Global Slavery
Remembrance Day

The most popular question is how do I descend from Henry II and Eleanor Princess of Aquitaine.

Short version has our Family’s Royal Bloodline, Secrets, and Shame.

Henry II, Plantagenet, (King) of England married Eleanor, Queen Consort of both France and England; their son John Plantagenet (King) of England married Countess Isabella of Angouleme; their son Henry III (King) of England married Eleanor of Provence; their son Prince Edmund Crouchback Plantagenet married Blanche of Artois, Countess of Lancaster; their son Henry Plantagenet, 3rd Earl of Lancaster married Maud Chaworth Matilda de Chaworth, Countess of Lancaster and of Leicester; their daughter Eleanor Plantagenet of Lancaster and Countess of Arundel married Richard FitzAlan, 10th Earl of Arundel; their son Richard FitzAlan, 11th Earl of Arundel married Lady Elizabeth De Bohun, Countess of Northampton (Lady Elizabeth’ Magna Charta Lineage) The Baronial Order of Magna Charta's continued relevance has been enhanced by its participation in 1987 with the display and interpretation in Philadelphia of a thirteenth century Magna Charta owned by Ross Perot which helped support the increased interest in America's tradition of freedom arising from the Bicentennials of the Declaration of Independence in that year and the United State Bill of Rights in 1991; by appointment in October 1993 of the Marshal of the Order to the Board of Trustees of the Magna Charta Trust in England; and supporting the founding of the Magna Charta Research Foundation, Magna Charta Education Foundation, and Magna Charta Charity Foundation.)"; their daughter Lady Elizabeth D’Arundelle FitzAlan Duchess of Norfolk married Sir Robert (Gousell) Goushill, Lord of Hault-Hucknall; and their daughter Lady Elizabeth Goushill, Duchess of Norfolk married Sir Robert Wingfield M.P.; and their son Sir John Wingfield, Knight of the Bath married Elizabeth FitzLewis (John and Elizabeth were great-grandparents of Edward Maria Wingfield, The adventurer and first elected president of Jamestown, Virginia Colony in 1607); and their son Sir John Wingfield married Anne Touchett; and their son Sir Lord Anthony Wingfield of Leatheringham (Sir Anthony Wingfield was Esquire to the Body to the King; was Knighted by his royal master, Henry VIII, later made comptroller of the household, and installed at Windsor; a Knight of the Garter on May 3, 1541. Sir Anthony was Captain of the Yeoman 47of the Guard and placed several people in the Tower of London, including Thomas Cromwell and the Earl of Surrey) married Elizabeth De Vere; and their daughter Elizabeth Wingfield married William Naunton; and their daughter Ursula Naunton married Robert Gosnold III (Robert was the uncle to Bartholomew Gosnold, famous founder of Martha’s Vineyard in 1602); and their daughter Elizabeth Gosnold married Thomas Keene, Sr.; and their son Thomas Keene, Jr. (Thomas was the immigrant ancestor (Immigrated in 1653 from England to Kent Island, Maryland and then relocated to Virginia); married Mary Thorley; and their daughter Suzanna Keene married John Garner; and their son Thomas Garner married Mary Bushnell; and their son Vincent Garner married Jemima Williams; and their son Benjamin Garner married Diana Shumate; and their daughter Honor (Anne) Garner married William Chappelear; and their son Elias Chappelear (he was unable to marry Mary (lizabeth) Lawson, Native American, because of a racist law in Virginia, however they lived together for 45 years and had 15 children together. Elias Chappelear and Mary Lawson; and their son Alious Lawson married Adda Bundy; and their daughter Ollie Lawson married Oscar Louis Deane (Oscar the son of Morton Deane was my grandfather, half Black and half White – Mulatto (The Working People of Richmond: Life and labor in an Industrial City 1865-1920, A Valentine Museum exhibition. Despite slavery, Richmond’s Black community formed numerous religious, social and benevolent organizations before emancipation. Black leaders were quick to assert themselves after the Civil War, creating new organizations and attempting to protect civil and political rights. Morton Deane served on the Richmond, Virginia’s City Council in the late 1800’s after spending many years working in Tredegar Ironworks); their daughter Nancy Ophelia Deane and William Veney; had their daughter Lillian Renee Deane married Antonio Benitez, Sr., and their children are Antonio Benitez, Jr., Venita Maria Benitez, Yolanda Mercedes Benitez and Carmen Lillian Benitez.

