The times dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1903-1914, 1913-09-28

In our last paper we came TO the
conclusion that the descendants OF
John Roife and George Yeardley-all
and every one OF them, whether male
or female or Of any name Whatsoever
should inherit equally the reputation
and distinction OF these gentlemen
and be known as the third families
OF Virginia.
The Yeardley family shared the same
quite coincidence. Sir George
fcardley had two sons but in the
third generation. as in the case OF
Rolfe, there were only daughters, and
the name became extinct. Now comes
another serious question: Are the
descendants Of the founders OF these
+. f. VS. bearing names different
from that Of the founder entitled to
be called the second or third families
of Virginia? This Is a very nice qucs-
ton, and liable 10 be treated differ
entity by two classes OF people.
The verdict given in the case OF
Yeardley would also apply TO the case
OF Rolfe. We solicit the opinions OF
our readers. They would be very in
teresting. OF course, the descendants
OF John Rolfe and Sir George Yeardley
would without hesitation reply-no
matter If their names were Smith.
Jones, Brown or Robinson-"Of course
we are the third family. because we are
descended thus and So"
On the other hand, the broadminded
(0. far-seeing host (?) undesccnded
from the aforesaid John and George
would Indignantly reply: How absurd
To claim third familyship' when, for
generations the name has been ex-
tinct" We can see that the Thomas
S1 VnraS'' frc fD Nm "a.
the John Ioncses and the Billy Smiths
can be John Rolfc and George Ycard-
leys, we cannot see. To he n second
and third family is at least to bear
the surname of its founder. What is
the consensus Of opinion on this sub
jcct" 1t really should not be left to
the decision OF the genealogical editor,
whose judgment Is necessarily be-
fogged by continual existence amidst
dust anG ashes.
The genealogical editor thinks that
the most infinitesimal particle OF the
blood of John Rolfc or George Yeard-
ley should entitlc the happy possessor
to amy claim which Sir George or John
Rolfe could give, no matter what the
name Of the owner of this precious
globulc.
To he descended on not To be de-
seconded is the only question, The
small matter Of 4 patronymic makes
no difference. y female child gets as
much paternal blood as n male child.
SO what's in name? This is tho
opinion OF the genealogical editor. but
tit is of Il submissive nature and not
ut all like that historic person who
convinced against her will is of the
same opinion still"
However. rs the genealogical editor
thinks. that a rose b. any other name
smells quite as sweet. the genealogical
editor counts all descendants OF Rolfc
and Yeardlcy r. +. " g.
The Yeardiey Eerealogy has been
splendidly prepared by the late II. T..
tpshur. and rs the pamphlet is scarce
we Will publish II in installments
We transcribc this eenealogy from
that valuable pamphlet prepared with
n Upshur. Of Nassawaddox. Va, and
I'VE take pleasure. until we are con-
vinced TO the contrary, of calling all
of Sir Georges descendants one of the
third families of Virginia. We assure
th.m professionally that 1t would. be
vain and useless to give way to fool
ish repinng, because they arc not
Thomas Savagcs or John proctors. In
the dispensation of this vast universe
we must all fall into our places, and
those OF tho third place should be
devoutly thankful that they are not OF
the fourth place. and the first and sec
ond families OF Virginin should struE.
sic for proper humility; for IL