Jon,

Thanks for your lengthy reply. I am still left with some doubts about the lineage descending from Joseph Ring of Ringfield Plantation. You say that his son, Thomas, (allegedly the founder of the subsequent Ring line in the South), was born after his father's 1698 will and so he is not mentioned there. The National Park Service booklet about Ringfield Plantation and the Ring family does not mention any son, Thomas, but does give the text of a 1702 addendum to the will in which Joseph Ring leaves a bequest to his new daughter, Mary. As I understand it, your view is that this citation in the NPS booklet is an error, and that the reference to "my Daughter Mary ... to be paid her ... when She Shall arrive ...." are all misquotes and should rightly refer to a son named Thomas. Can this addendum to Joseph Ring's will be located and visually checked? It is difficult to believe that the NPS booklet author would have made three feminine references in error (Mary ... her ... She) when he really meant to refer to a son.

What is the other evidence you have to show that Thomas was the last child born to Joseph and Sarah Ring of Ringfield Plantation? Might he not be a completely different Ring from another line of descent? Or perhaps a son of the largely undocumented Joseph, Jr.?

I understand the point you make about why Sarah Berkeley Ring would name a second daughter (from her marriage to Walker) Mary if she already had a daughter named Mary Ring. The most likely explanation is that the infant Mary Ring died before the birth of her mother's later daughter -- who then received the same name of Mary, with a different surname.

Jon, I admire the work you have done here and I have no axe to grind or point to make against your research. You are the expert here, not me. I only need more evidence that the Thomas Ring link is a real one. So far, I don't see it.

Thanks.

Franz Martin