These are our children:

Jeff Lee Benitez; Antonio Benitez, III; Phillip Sutton; Marquis Benitez; John DeBerry; Peter Isaiah Benitez Harris; Nikkia Benitez; Andrian Benitez; Jamale Benitez Porch; Avery Benitez; Austin Benitez; Jaylen Bryant Sutton and GeGe Sutton.

Long version has our Familys' Royal Bloodline, Secrets, and Shame.
Box24-Casino-Australia.com
Henry II, Plantagenet, (King) of England married Eleanor, Queen Consort of both France and England; their son John Plantagenet (King) of England married Countess Isabella of Angouleme; their son Henry III (King) of England married Eleanor of Provence; their son Prince Edmund Crouchback Plantagenet married Blanche of Artois, Countess of Lancaster; their son Henry Plantagenet, 3rd Earl of Lancaster married Maud Chaworth Matilda de Chaworth, Countess of Lancaster and of Leicester; their daughter Eleanor Plantagenet of Lancaster and Countess of Arundel married Richard FitzAlan, 10th Earl of Arundel; their son Richard FitzAlan, 11th Earl of Arundel married Lady Elizabeth De Bohun, Countess of Northampton (Lady Elizabeth’s Magna Charta Lineage. The Baronial Order of Magna Charta's continued relevance has been enhanced by its participation in 1987 with the display and interpretation in Philadelphia of a thirteenth century Magna Charta owned by Ross Perot which helped support the increased interest in America's tradition of freedom arising from the Bicentennials of the Declaration of Independence in that year and the United State Bill of Rights in 1991; by appointment in October 1993 of the Marshal of the Order to the Board of Trustees of the Magna Charta Trust in England; and supporting the founding of the Magna Charta Research Foundation, Magna Charta Education Foundation, and Magna Charta Charity Foundation.)"; their daughter Lady Elizabeth D’Arundelle FitzAlan Duchess of Norfolk married Sir Robert (Gousell) Goushill, Lord of Hault-Hucknall; and their daughter Lady Elizabeth Goushill, Duchess of Norfolk married Sir Robert Wingfield M.P.; and their son Sir John Wingfield, Knight of the Bath married Elizabeth FitzLewis (John and Elizabeth were great-grandparents of Edward Maria Wingfield, The adventurer and first elected president of Jamestown, Virginia Colony in 1607); and their son Sir John Wingfield married Anne Touchett; and their son Sir Lord Anthony Wingfield of Leatheringham (Sir Anthony Wingfield was Esquire to the Body to the King; was Knighted by his royal master, Henry VIII, later made comptroller of the household, and installed at Windsor; a Knight of the Garter on May 3, 1541. Sir Anthony was Captain of the Yeoman 47of the Guard and placed several people in the Tower of London, including Thomas Cromwell and the Earl of Surrey) married Elizabeth De Vere; and their daughter Elizabeth Wingfield married William Naunton; and their daughter Ursula Naunton married Robert Gosnold III (Robert was the uncle to Bartholomew Gosnold, famous founder of Martha’s Vineyard in 1602); and their daughter Elizabeth Gosnold married Thomas Keene, Sr.; and their son Thomas Keene, Jr. (Thomas was the immigrant ancestor Immigrated in 1653 from England to Kent Island, Maryland and then relocated to Virginia); married Mary Thorley; and their daughter Suzanna Keene married John Garner; and their son Thomas Garner married Mary Bushnell; and their son Vincent Garner married Jemima Williams; and their son Benjamin Garner married Diana Shumate; and their daughter Honor (Anne) Garner married William Chappelear; and their son Elias Chappelear (he was unable to marry Mary (lizabeth) Lawson, Native American, because of a racist law in Virginia, however they lived together for 45 years and had 15 children together. Our Chappelear familiy's are members of the Huguenots Society. But let us get back to this racist law in Virginia that denied our family of many things and I plan to ask why.....

