Was John Bynum I’s wife Rosamond Blow?

 

In a word: No. 

 

The source of this claim dates back to the 1920s when it appeared in a genealogy provided by a LeRoy Kramer to The Compendium of American Genealogy.   This genealogy appears to be almost entirely bogus.  Not only was no proof offered for the “Rosamond Blow” claim, but the rest of that genealogy contains major errors.  Perhaps the most striking is that Mr. Kramer was not actually descended from John Bynum at all.  I suspect Mr. Kramer used as his sources the handful of printed materials available at the time, and never actually delved into the Surry County records.  Unfortunately, once a genealogy (bogus or not) appears in print, some readers will award it a degree of  legitimacy that it doesn’t deserve.  Despite numerous warnings about the accuracy of the Compendium by every reputable genealogical organization, it continues to be reprinted and researchers continue to use it.

 

If we look closely at the records of Surry County, we see no evidence whatsoever that Rosamond was likely to be a Blow.  In fact, the evidence argues against it. 

 

·      The only contact between George Blow Sr. and John Bynum Sr. is the sale of land in 1663.  That is not evidence of anything.  The fact that John Bynum’s children knew George Blow’s children twenty-odd years later can be explained by the fact that they were next-door neighbors from 1663 to 1679.  We don’t need to hypothesize a marriage to explain that.

 

·      There is not a single contact between John Bynum Sr. and the children of George Blow. That also argues against their being brothers in law.  [There are contacts between the children of John Bynum Sr. and those of George Blow, but there’s another explanation for that - see below.]

·      The ages simply don’t work.  George and Margaret Blow had sons born in 1654 and 1664, and Margaret had another child after George Blow’s death.  John Bynum’s children were born between 1664 and 1666.  It seems very unlikely that George and Margaret Blow could have had one child (Rosamond) already having children of her own about the same time George Blow Jr. was born.  [Remember this the 17^th century, not the 21^st.]  Furthermore, Margaret Blow was still young enough to have borne a child after her husband’s death.  Given the relatively narrow window of childbearing age in the 17^th century, it seems extremely unlikely that she also had a daughter old enough to be Rosamond.

·      The ages don’t work #2.  We don’t know how old George Blow was, but it seems entirely possible that he was actually younger than John Bynum.  We know that Margaret Blow remarried to a man born in 1632.  Surely she herself was not much older than that, and perhaps was ounger.  That would make John Bynum considerably older than his supposed mother in law.  

·      The timing doesn’t fit either.  If John Bynum had a daughter old enough to marry Richard Blow (a reasonably good theory), she would have been older than either of her brothers.  That means that John and Rosamond Bynum were probably married before they arrived in Surry County.

 

In short, there is no evidence at all that even hints that Rosamond was a Blow.  And there is some evidence that suggests that it is very implausible.

 

 

Was Richard Blow’s Wife a Bynum?

 

On the other hand, there does seem to be a connection between the Bynum and Blow families – but one that occurs in the next generation.  It is quite possible, even fairly likely, that Richard Blow, the son of George Blow, married a daughter of John and Rosamond Bynum.

 

Richard Blow (see Blow Family of Surry County) lived next door to John Bynum Sr. from 1663, when he was about 9, until 1680 when he sold out and moved to Pidgeon Creek a few miles west.  At about the same time, John Bynum Sr. sold his land and moved a few miles south – thus separating the two families for the first time in several years. 

 

By 1685, perhaps as early as 1681, Richard Blow was married to a woman named Elizabeth.  After his death in 1687, Elizabeth remarried to Robert Grice and bore him several children.  Robert Grice’s 1720 will left land to “my well beloved couzen John Bynum” (meaning the son of John Bynum Jr.).  Although “couzen” could have meant several different relationships, the only possibility in this case was that it meant “nephew”.  So there are only two possibilities: either Grice’s wife was a Bynum or John Bynum Jr.’s wife was a Grice.  Of those two possibilities it is far more likely that Grice’s wife, and therefore Richard Blow’s wife, was a daughter of John and Rosamond Bynum.  Robert Grice is the only Grice in Surry, appearing first in 1689 – there is no sign of any parents in the records, much less brothers or sisters.

 

The idea that Richard Blow, then Robert Grice, married a sister of James and John Bynum has some support.  Both Bynum brothers are listed in the tithables with the Blow brothers in 1685-7, several miles from John Bynum Sr.  All are apparently living on land owned by Richard Blow.  George Blow would later sell part of that land to John Bynum Jr. who would continue to live there for several decades.  In 1689 John Bynum Jr. and Robert Grice are listed together in the tithables, about the same time Grice married Richard Blow’s widow.  Thereafter, Robert Grice and John Bynum Jr. are neighbors for several years.  All this doesn’t prove they were related to one another, but in the context of Robert Grice’s will it supports the theory that Elizabeth was a Bynum.