I certainly appreciate all the research notes that have been posted. I have one wall that I keep hitting over and over: John Hicks. Simply put, I have a tough time accepting that Claiborne Hicks (husband of Elizabeth Keesee) is the son of John Hicks (born 1703) .

While not impossible, it's difficult to accept that John and Mary Hicks had six kids while they were in their 20's, then waited 30 years to have a seventh child, Claiborne. This scenario presents a couple of problems, depending on which birthdate you settle on for John's wife, Mary.

Some of the Hicks descendants list her birth year as 1717, which would have made her around ten years old when the first of their children were born.
Another researcher, for whom I have the upmost respect, solves that problem by listing 1707 as her birth year. However, it solves one problem while creating another - that would make Mary a more reasonable ago at the birth of her first six kids, but would require her to be 56 when Claiborne was born.

Whichever is the correct year for Mary's birth, that leaves us with the problem of "old man" John. Regardless of Mary's age, John would have been 60 when Claiborne was born. While those ages hardly put them in the same class as Abraham and Sarah, it still pushes credulity.

And then why would they "take a break" for few decades between children?

Another issue I have with the will is the order in which the children were listed: "Henry Hicks and John Hicks and Mary Hicks and Nathanil Hicks and Clayborn Hicks and Susannah Hicks and Jesse Hicks." While there is no ironclad rule as to what order the names should be listed, the most natural and logical method would have been chronological. However, Claiborne - which we all seem to believe was probably the youngest - is dumped there in the middle.

Is it possible with the plethora of Hicks roamng around Virginia in the late 18th century/early 19th century, that the Claiborne, born 1763 and husband of Elizabeth Keesee, is NOT the same Clayborn listed in John Hcks' will? Or could it be that this will is NOT the will of John HIcks, born 1703, as we all suppose?