|
Date: Tue, 3 Jan 2023 07:28:01 -0600
Richard L. Austin, Curator Dear Mr. Austin, Please be aware that the "Braswell Genealogy" sold at the St. Luke's Giftshop is a seriously flawed work and should be immediately withdrawn from the shelves. It has already misled a number of novice genealogists; its continued availability will doubtless misguide still more.While I'm not suggesting malefic motives for its author, the late Roy B. Braswell, his memeo "Following the Braswells on the move Westward in America, 1600-1973" (Rev.), as a work of fradulent genealogy deserves to be ranked with those of Gustave Anjou. I urge you to examine the work for yourself and apply the accepted rules of historical evidence. Right away you will see that it is innocent of footnotes, references, index, or bibliography. The author's beliefs are presented as fact in this hodgepodge of half-truths and guesses, foisted on a well-meaning giftshop staff by Roy's zealous relatives. All recognized Braswell genealogists since 1973 are unanimous in viewing "Following the Braswells..." as a dangerous fiction and quite frankly never expected it to have this much influence. Among contemporary researchers who share my opinion are Eunice Young and Nona Williams (nona@nonawilliams.com), editor of our genealogical quarterly, "Braswell Branches." Closer to your home but now either retired or deceased, the original circle of Braswell researchers from whom the author derived most of his data also supported this view. Among the circle's members were Katherine Edwards, Deputy Clerk of the Isle of Wight Circuit Court; James MacLamroc, donor of the brass pew plaque honoring our immigrant ancestor; Dr. Hugh B. Johnston and Bill Fields, also of North Carolina; Irene Braswell Kiker of Sumter, South Carolina; Pal Spencer, Jessie R. Wadley, and O. Klute Braswell, and myself. Please free us from the hopeless task of trying to refute all of Roy Braswell's misinformation . If you cannot persuade the giftshop staff to remove it, at least ask them to add this cavaet or move the thing to the historical fiction shelf where it belongs. Thanks.
Carey Bracewell,
I must apologize for the length of this dissertation, however, it is necessary to answer a re-newed litany of charges by Carey Bracewell. It is not enough to simply reject his allegations as simply spurious, but must be categorically refuted so that no doubt may remain as to a) the validity of my rebuttal and b) the incredulous intent of Carey Bracewell. If his research, as it pertains to Robert Bracewell Jr. and his wife Suzannah, is proved faulty in each cited instant, then any other claims he may make must surely be viewed as suspect and of little or no value until fully and thoroughly document. In response to the letter by Carey Brazil' (Bracewell) to Richard L. Austin, Curator of the Historic St. Luke's Church in which he: 1. Impugns the integrity of Dr. Roy B. Braswell, my uncle. 2. Requests the Gift shop stop selling Uncle Roy's book. 3. Accuses Uncle Roy of "using" other people's material in his book. 4. States that the book is "fraudulent genealogy". I must, first of all, set the record straight on the method in which he refers to Roy B. Braswell in his letter, in an apparent attempt to strip him of any credibility. It should read Dr. Roy B. Braswell, Ph.D. It should be noted that he, Carey, said he was not suggesting a malefic motive for the author. According to the Webster Dictionary the word malefic means "productive of evil," he went on to describe the work as fraudulent genealogy which ranks with those of Gustav Enjou. Again Webster Dictionary states the word fraudulent is characterized by, involving, or proceeding from fraud. And the word fraud means deceit or trickery perpetrated for profit or to gain some unfair or dishonest advantage. Libelous words indeed! What profit? What gain? Uncle Roy was assisted in the work by his partner in life, Irene Braswell. And yes, that wonderful lady is still alive and well! Aunt Irene has her Masters Degree in Education, therefore, it should be readily apparent they both were well qualified to write a book, any book. After retirement they both taught on Indian reservations free of charge. Their only desire was to teach. It was after this that Uncle Roy and Aunt Irene wanted to leave something behind for the Braswell Clan that might beneficial. So, they retired from teaching in the school systems, as we know it, and then taught and gave of themselves freely. So where is the profit? Where is the gain? So where is a lifetime of service considered to be an unfair or taking dishonest advantage? Putting him in the same sentence with Gustav Anjou is, in my opinion, a mean spirited, shameful insult. In his letter to Mr. Austin, Carey requested that he "...move the thing to the historical fiction shelf where it belongs."