PENAL LAW: A Web

Court Opinions

LOVING v. VIRGINIA

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

388 U.S. 1 (1967)

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE WARREN delivered the opinion of the Court. This case presents a constitutional question never addressed by this Court: whether a statutory scheme adopted by the State of Virginia to prevent marriages between persons solely on the basis of racial classifications violates the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment. [n. 1] For reasons which seem to us to reflect the central meaning of those constitutional commands, we conclude that these statutes cannot stand consistently with the Fourteenth Amendment.

1 Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment provides: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

In June 1958, two residents of Virginia, Mildred Jeter, a Negro woman, and Richard Loving, a white man, were married in the District of Columbia pursuant to its laws. Shortly after their marriage, the Lovings returned to Virginia and established their marital abode in Caroline County. At the October Term, 1958, of the Circuit Court of Caroline County, a grand jury issued an indictment charging the Lovings with violating Virginia's ban on interracial marriages. On January 6, 1959, the Lovings pleaded guilty to the charge and were sentenced to one year in jail; however, the trial judge suspended the sentence for a period of 25 years on the condition that the Lovings leave the State and not return to Virginia together for 25 years. He stated in an opinion that:

"Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix."

After their convictions, the Lovings took up residence in the District of Columbia. On November 6, 1963, they filed a motion in the state trial court to vacate the judgment and set aside the sentence on the ground that the statutes which they had violated were repugnant to the Fourteenth Amendment. The motion not having been decided by October 28, 1964, the Lovings instituted a class action in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia requesting that a three-judge court be convened to declare the Virginia antimiscegenation statutes unconstitutional and to enjoin state officials from enforcing their convictions. On January 22, 1965, the state trial judge denied the motion to vacate the sentences, and the Lovings perfected an appeal to the Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia. On February 11, 1965, the three-judge District Court continued the case to allow the Lovings to present their constitutional claims to the highest state court.

The Supreme Court of Appeals upheld the constitutionality of the antimiscegenation statutes and, after modifying the sentence, affirmed the convictions. The Lovings appealed this decision, and we noted probable jurisdiction on December 12, 1966, 385 U.S. 986.

The two statutes under which appellants were convicted and sentenced are part of a comprehensive statutory scheme aimed at prohibiting and punishing interracial marriages. The Lovings were convicted of violating (i) 20-58 of the Virginia Code: "Leaving State to evade law. -- If any white person and colored person shall go out of this State, for the purpose of being married, and with the intention of returning, and be married out of it, and afterwards return to and reside in it, cohabiting as man and wife, they shall be punished as provided in (i) 20-59, and the marriage shall be governed by the same law as if it had been solemnized in this State. The fact of their cohabitation here as man and wife shall be evidence of their marriage."

Section 20-59, which defines the penalty for miscegenation, provides: "Punishment for marriage. -- If any white person intermarry with a colored person, or any colored person intermarry with a white person, he shall be guilty of a felony and shall be punished by confinement in the penitentiary for not less than one nor more than five years."

Other central provisions in the Virginia statutory scheme are (i) 20-57, which automatically voids all marriages between "a white person and a colored person" without any judicial proceeding, [n. 3] and (ii) 20-54 and 1-14 which, respectively, define "white persons" and "colored persons and Indians" for purposes of the statutory prohibitions. [n. 4] The Lovings have never disputed in the course of this litigation that Mrs. Loving is a "colored person" or that Mr. Loving is a "white person" within the meanings given those terms by the Virginia statutes.

3 Section 20-57 of the Virginia Code provides: "Marriages void without decree. -- All marriages between a white person and a colored person shall be absolutely void without any decree of divorce or other legal process." Va. Code Ann. (i) 20-57 (1960 Repl. Vol.).

