Susan:

As I review your prior posts about the ASHMORE connection, I see that I had misremembered or misunderstood what the primary records seemed to show.

From what I garner from the images of the Walter ASHMORE Will dated 23 Nov 1790, this Walter made legacies to his wife Cleranah, to daughters Margaret, Mary and Ellinor, and to sons William and Walter.

The wording of the Will would seem to indicate that each of the daughters was then unmarried, and therefore in all likelihood each of the daughters was still probably a MINOR in 1790.

Walter ASHMORE's 1790 Census record seems to show:

Walter ASHMORE: 2 - 1 -- 4 -- 0 - 0 [York, SC 1790]

Thus ONE of Walter ASHMORE's sons would seem to be age 16 or more, while the other was UNDER age 16.

Overall, what I garner from this household composition is that the Walter ASHMORE named may have been a very young man.

* * *

Later, we see records relating to the probate of Walter ASHMORE's Will, as well as an indication as to the revocation of probate.

One reading of this data would seem to me to suggest that Jesse ROPER, Jr., had married the widow of a Walter ASHMORE, Jr., named Hannah.

But another reading which might actually make somewhat MORE sense is that Jesse ROPER, Jr., may have married the widow of the Walter ASHMORE whose Will is dated 23 Nov 1790. This Walter ASHMORE's widow is shown in the records to be named Cleranah. It isn't a great stretch to conclude that she might be known as Hannah ASHMORE, particularly given that Cleranah would have been a generally unfamiliar name to most.

Realize that with an indication that only ONE of Walter ASHMORE's sons was over age 16 in 1790, the distribution of ages of the other children might be quite young, especially if Cleranah ASHMORE was a second wife.

Walter ASHMORE seems to be the ONLY ASHMORE shown to be residing in either York, SC, or Mecklenburg, NC, in 1790. Other than a John ASHMORE residing in Greenville, SC, he is the ONLY ASHMORE in NC or SC.

The Walter ASHMORE, age 26 to 44, shown to be residing in Moore County, NC, in 1800, is the ONLY ASHMORE shown statewide in NC in 1800. Perhaps he is unrelated. But he also might very well be the son named Walter ASHMORE, still living in 1800 and consistent in age with the male age 16 or more in 1790.

A William ASHMORE, age 26 to 44, appears enumerated in the 1800 Census for Greenville, though this may be a son of the John ASHMORE shown to reside in Greenville, SC, in 1790:

John ASHMORE: 2 - 1 -- 2 -- 0 - 0 [Greenville, SC 1790]

A "Wal ASHMORE" appears in the 1810 enumeration for Greensville:

Wal ASHMORE: 0 - 0 - 0 - 1 - 0 -- 3 - 0 - 1 - 0 - 0 -- 0 - 0 [Greenville, SC 1810]

The Wal ASHMORE would seem to be age 26 to 44.

* * * * *

If Walter ASHMORE's children were mostly minors in 1790, his specific legacies to the various minor children would certainly have been rather problematic. Giving individual children identified pieces of livestock that might not survive to the child's majority (or in the case of hogs) might need to be butchered for the family's more immediate nourishment, could have been rather problematic.

The revocation of a Will is a rather severe and unusual action for a court to take and probably wouldn't have been undertaken either lightly or over strong opposition of the legatees. But to the extent that Cleranah ASHMORE was the named sole executrix and consented, and that the provisions were found to be unfair and oppressive to the children, setting aside the Will and simply SELLING Walter ASHMORE's remaining property and settling even shares on the children might have been quite equitable and generally agreeable to all as fair. If one or more of the children died before reaching majority, this might add some further complications, suggesting the necessity of a further administration in respect of each child, despite the very small size of the estate.

It seems to me that it requires very little in the way of inference to infer that Cleranah ASHMORE was called Hannah ASHMORE or Hannah ROPER in some other records. It would seem to me to require a bit more of a leep to assume that Walter and Cleranah ASHMORE's son named Walter had married and also died before 1795, coincidently leaving a widow named "Hannah."

If Hannah is also a young widow, she may very well be connected in some other way. For example, she might also be a FINCHER.

* * *

Some additional insight might be obtained by ascertaining WHEN and TO WHOM each daughter married.