Speaking of fiction, I ask you to consider this: In a communication
to a Geoff Riggs of South Wales, dated 12 December , 2000. Carey states: According to his deposition taken in Isle of Wight County Court 9 Jan 1689/90 {Will & Deed Book 1, Vol. 2, p. 300), JOHN RIGGS was born 23 Feb 1675. My guess is that he immigrated as an indentured servant and was sold into the service of JOHN COLLINS as a houseboy. The cited documents shows that RIGGS and MARY COLLINS, wife of JOHN COLLINS were present when one JOHN WHITAKER made his nuncupative will. Evidently RIGGS stayed on with the COLLINS household after his term of indenture expired. Certain it is that he managed to ingratiate himself with RICHARD TOWLE(Y?), paramour of MARY COLLINS' daughter, SUSANNAH. Why? TOWLE named his "loving friend" JOHN RIGGS his executor in his will, signed "this 5th day of 9ber{November}, 1692 {Deed Book 1, 133}. RIGGS apparently also won over SUSANNAH and RICHARD's daughter, ANN, by whom he had a son, JOHN RIGGS (Jr.) Some background information: "... Rev. BRACEWELL had two sons in America, ROBERT, JR (b.ca. 1650) the elder. A member of the ruling class in Virginia, the Reverend was elected to the Virginia House of Burgesses in 1653. Vicar BRACEWELL-- or more likely, his designated children's guardians-- arranged a suitable marriage for his ROBERT JR, namely SUSANNAH BURGESS, a wealthy planter's heiress and daughter of the abovementioned MARY COLLINS. The marriage failed. Indeed, there is no evidence it was ever consummated. ROBERT, JR sold his patrimony in Isle of Wight County as soon as he came of age and left the county, never to return. SUSANNAH consoled herself in the arms of RICHARD TOWLE, a poor farmer from her neighborhood by whom she had at least five children who were given the name "BRASWELL". Her eldest daughter, ANN, seems to have formed an extra-legal alliance with the aforementioned JOHN RIGGS by whom she had at least one child, JOHN RIGGS (Jr), the grandson named in SUSANNAH's 1714 will (Will Book 3, p. 304). Daughter ANN and grandson JOHN RIGGS are listed together in that document, each given only a shilling . As mentioned in the E-mail letter cited, Geoff, further evidence of ANN "BRASWELL's" connection with JOHN RIGGS is her witness signature on the 1695 will of JOHN NEWMAN, as "ANN R BRASSELL" (IW Wills, Deeds, etc. Vol. 2, p. 368). This is all I know about this JOHN RIGGS. Hope your readers find him interesting. Carey"
"Notice that he starts out with "my guess" and then
goes on to make hard, definitive statements.
NOTE: The rebuttal to
this letter
can be found by going back and selecting "Letter Three." Carey also said there is no documentation. Yes, please do check it out. Uncle Roy, teacher that he was, listed his sources of information as he found them in a methodology designed for the student to follow, pick up and go forward on their own. For those that may be interested please feel free to visit videoranch.net/braswell.htm and check out the index of over 3,000 names, a complete table of contents, time line with a copy of supporting documents. Using the search engine type in the name of Carey Brazil (as he was know then. He abandoned the Brazil name later.). If you do this you will find that Carey Brazil contributed to Uncle Roy's book for which he was acknowledged and given proper credit. He, Carey (Brazil) Bracewell, further stated that "All recognized Braswell Genealogists are unanimous in viewing "Following the Braswells..." as a dangerous fiction..." To this I can only say "offer up your proof" by line, paragraph and page. I think we all would like to see, in writing, what each of these "All recognized Genealogists" might have to say! Who, or by what authority, grants recognition and credentials to genealogists? I really would like to know. What is the established criteria in becoming a "recognized" genealogist? It is also noteworthy that, apparently, he is fond of listing others in an effort for validation in an effort to support his claims or charges. This raises another question "What are Carey's credentials?" What is the extent of his provable formal education? Consider this: my daughter, with some friends, while visiting a Psychic Fair around 1991, may have inadvertently found an important clue! In the $5.00 section at the Ramada Inn-North, Austin, TX she picked up a business card from one of the tables because it said "Carey Bracewell, Spiritual Astrologer" (scanned in for documentation purposes only). Is it possible that, apparently, Carey's remarkable insight into the personal and intimate behavior of Robert and Susannah et al was divined through Psychic Revelation? Carey (Brazil) Bracewell gives a list of other genealogists, but failed to mention the titles of their books, other works and who published them and when they were published. Again, I would like to know. Incidentally, it should also be noted that Carey is an equal opportunity critic, for example: From: CBracewell@aol.com " Eunice, in her characteristic brutal honesty, had less kind words to say about Dr Roy B. Braswell and O. Klute Braswell {in re my description of the errors that had crept into contemporary Braswell research}: "...there is so much BRASWELL garbage out there, each one giving a different ancestry for the same branch of the family. Roy's data is very bad, and Klute's isn't much better. He stopped answering me long ago." Note: He couldn't answer for he died many years ago. So much for staying current.