4 Section 20-54 of the Virginia Code provides: "Intermarriage prohibited; meaning of term 'white persons.' -- It shall hereafter be unlawful for any white person in this State to marry any save a white person, or a person with no other admixture of blood than white and American Indian. For the purpose of this chapter, the term 'white person' shall apply only to such person as has no trace whatever of any blood other than Caucasian; but persons who have one-sixteenth or less of the blood of the American Indian and have no other non-Caucasian blood shall be deemed to be white persons. All laws heretofore passed and now in effect regarding the intermarriage of white and colored persons shall apply to marriages prohibited by this chapter." Va. Code Ann. (i) 20-54 (1960 Repl. Vol.).

The exception for persons with less than one-sixteenth "of the blood of the American Indian" is apparently accounted for, in the words of a tract issued by the Registrar of the State Bureau of Vital Statistics, by "the desire of all to recognize as an integral and honored part of the white race the descendants of John Rolfe and Pocahontas . . . ." Plecker, The New Family and Race Improvement, 17 Va. Health Bull., Extra No. 12, at 25-26 (New Family Series No. 5, 1925), cited in Wadlington, The Loving Case: Virginia's Anti-Miscegenation Statute in Historical Perspective, 52 Va. L. Rev. 1189, 1202, n. 93 (1966).

Section 1-14 of the Virginia Code provides: "Colored persons and Indians defined. -- Every person in whom there is ascertainable any Negro blood shall be deemed and taken to be a colored person, and every person not a colored person having one fourth or more of American Indian blood shall be deemed an American Indian; except that members of Indian tribes existing in this Commonwealth having one fourth or more of Indian blood and less than one sixteenth of Negro blood shall be deemed tribal Indians." Va. Code Ann. 1-14 (1960 Repl. Vol.).

Virginia is now one of 16 States which prohibit and punish marriages on the basis of racial classifications. [n. 5] Penalties for miscegenation arose as an incident to slavery and have been common in Virginia since the colonial period. The present statutory scheme dates from the adoption of the Racial Integrity Act of 1924, passed during the period of extreme nativism which followed the end of the First World War. The central features of this Act, and current Virginia law, are the absolute prohibition of a "white person" marrying other than another "white person," [n. 7] a prohibition against issuing marriage licenses until the issuing official is satisfied that the applicants' statements as to their race are correct, [n. 8] certificates of "racial composition" to be kept by both local and state registrars, [n. 9] and the carrying forward of earlier prohibitions against racial intermarriage. [n. 10]

5 After the initiation of this litigation, Maryland repealed its prohibitions against interracial marriage, Md. Laws 1967, c. 6, leaving Virginia and 15 other States with statutes outlawing interracial marriage: Alabama, Ala. Const., Art. 4, ï 102, Ala. Code, Tit. 14, ï 360 (1958); Arkansas, Ark. Stat. Ann. ï 55-104 (1947); Delaware, Del. Code Ann., Tit. 13, ï 101 (1953); Florida, Fla. Const., Art. 16, ï 24, Fla. Stat. ï 741.11 (1965); Georgia, Ga. Code Ann. ï 53-106 (1961); Kentucky, Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. ï 402.020 (Supp. 1966); Louisiana, La. Rev. Stat. ï 14:79 (1950); Mississippi, Miss. Const., Art. 14, ï 263, Miss. Code Ann. ï 459 (1956); Missouri, Mo. Rev. Stat. ½ 451.020 (Supp. 1966); North Carolina, N. C. Const., Art. XIV, ï 8, N. C. Gen. Stat. ï 14-181 (1953); Oklahoma, Okla. Stat., Tit. 43, ï 12 (Supp. 1965); South Carolina, S. C. Const., Art. 3, ï 33, S. C. Code Ann. ï 20-7 (1962); Tennessee, Tenn. Const., Art. 11, ï 14, Tenn. Code Ann. � 36-402 (1955); Texas, Tex. Pen. Code, Art. 492 (1952); West Virginia, W. Va. Code Ann. ï 4697 (1961).

