Thanks for the correction on the 2nd Arthur. I jumped to a conclusion, and I know better. My only excuse is that I'm preparing to attend Samford Univ.'s IGHR this month, and I am feeling rather distracted at present. I checked the copies I have of Guilford grantor/grantee indexes, and don't see any conveyances from one Arthur to another. I have tried to work on the larger Forbis family at times in the past, and it gives me a headache after a while.

I know what you mean about Rev. Rankin. I am sure he meant well, but he made some surprising mistakes. I can't still can't get over a pastor's assumption that all families within a reasonable distance of BPC must have been members there, regardless of the Quaker groups in their midst. Surely he wasn't oblivious to them? Particularly in Guilford... And then he confused the Scots-Irish Dick family with the Quaker Dicks/Dix group, and we know for a fact that they were not related. DNA has proved that. Rev. Rankin concluded that William Dick (b. c. 1735) was a son of Nathan Dicks, despite the fact that Nathan's son William was born a different year, died a different year, and had a different wife and children ... I wondered why he concluded that, and even checked his manuscript at the UNC Library, but he did not note sources (surprise, surprise).

I had a dear great-uncle, who was a real sweetheart of a guy, and the family tree he put together was an absolute mess -- with one man getting married at the age of 11, etc.

Anyway, I don't have time to check deeds right now for any clues about the two Arthur's, but I hope I can do that later this summer.