As told here many times before, we do not know the exact origin of our earliest known ancestor Baldwin Lunsford (~1764 - 1850) of Fauquier County Virginia.. Sadly, there are family trees on genealogy web sites that claim his lineage, but sadly they fail to offer credible proof of these connections through primary source citations. It amazes me still how people will blindly cut-and-past genealogy data from one web source to the next without bothering to confirm any of the primary records. That is why commercial sites like Ancestry.com are best used for primary source retrieval while the family trees uploaded there need to be viewed with a lot of skepticism.
So with dead ends on both the primary record and DNA fronts, I reached out for some professional help. A fellow researchers referred me to Don Wilson. He was know in the DMV as the "Tree Doctor" for his work helping folks with genealogy research in the The Ruth E. Lloyd Information Center (RELIC) of the Prince William County Public Library. Since Fauquier County is derived from Prince William County, it makes sense to use their resources when researching our Lunsford family for events prior to 1759.
Don was very helpful and we exchanged emails over several weeks. It got to the point where I was making plans to go visit with him and plot next steps, but sadly, he passed away in March 2023. So I thought it fitting to compile our email exchanges with the following summary.
The evidence suggests that Amos Lunsford, who died in Fauquier County in 1784, was probably Baldwin's father. Amos was established in Fauquier by 1778, when he appears in the Upper Parish tithable records. His estate inventory listed two enslaved women, Dinah and Sarah. In 1807, Rodham (aka Rhodham) Lunsford, in settling matters concerning Amos's estate, released his claim to Sarah, stating that Baldwin Lunsford was to take her and her increase. This strongly suggests that Baldwin was an heir to Amos and established an important connection between Baldwin and Rodham.
Additional evidence supports the possibility that Rodham and Baldwin were brothers. In the 1785 Fauquier census, Rodham's household contained two white persons, possibly Rodham and his unmarried brother Baldwin. Rodham was born about 1762, and Baldwin about 1764. Being about two years apart is reasonable for sibling births. The Fauquier records show Rodham by 1784 and Baldwin by 1787. At that time aged 22 and 23 years. There also is a 1786 tax entry in which Rodham received credit for the tax on a free male over 21—almost certainly Baldwin. Rodham subsequently married Clement Ball, while Baldwin married her sister Ann Ball. Baldwin was also recorded as an adult male in Fauquier tax records by 1786–87.
Two Lunsford men of nearly identical age marrying two Ball sisters is exactly the sort of pattern that strongly suggests these Lunsford men were brothers. And there is contemporary family context: Benjamin Ball's household appears in the 1785 Fauquier census immediately near the Rodham Lunsford entry. Benjamin Ball later became Baldwin's father-in-law. Likewise, Baldwin’s first-born son was named Benjamin.
Linking the Fauquier clan to the Virginia Northern Neck counties is the next level of research to be undertaken. Due to geography, it is reasonable to assume that at some point various Lunsford families migrated up the Rappahannock River toward Northern Virginia.
What about William Lunsford and Mary Waugh, the so called parents from all the on line trees? The proposed pedigree is:
William Lunsford (c.1722–1781) × Mary Waugh
↓
Sarah, Mary, Benjamin, Hannah
↓
Rodham / Baldwin, etc.
There is legitimate evidence that William and Mary were a family unit. John Waugh's 1742 will explicitly mention Mary Waugh Lunsford and gives her land. And the Overwharton Parish register records children of William and Mary as:
Sarah, b. 1744/45
Mary, b. 1747
Benjamin, b. 1749/50
Hannah, b. 1751
So, William Lunsford and Mary Waugh unquestionably appear to have been a real couple. But there is no discovered primary record connecting their supposed son Baldwin to the Baldwin who appears in Fauquier at that time. And the chronological gap is troublesome. William and Mary’s documented children stop in 1751, whereas Baldwin was born around 1764. That doesn't disprove the relationship—there could have been later children—but it makes the pedigree dependent upon an undocumented assumption.
A point to keep in mind regards a second Rodham Lunsford living in the Northern Neck and contemporary to the Fauquier clan, the 1791 will of Rodham Lunsford of Lancaster County names his sons John, Rodham, and Lenton, plus daughter Judith Carter and her children. There is no Baldwin. Moreover, this younger Rodham married Sally Cox in Lancaster in 1794, whereas the Fauquier Rodham was already married to Clement Ball at that time. These were two separate Rodham Lunsfords that often are confused in the various online genealogies. Therefore, the very common online pedigrees connecting Baldwin → Rodham Sr. of Lancaster should be discarded unless new evidence emerges that documents a true connection.
An AI-assisted land record search identified a potentially important King George–Stafford connection. James Lunsford received a 129-acre patent in 1705. While in 1769, John Lunsford and Elizabeth conveyed another 129-acre tract to William Rowley. This strongly suggests that the two records may concern the same tract and raises the possibility that John Lunsford inherited or otherwise acquired James Lunsford's property. The missing link between James and John remains to be discovered. This King George/Stafford group is particularly noteworthy because the same neighborhood included the Rowley, Rosser, Bryan, Owens, Jeffries, Grigsby, and related families. These associations provide a possible geographic and social connection between early King George/Stafford Lunsfords and the later Fauquier family as these surnames appear in later Fauquier records.
Another important clue is Thomas Lunsford, who appears in the Prince William County rent roll of 1735–36. His exact relationship with James, Amos, or the later Fauquier family is unknown. The chronological and geographical sequence—King George/Stafford → Prince William → Fauquier—is plausible, but the generations connecting these families have not yet been demonstrated.
As noted below, our DNA research provides an independent avenue for testing these hypotheses. I have established a distinctive paternal Y-DNA line among documented descendants of Baldwin, but it has not yet demonstrated a connection to the early King George/Stafford Lunsfords due to the absence of male Lunsfords available for testing. Testing of documented male descendants of Rodham Lunsford of Fauquier, and those of James or John Lunsford of King George, would provide powerful evidence for or against these proposed relationships.
Present conclusion: The most reasonable working reconstruction is Amos Lunsford → Rodham and Baldwin Lunsford, with Amos probably being their father.







.jpg)
.jpg)


















