Ann Arnold

CORRECTED 5 Sep 2026 - THE DEATH DATE WAS HER WILL DATE. 11 Dec 1781 is the day she SIGNED her will, not the day she died, so death is now 'after 11 Dec 1781'. Her only death citation gives the YEAR ONLY. Registers K463, K466, K467. Audited 22 Jul 2026, REVISED 30 Jul 2026 - this note supersedes the 22 Jul text, which was stored truncated at exactly 256 characters and broke off mid-sentence. Junction #1. RELATIONSHIPS PROVEN, DATES WRONG. Documented: she is the daughter of Benjamin Arnold of Presquile, who was himself one of the four "distressed orphans" of Anthony Arnold - a leader of Bacon's Rebellion, hanged for treason 15 Mar 1677 at West Point, New Kent, with his estates confiscated. Benjamin recovered land (1,725 acres at Rickahock per the 1688 petition, later exchanged with the Chickahominy for King William land) and built the seat at the Mattaponi bend that he named Presquile; his Arnold's Ferry became Temple's Ferry after this marriage. She is the wife of Col. Joseph Temple. TREE DATES WERE WRONG on two points, both corrected 25 Jul 2026. (1) The 1672 birth at "Pres Quile" is impossible and belongs to a DIFFERENT Ann Arnold. Her father Benjamin was an orphaned child in 1677, so he cannot have had a daughter born 1672; Presquile did not exist until he established and named it after 1677; and a woman born 1672 could not bear the Temple children of 1732 to 1742, which is what generated the audit's "mother at 60 to 70" findings. The 1672 Ann is almost certainly Anthony Arnold's own daughter - Benjamin's sister, and so this Ann's AUNT - collapsed into her niece. Birth reset to abt 1705, Virginia, estimated from the children's births. (2) "Anne Bogardus (1672-1690)" as her mother is a junk graft: Bogardus is the Dutch New Netherland family with no documented place in this tidewater Virginia line, and those dates make her age 0 at Ann's claimed birth. Checked 30 Jul 2026: the mother linked on this record is already [3321] "Ann", surname unknown, wife of Benjamin Arnold - Bogardus was never attached here, and remains attached only as Benjamin's wife in the half-siblings' family (Rachael, William, Benjamin Jr), where the dates are impossible and which is a separate open finding. KEPT: death 11 Dec 1781, an age of about 76, which is plausible. Memo: ancestry/temple-arnold-liston-junction.md ---- ADDENDUM 5 Aug 2026 (night): HER PARENTAGE IS ASSERTED IN PRINT, AND DELIBERATELY NOT CITED FROM IT. ---- The Baltimore Sun's genealogy column of 1 April 1906, p. 14, by Jane Griffith Keys - the source behind the 1918 Diboll fan chart, both read on the images 5 Aug 2026 (register M1-M5) - states: "Joseph Temple married Ann, daughter of Benjamin Arnal. They resided at Presqueisle, their estate in King William county, where he died." That agrees with this record's existing parent family, whose father is [525] Benjamin Arnold. ⛔ NO CITATION HAS BEEN ATTACHED, AND THE REASON IS DELIBERATE. [525] is a generation-9 direct ancestor carrying ZERO citations, so a citation there would move the Temple branch coverage - by exactly one point, 51.6% to 52.6%. That is not worth banking a compiler who is measurably wrong about attribution: the same column gives her husband a 1774 Committee of Safety seat and Order of the Cincinnati membership that Heitman and the Society's own 1905 roll show belong to a Benjamin Temple and were impossible for a Joseph. Owen ruled 5 Aug 2026: record the provenance, cite nothing to the direct line yet. The branch percentage is meant to measure EVIDENCED ancestry, and leaving her father honestly uncited is the more truthful state. ⭐ WHAT KEYS DOES ADD, and it is genuinely new to this record: the estate name PRESQUEISLE is given as the couple's residence and the place of his death, independently of Harris; and the column reports the Temple hunting cup as being in 1906 "in the possession of Miss Gr[i]nnan, a descendant of Col. Benjamin Temple, of King William county" - while the 1918 chart's own wheel records "Robertine Temple married Robert A. Grinnan of Orange Co Va". A surviving family object with a traceable holder. ⛔ A RECORD-LOSS FACT THAT GOVERNS EVERY FUTURE SEARCH ON THIS FAMILY: King William County's clerk's office burned 17 January 1885 and, per the Library of Virginia, "most records were destroyed by fire in 1885" - all pre-1885 county court records lost except seventeen will books and a few deed books. A search that fails to find one of these people in King William has discovered a fact about 1885, NOT a fact about the person. Do not write such a result up as a negative about anybody. ---- ADDENDUM 5 Sep 2026: HER OWN WILL, AND