temple's own will of 11 December 1781, graded 18 Sep 2026 and set out at the foot of this note. [18 SEP 2026 - THE MOTHER HALF IS GRADED, ON A DOCUMENT THIS PROJECT HELD FOR 38 DAYS (registers K722, K723).] THE RECORD, verbatim. The will of Ann Temple of King William County, 11 December 1781 (the new citation on this event; a 1967 typescript by Lee A. McKinney of the printed transcript at William and Mary Quarterly series 1 p. 140, read on the image 18 Sep 2026): 'Item: I give the rest of my estate of every nature and quality to my following grandchildren, to equally divided viz: My son William's daughter Ann. My son Joseph's daughter Ann. My son Liston's daughter Mary. My son Benjamin's son Robert, and my son Samuel's daughter Ann, to them and their heirs forever and lastly I appoint my sons Joseph, Benjamin, and Samuel, Executors of this my last will and testament. Given under my hand and seal this 11 December 1781.' Signed Ann Temple; acknowledged before Wm. Gwathmey and Samuel Temple. WHY THE TESTATRIX IS [34] AND HER 'SON JOSEPH' IS [32] - settled outside the maternity itself. She is of King William County, where [33] died in 1749. The 1749 court proceeding on his contested will has Ann Temple presenting the writings as his widow, and the 1762 probate reserves power to 'Ann the relict' (register B2; K463 item b). Her five named sons are F17's five sons name for name - William, Joseph, Liston, Benjamin, Samuel - and her daughters Sarah, Mary and Pattie are three of the five. Hannah is absent because she was settled by deed in her father's lifetime, and Nancy/Ann because she was already dead (K467): the will names EIGHT of the ten, and it must not be restated as naming ten. [32] is [33]'s son by the original Spotsylvania manuscript (K675) and is the only Joseph in F17. THE CONTROL THAT FIRES. The will identifies each son through one named grandchild. Of the five, one is testable against this tree as it stands: 'my son Benjamin's son Robert' - and [535] Benjamin Arnold Temple's son in this tree is Robert Henry Temple, on a child list that predates this document's arrival. The other four are untestable because those child lists are thin, not because they conflict. THE SURNAME ARNOLD, from a separate compiler in a separate publication. Virginia Colonial Abstracts p. 528 (Beverley Fleet, printing Miss Elizabeth Hawes Ryland's notes on Baylor Hill's diary; media VAColonialAbstractsII-005247-528.jpg, read on the image 18 Sep 2026, K722): 'Presque Isle, the home of Joseph Temple, Senior, who had married Ann Arnold, dau. of Benjamin Arnold of Presque Isle.' Echoed by two of her sons' names ([535] Benjamin Arnold Temple, [530] Liston Arnold Temple) and by the 1744 will's devise of '180 acres of Frank Arnold's track'. Ryland's notes are informant testimony of the softest kind - Fleet prints them with the disclaimer that she wrote them informally to him - and they carry the surname only; the maternity rests on the will, not on them. WHY ARGUMENT AND NOT A HIGHER CLASS. Every leg is derivative. The will as this project holds it is a 1967 typescript of a printed transcript, three removes from the instrument. This is the same test K670 and K675 applied to the father half - and here it points the other way, because King William County's clerk's office BURNED 17 January 1885, so the original may not survive at all. Do not book 'read the original will book' as a next step. The one cheap upgrade that does exist: the printed text itself, William and Mary Quarterly series 1 p. 140, out of copyright and online, which would remove the 1967 typist's remove. WHAT THIS DOES NOT SETTLE, so nothing is decided by silence. [34]'s recorded death date of 11 Dec 1781 is the date she SIGNED this will - a separate queued error, NOT corrected here. F16 is untouched: [32]'s child list is flagged contaminated and sits under Owen's hold of 21 Aug 2026, and the will's 'my son Joseph's daughter Ann' does NOT match the tree's single child [1727]. That mismatch is a gap in F16, not evidence either way - and it is also the clearest FALSIFIER: repair F16, find no daughter Ann, and the identification of which son Joseph weakens materially. The same will bears on four more maternity halves ([530] [531] [534] [535]) and none of them is graded here. HOW IT WAS MISSED - recorded because the mechanism outlives the link. The will was read 11 Aug 2026 by a parentage agent working [78] John Temple's question; it transcribed this exact clause and filed it 'no capacity to answer for John', which was TRUE for that question. It was read again 5 Sep 2026 (K463) and filed as a fact about [33]'s ten children. K670 on 13 Sep graded this half from the Spotsylvania deeds and the 1744 will and concluded the maternity was not carried - true of what it examined, and the scoped negative became an unscoped label. The transferable shape: the register keys a row to the people a document is ABOUT, never to the LINKS it DECIDES, and a will naming a woman's five sons decides a maternity half for each of them. Full argument: proof-summary-32-temple-mother-2026-09-18.md.