Nancy Dodge is correct to question the Carpenter history. We can't say there is anything wrong, but some things certainly do seem suspicious, or not correct. I believe that the will of William Carpenter, the immigrant, can be given very simply:
"To my wife Elizabeth Carpenter all my estate as long as she liveth and at her death to return to Catherine Proctor, excepting two Negro boys. I give to John Carpenter one and William Carpenter his younger brother one, and to Andrew Carpenter the half of the mill. One young Negro to my brother John Carpenter."
The will was written very hurriedly as the court testimony shows that William Carpenter had been kicked by a horse and was not expected to live long. John Carpenter, his brother, fetched Richard Burdyne and John Floyd to be witnesses to the will. Richard Burdyne wrote and provided some help to William in the bequests. Since John, William, and Andrew received a distribution from the estate of John Carpenter, the brother of William, they are said to be the nephews of William. It has always bothered me that the fourth son of John Carpenter, Michael, received nothing from William's bequests.
The will was written 4 Oct 1745. Michael Carpenter had his first child baptized on 20 Nov 1761, which is only sixteen years after William's will. Therefore, it seems extremely probable that Michael was born before 1745. Else, we have a case that a sixteen-year-old boy is married and bringing the first of several children for baptism. If Michael were living, why was he not left a bequest along with his brothers? Richard Burdyne testified that he reminded William to leave something to his brother John. I would imagine that Richard Burdyne would have been aware that Michael was being left out. This has always bothered me. There are other points in the Carpenter history, but I will cover than later. The will and the testimony it invoked are interesting.
For years I wondered who Catherine Procter was. B. C. Holtzclaw wrote that she was obviously an undefined relative. It turns out that she was not. She was the mistress of William and appears to have lived in the same house with William and his wife Elizabeth. Catherine seems to have been the boss in the house.
John Carpenter, the brother of William, contested the will saying that it had been improperly drawn. The court took testimony from Richard Burdyne and from John Floyd, the two witnesses. I never saw a decision from the court but the property fell to John Carpenter, not to Catherine Procter. Miss Procter married Henry Tillery, and their son Joshua, as the heir of Catherine, gave a power of attorney to Thomas Dillon to recover the Carpenter estate. Apparently, no recovery was made.
(29 Jul 03)
We gratefully acknowledge the work of John Blankenbaker who published over 2,500 Germanna History Notes via the Germanna-L@rootsweb.com email list from 1997 to 2008. We are equally thankful to George Durman (Sgt. George) for hosting the list and republishing the notes via rootsweb.com.