The Andrew Cross pamphlet on the History of Bethel Presbyterian has already been mentioned in the McClung and Creighton chapters and will come up again in the Carlin chapter.

Andrew Cross listed among the 91 contributors to a minister’s fund in 1769: James Creighton (Crichton), Adam McClung and James Carlin. Adam McClung and Letitia Richardson had a daughter Mary who married James Creighton’s son Robert. Their daughter Delilah married Christopher Slade and their son Christopher married Maria Elizabeth Carlin, great-grand-daughter of James Carlin (who had adopted Maria’s grandfather William). So I sure find it significant that Cross also listed among those 91 contributors a Charles Richardson. Charles may be an outsider among the other Richardsons of Harford County -- as I can find no mention of anyone of that name among the descendants of Thomas or his father or grandfather Lawrence.

The problem is I know nothing about Charles Richardson -- several of that name appear in various early Maryland records, but the date or county seems wrong in all cases. So it might well be an important name to us, but as of now, I couldn’t even begin to speculate as to how.

The St. John’s Parish records have many mentions of various persons named Richardson and by just googling the combination of the surname Richardson coupled with Harford County, it became pretty clear that the most widely documented family of that place -- quite a large one actually -- were the descendants of Lawrence Richardson who came from Taunton, England to Anne Arundel County where he died in 1666. His son Lawrence Jr. came to what became Harford County where he died in 1705. Lawrence Jr. had a number of sons, the most well documented being Thomas (1692-1777) who had a large family. Thomas married Sarah Standiford (there were many marriages between Richardsons and Standifords over several generations).

All of what I just said has been taken from the Internet so I’m not saying it all is proven fact, but most all of the names of Richardsons that I have found in the records of Harford County seem to be references to Thomas or one of his sons or their descendants. So I think the gist of it is true. Nonetheless, I’m not certain I see how Letitia could fit into this family. I have tried to learn a little about Thomas and several of his sons and I just can’t see many theories to pursue.

I don’t know when Letitia was born but she married in 1764 so a ballpark guess would be that she was born in the early-to-mid 1740’s. Even if she married at age eighteen and was born in 1746, I would still guess her father was born before 1726, probably the early 1720’s or even a little before 1720.

So Thomas’ sons -- which supposedly included James born 1723, Thomas 1726, John 1728, Benjamin 1730, Samuel 1734, William 1737 and Vincent 1740 are for the most part ruled out right away. Only James seemed a real possibility -- until I ruled him out, too.

Based on the statement above of Letitia’s possible year of birth and her father’s, actually James Richardson seemed at least a candidate worthy of following up. And then I found that James Richardson (son of the aforementioned Thomas) and his wife Sophia Standiford named a daughter Delilah and she was born in 1746. This really seemed promising -- my reasoning was that perhaps Mary McClung, Letitia’s daughter, named her daughter Delilah after this Delilah, perhaps her favorite aunt?

Things really seemed to be coming together when I noticed that The McClung Family Association provided an exact birth date for Letitia and it dovetailed quite nicely with the marriage date of James Richardson and Sophia. Their marriage was documented at St. John’s Parish. They married 3 Jan 1744 and the McClung group said that Letitia was born 24 Dec 1744 -- so assuming the marriage date was 1743/44, everything just made total sense.

But there are two problems with the theory that Letitia was the daughter of James and Sophia. Many births were recorded for James and Sophia in the St. John’s records and Letitia was not among them. Sometimes people get skipped. But the clincher is that, in his 1776 will, James named his children, names matching the baptism records, and Letitia was not mentioned. I just don’t think, as much as I’d like to, that James and Sophia were Letitia’s parents.

I have come to discount the McClung Family Association assertion that Letitia was born 24 Dec 1744, exactly 20 years prior to the date she married; I think that is a made up date. But her 1764 marriage is fact and based on that I think all of Thomas’ others sons were born too late. James seemed the most viable candidate.

Not much is known about any brothers Thomas might have had or their children, so while Letitia may still prove to be part of the Lawrence Richardson family, I simply have no leads to pursue in that direction.

With everything I wrote above as background and more or less reflecting the chronology of my findings, I then found what may be the most compelling evidence yet. There was an estate inventory filed in 1769 for John Richardson, deceased. The inventory was signed by the two appraisers and three other people were named:

• Isabella Richardson was the administrator of the estate. Typically back then, when a woman was appointed administrator, she was the widow. Note that I had spent some time searching for a John and Mary as possibly Letitia’s parents -- but that was before I found the documents involving Alice (Johnson) Mutchner which listed all the children of Adam and Letitia, namely: Isabella, Mary, Letitia, Jean, Sarah and Alice. And interestingly, I can’t be sure, but it is quite possible that list of John’s sisters was in age order -- Isabella may have been the name of the oldest daughter of Adam and Letitia. My names of children theory should have had me looking for a John and Isabella as Letitia’s parents rather than John and Mary.

• David Johnson and Adam McClung were listed as next of kin. I have to admit I am unable to find a technically accurate statement of who qualified as next of kin when Colonial Maryland estates were administered. I have read it wouldn’t be a man’s wife or children. I have seen many instances where it seemed to be his brothers. But, in this case, I am speculating it was his sons-in-law (though they may have been his brothers-in-law instead).

Confusing matters though, there also was a 1769 estate inventory filed of Robert Richardson, deceased, by Ann and James Richardson (I would guess Robert’s wife and son) and the nearest relations (same as next of kin) were said to be David Johnston and Isabalah Richardson.

Robert and John must have been closely related. Were they brothers or father and son (if so, which was which?). I sort of like the idea they were brothers the best so in that case his next of kin were his brother-in-law David Johnson and his sister-in-law Isabella, widow, by that point, of John Richardson. I do not know in any event why Adam McClung was not also listed. In any event, Robert is related somehow and someday more information may help sort this all out.

So I’m left with a puzzle. There are two plausible explanations of all of this:

• John and Isabella were the parents of Letitia and Alice. The main argument for this theory is that Letitia named her first two children John and Isabella.

• But the case can be made that John was the brother of Letitia and Alice. The arguments in favor of this theory would be based on the fact that David Johnson and John Richardson surveyed their land the same day which sounds more like a brother and brother-in-law coincidence and not as likely a father and son-in-law. Plus my feeling is that next of kin relationships were not children or sons-in-law, rather brothers or brothers-in-law.

• In either case, it would make sense that John’s land went to Alice and Letitia who were either his sisters or his daughters, if the latter meaning there were no other surviving children.

And Robert could be John’s brother in either case.

As I’ve ended other chapters, the search for more information continues.