From: CBracewell@aol.com What is the common denominator here? They all wrote and published at least one book! It is vitally important to realize and understand that when they did their work the computer, as we know it today, had not been invented. The internet was unheard of and the vast number of data bases containing genealogical information didn't exist. These people did it the hard way. It should be realized that they provided a starting point for others to follow and to them, the real pioneers, we owe a debt of gratitude. They did, indeed, have the courage of their convictions and never claiming they knew it all, put their information in print and published their findings as they found them at that time. It should be mentioned that any published work about the ever-changing genealogical information is bound to have some errors. Only someone not published will have none! Further, it must be remembered that when Uncle Roy and Aunt Irene completed the book 28 years ago it was "type set" by literally cutting stencils on an "old timey" standard typewriter; mimeographed, collated, trimmed and bound by them with tired, but eager, ink stained hands. For this they only asked $5.00 per book from those that could pay, which did not even cover actual cost. Knowing them, and now I'll make a guess, they gave away far more books than for which they were paid. But, nevertheless, it was in print and is still sought after to this day. Theirs was truly a labor of love in the truest sense of the word! Carey stated in his letter to Mr. Austin that "Closer to your home but now either deceased or retired, the original circle of Braswell researchers from whom the author derived most of his data also supported this view." ( Again, another inaccurate statement. Uncle Roy and Aunt Irene drove thousands of miles visiting court houses, libraries and cemeteries.) He failed to mention that in Uncle Roy's book there is a listing of the cemeteries and war records for you to view. An interesting side bar - if and that is a big "If" Uncle Roy's work was obtained from the "original circle of genealogists and "if", as Carey claims, the work is fraudulent, does it not then follow that their work was also less than credible? Did they do fraudulent work? And, it must be remembered, that as Carey points out, he was in that original group!
In another letter, together with others, which will be found very
soon in the Rebuttal Section, Carey mentions that none of Uncle Roy's
supporters have produced a single new document. This is not true. In
the 1983 edition of Uncle Roy's book there are 219 pages. In the
continuation of the book, 2000 Edition there are over 300 pages
including a search engine that allows you to monitor any changes to a
particular page by simply by clicking on the word "Monitor"
(found in the found listings next to the URL). This means that
anytime that particular page is updated you will automatically
receive an email notice concerning and providing a hyperlink to the
updated page and have the update without having to search for it. So
much for Carey's charge that "RBB partisans have never created a
single new document to support Roy's dubious conclusions, but resort
to invective to prove their case." If answering his charges
leveled at any of my relatives is invective then what are his
baseless charges to be called?
Finally, the purpose of Carey's letter to the Curator, is unclear
because the Gift Shop, the last I heard, has no Braswell books to
sell! Carey has stigmatized Uncle Roy and others so many times I
can't help but wonder why he is again renewing the same old charges
now. What's the point behind his latest epistle? One could speculate
that, apparently, there is such little uncensored or known traffic
going to Carey's list that he had to create some activity? Look to the eyes of the accuser! |
||