Beall Family Genealogy Forum
I still have that database you sent me years ago. I do not believe the BEALLs of MD were the same family of BELLs found in the OPR of St. Andrew's, Fife, though. That theory is based on the belief that the four BEALL brothers of MD had the same given names of the four OPR BELL brothers, William, Alexander, James, and Andrew. But there is no William in early MD to match with the other. In my opinion, the Andrew of colonial MD was NOT a BEALL, but a BELL (see below *). That leaves only two identical common names in the equation. We know that Robert was definitely a BEALL brother in MD yet no Robert appears in the OPR. This discrepency was conveniently explained away that he was possibly adopted (this is called trying to make the puzzle fit the pieces).Then DNA analysis came along and proved that Robert was indeed a BEALL brother. I also find it curious not one of the BEALL brothers named a son Alexander after their alleged father. But they did all name one John.
This Andrew Bell has been purported to be a brother of the MD Beall brothers Alexander,James,and Robert.For lack of evidence other than a coincidence of first names this theory is doubtful.Here is something that throws more doubt on the story.On the paperwork that served as packaging/envelopes to his will and administration papers his name is spelled "Andrew Bell".Another clerk neatly transcribed his will spelling the declared name and signature "Andrew Bell".However,the administration papers written in poor penmanship by James Gibson has his name spelled "Andrew Beall",at first.Then,"Beall" has 5 diagonal lines drawn through it and "Bell" is written in next to correct his mistake.He made quite a few other errors on the page and corrected them with scribbles or lines drawn through them,also.At this point in time when all the Bealls were spelling their name as such,it looks to me as if he knew that Andrew was not a Beall, but rather a Bell.
Notify Administrator about this message?