Orphan lines, by assigned definition here, can be any lines with ancestral OR descendancy connection problems. They will invariably lack hard evidentiary documentation like bibles, church or probate records, to specifically identify parentage.
1. WILLIAM BARKLOW, is taxed 19 Aug 1800 in Fayette Co.,KY.
2. WILLIAM BARTLOW appears in an 1806 Lexington, Fayette Co.,KY listing of residents.
3. WILLIAM BARKELOW is enumerated in the 1810 Federal Census of Kentucky, in Lexington, Fayette County(p.11). Both William and wife are over 45 years, but their five children are all quite young. One female(daughter?) is 10-16yrs; 3 females are 0-10yrs; and the one male child is 0-10 years. Are these their own children, or are they grandchildren(i.e.,children of a deceased son or daughter)?
4. MARGARET BARTLOW appears in Woodford County(p.122) in the 1820 Federal Census of Kentucky. The number of children, their sex and ages appear to fit the profile for Margaret being the widow of the William BARKELOW listed in 1810 Fayette County, assumed to be now deceased.
There are two males listed with Margaret BARTLOW, ages 18-26yrs and 10-16yrs. The older can be assumed to be the 0-10 year-old in 1810, narrowing his birthyear to 1800-1802, while the other's must have been born in late summer of 1810 because he was not listed in 1810 but is at least 10 in 1820.
5. MARGARET BARTLOW appears in Franklin County in the 1830 Federal Census of Kentucky(p.122). Her age is listed as 70-80, giving only a slightly clearer picture of her age than previous censuses. Her birthyear, between 1750-1760, has in no way, locked down her relationship to the children in her care in 1810, except that if hers, four of the five were born while she was in her 40's. The fact she was at least 50 in 1810 and could have been closer to age 60 adds to the speculation the children were probably her grandchildren.
6. ELLEN BARTLOW is listed in Woodford County,Kentucky in 1840(p.224), and again in Millville, Woodford County in 1850, age 43, as Ellen Barklow. The spelling as "Barklow" does not necessarily infer a regression, but merely the census taker's auditory interpretation. There is an 80-90 yr.old female residing with Ellen, who may be Margaret, no longer the head of household.
The tendency of the surname spelling to alliterate from Barkelow to Barklow to Bartlow gives credence to this line being related to the Hunterdon Co.,NJ Barkelow line. The pattern has been remarkably consistent in that regard. Unfortunately, the supposition does not expose any obvious candidates, either of known Barkelow lines with unidentified children, or by the process of elimination.
The primary problem is finding an ancestor born before 1740 among those Hunterdon County Barkelows who could be the father of a William Barkelow born prior to 1760. Unfortunately, he would almost assuredly have to be a son of James Barkelow,Sr.(1698-1780) to qualify, and therefor cannot be because they are all accounted for.
This could lead to three possibilities: 1) William Barkelow is descended from a Richmond County,NY Barkeloo branch; 2) The William Barkelow listed in the 1810 census represents a "cross-over" branch, possibly a Burkelow line from Maryland or Delaware; or, 3) William Barkelow is not related to any of the Van Borculo lines, which would seem to be only a distant "possibility".
| More Bartlow Orphan Lines |
|---|
| Home Page | Bartlow Sub-Directory | Directory |
|---|