OKELLEY-L ArchivesArchiver > OKELLEY > 2010-04 > 1270902471
From: "" <>
Subject: Re: [OKELLEY] Thomas and James O'Kelly
Date: Sat, 10 Apr 2010 12:41:30 -0000
This is a Message Board Post that is gatewayed to this mailing list.
Message Board URL:
Message Board Post:
As suspected there are public records on the Chetwode Baron of Oakley family. I have found records back to 1569 when the name was then spelled Chetwood. I do not find the Chetewode spelling that Maclenny used in his book. To complicate things, I have found at least one record where it appears a Colley married into the family and took the Chetwood name. I think this is important because if he can do it, then one would think anyone who married a daughter might also be permitted to do it. For at least three generation of Chetwode (name changed around 1668) males used and reused the names Thomas (3), John (2), and Phillip(e) (2) sometimes ending in "e". There was only one William, John's youngest brother. John's only son was named Touchett upon his birth then a week later was baptized as Phillip without the "e". John, the reported father-in-law of Rev James O'Kelley had Touchett, Ann, Mary, and Abigail. It should also be noted that John had a younger brother, number 2!
in the family, name Thomas who was a Captain in English Army. I have all their birth and baptism dates. Ann and Abigail marry Englishmen and their records go off with their husbands but Mary has no records after her baptism. One could assume this is the daughter that married William O'Kelley but she could have married just about anyone by the name William and they could have taken the name "Oakley" which later got transformed into "O'Kelley.
There was an infant born and died (1601) to the first Thomas Chetwood that was named Jeames but James doesn't appear anywhere in the Chetwood/Chetwode family but that would fit with the common naming scheme of the day. Just as one of Rev James sons was named after his paternal grandfather William, it would follow that William's first born, James, could be named after his paternal grandfather, or William's father who I suspect was also James O'Kelley. Since Mary was a Chetwode and that family reused the above names with each generation it would also be possible that any additional males born to the William and Mary O'Kelley line would be one of those names of which Thomas is one of them. Maclenny reported that one of William's son as a minister and the other an army captain, maybe the second born of William and Mary were named after the maternal uncle Thomas and like his uncle, Thomas O'Kelly spent time in the military before coming to America. Lots of speculations but !
it does fit with your belief that there was an earlier James. Now how to find that missing Mary Chetwode.
Now this introduces a problem I have ran into before when I try to join Thomas and James together. There is nine to thirteen years between Thomas (1925) and James (1934 or 5 or 8). So if this were to be true, the line would be something like the below:
James O'Kelly -> Ireland ? abt 1675 (a James O'Kely arrived in Virginia 1672, father?)
William O'Kelley -> Ireland abt 1695 Mary Chetwode 3/19/1698 Oakley England - She would have been 36 when Rev James was born in 1734, 40 if we go by his gravestone. Could it be that Rev James lied about when he was born and he was actually 10 years older or is it possible there was another James born to William and Mary abt 1724 and he died and they named Rev James who was born in 1734 to continue the name? If Rev James was born in 1724 and or there was an earlier James who died then Thomas was born in 1725 everything would fit much better and that would make Mary 26 and 28 when she bore her two sons or 28 and 36 if we accept the dates of 1725 and 1734.
Rev James and my Thomas O'Kelley Ireland/Virginia births abt 1734/5 -1725?
Rev James sons -> John named after his maternal grandfather
Rev James Son -> William named after his paternal grandfather
Thomas first born son-> Thomas abt 1750 married late about 1784 (34) first born Francis abt 1785
Thomas second born George -> No Records (where did George come from? King George?
Thomas third born William D -> No Records
Thomas fourth born Charles -> abt 1756 VA (my ancestor) birth date has to be give or take a couple of years, no more than 2 in either direction or it really messes up the descendents for which records do exist.
As I was finishing this logn post it occurs to me tht here is additional possibility that Rev James was actually born in 1738 as his gravestone indicates and he was the great grandson of Baron John Chetwode of Oakley and not the grandson. 1738 is 40 years after Mary Chetwode's birth. John Chetwode was buried in 1733 so he would not have even been alive when Rev James was born. This would introduce the more likely possibility that your James and my Thomas could both be sons of William and Mary and Rev James descended and was a grandson of William and Mary. The dates all fit much better with this theory.
The author of this message may not be subscribed to this list. If you would like to reply to them, please click on the Message Board URL link above and respond on the board.