THE CORRECTION ABOVE. ---- HER WILL IS IN HAND. "WILL OF ANN TEMPLE. COMMUNICATED BY MISS LUCY LILLY TEMPLE," William and Mary College Quarterly Historical Magazine, series 1, vol. XIII (1904-05), p. 140 - READ ON THE PAGE IMAGE, not the OCR (archive.org williammarycolle13tyle, leaf 289; the printed running head "140 WILLIAM AND MARY COLLEGE QUARTERLY" is on the page). Local copy: ancestry/sources/ann-temple-will-1781-wmq-ser1-v13-p140-2026-09-05/. The same text reached this project independently, as a 1967 typescript, in the History Center at Diboll's delivery of 3 Sep 2026 (register K463, Temple Family Collection 1986:003, OS2 Fol. 2). It closes: "Given under my hand & Seal this 11th, Dec r, 1781. ANN TEMPLE. Acknowledged in Presents of Wm Gwaltney, Sam l Temple." SO SHE WAS ALIVE ON 11 DEC 1781, and the tree's exact death date of that day was the will's date, not hers. Death is now recorded as AFTER 11 Dec 1781. WHY NO UPPER BOUND: the printed abstract carries NO PROBATE CLAUSE - it ends at the witnesses. King William County's clerk's office burned 17 January 1885, so a probate record may not exist to be found. "After" is therefore the honest form, not a placeholder. THE CITATION THAT WAS ON THE DEATH FACT DOES NOT SUPPORT THE DAY (register K466, opened on Ancestry 5 Sep 2026). It is Ancestry collection 5771 record 81210, "Family Data Collection - Deaths" (Edmund West, comp., 2001), and its ENTIRE content is five fields: Name Ann Arnold / Death Date 1781 / City King William / State VA / Country USA. No day, no month, no underlying record named; the collection's own about-page has been retired by Ancestry. The death fact carries EXACTLY ONE source both here and on tree 8103997, so there is no second witness. And the YEAR is not corroboration either - an uncited aggregation could have taken 1781 from this same will. ★ THE INTERNAL CHECK THAT MAKES THE WILL ITSELF SOUND (register K467). It says "my three daughters Sarah, Mary and Pattie" - a CLOSED count. Joseph and Ann had FIVE daughters, and the tree's own dates, which were not derived from this will, put exactly three of them alive on 11 Dec 1781: [532] Sarah (d. 1784), [1810] Mary "Mollie" (d. 1786) and [537] Martha "Pattie". The two it omits, [533] Hannah (d. 1776) and [536] Ann "Nancy" (d. 1754), are exactly the two the tree has dying before the will. Count, names and omissions all agree. ★ AND THE SAME DATE IS ALREADY IN THIS TREE, IN THE CORRECT FORM, ON THE DAUGHTER. [537] Martha "Pattie" Temple's death reads "after 11 Dec 1781" - and carries no note, no citation and no explanation anywhere in the database. "After" is meaningful only if it came from a document showing her alive that day, and this will names her. Tree-wide that date string appears on exactly TWO people. One document explains both entries, and explains why the daughter's was right and the mother's was wrong: whoever entered this branch read the will, applied it correctly to the daughter, and conflated the will's date with a death date on the mother. DELIBERATELY NOT CHANGED, so it is not lost: THE DEATH PLACE. The tree gives "Presquille, King William, VA"; the one citation gives City "King William" and nothing finer, so the estate name is unsupported by it. It is plausible on other grounds - the family seat, and Keys 1906 puts the couple there - but neither is attached to this fact. A separate decision, not folded into a date correction. A NAME THIS PROJECT SHOULD NOT SILENTLY NORMALISE: the 1904 printed text reads "my granddaughter Mary GWALTNEY" (twice) and "Wm GWALTNEY" as witness - read on the page image, not OCR. The 1967 Diboll typescript renders both as GWATHMEY. Gwathmey is the well-known King William family and [2561] Owen Gwathmey is in this tree, so the typescript's reading is the historically expected one - but the PRINTED SOURCE, which is nearer the lost original, says Gwaltney. NOT RESOLVED, and not resolvable from either copy: the original burned in 1885. Recorded both ways on purpose. ☞ A FOOTNOTE ON THE SAME PAGE BEARS ON AN OPEN QUESTION ABOUT HER SON, and is recorded WITHOUT being cited: "This son, Col. Benjamin Temple, married Molly Brooke Baylor, daughter of Dr. Robert Baylor. Their son, Robert, married Elizabeth Skyren... Their son, Benjamin, married Lucy Lilly Robinson..." [33]'s note leaves open WHICH Benjamin Temple held the Revolutionary commission that Jane Griffith Keys mis-assigned - Ann's son, or a grandson. This 1904 footnote, printed two years BEFORE Keys, puts the "Col." on ANN'S OWN SON. It is still a descendant's compiled statement, so it is an informant, not a record, and nothing is cited to it here.