Over the past 15 years, 14 States have repealed laws outlawing interracial marriages: Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Indiana, Maryland, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, North Dakota, Oregon, South Dakota, Utah, and Wyoming.

The first state court to recognize that miscegenation statutes violate the Equal Protection Clause was the Supreme Court of California. Perez v. Sharp, 32 Cal. 2d 711, 198 P. 2d 17 (1948).

7 Va. Code Ann. ï 20-54 (1960 Repl. Vol.). 8 Va. Code Ann. i 20-53 (1960 Repl. Vol.). 9 Va. Code Ann. ï 20-50 (1960 Repl. Vol.). 10 Va. Code Ann. i 20-54 (1960 Repl. Vol.).

I. In upholding the constitutionality of these provisions in the decision below, the Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia referred to its 1955 decision in Naim v. Naim, 197 Va. 80, 87 S. E. 2d 749, as stating the reasons supporting the validity of these laws. In Naim, the state court concluded that the State's legitimate purposes were "to preserve the racial integrity of its citizens," and to prevent "the corruption of blood," "a mongrel breed of citizens," and "the obliteration of racial pride," obviously an endorsement of the doctrine of White Supremacy. Id., at 90, 87 S. E. 2d, at 756. The court also reasoned that marriage has traditionally been subject to state regulation without federal intervention, and, consequently, the regulation of marriage should be left to exclusive state control by the Tenth Amendment. While the state court is no doubt correct in asserting that marriage is a social relation subject to the State's police power, Maynard v. Hill, 125 U.S. 190 (1888), the State does not contend in its argument before this Court that its powers to regulate marriage are unlimited notwithstanding the commands of the Fourteenth Amendment. Nor could it do so in light of Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390 (1923), and Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535 (1942). Instead, the State argues that the meaning of the Equal Protection Clause, as illuminated by the statements of the Farmers, is only that state penal laws containing an interracial element as part of the definition of the offense must apply equally to whites and Negroes in the sense that members of each race are punished to the same degree. Thus, the State contends that, because its miscegenation statutes punish equally both the white and the Negro participants in an interracial marriage, these statutes, despite their reliance on racial classifications, do not constitute an individual discrimination based upon race. The second argument advanced by the State assumes the validity of its equal application theory. The argument is that, if the Equal Protection Clause does not outlaw miscegenation statutes because of their reliance on racial classifications, the question of constitutionality would thus become whether there was any rational basis for a State to treat interracial marriages differently from other marriages. On this question, the State argues, the scientific evidence is substantially in doubt and, consequently, this Court should defer to the wisdom of the state legislature in adopting its policy of discouraging interracial marriages.

Because we reject the notion that the mere "equal application" of a statute containing racial classifications is enough to remove the classifications from the Fourteenth Amendment's proscription of all invidious racial discriminations, we do not accept the State's contention that these statutes should be upheld if there is any possible basis for concluding that they serve a rational purpose. The mere fact of equal application does not mean that our analysis of these statutes should follow the approach we have taken in cases involving no racial discrimination where the Equal Protection Clause has been arrayed against a statute discriminating between the kinds of advertising which may be displayed on trucks in New York City, Railway Express Agency, Inc. v. New York, 336 U.S. 106 (1949), or an exemption in Ohio's ad valorem tax for merchandise owned by a nonresident in a storage warehouse, Allied Stores of Ohio, Inc. v. Bowers, 358 U.S. 522 (1959). In these cases, involving distinctions not drawn according to race, the Court has merely asked whether there is any rational foundation for the discriminations, and has deferred to the wisdom of the state legislatures. In the case at bar, however, we deal with statutes containing racial classifications, and the fact of equal application does not immunize the statute from the very heavy burden of justification which the Fourteenth Amendment has traditionally required of state statutes drawn according to race. The State argues that statements in the Thirty-ninth Congress about the time of the passage of the Fourteenth Amendment indicate that the Framers did not intend the Amendment to make unconstitutional state miscegenation laws. Many of the statements alluded to by the State concern the debates over the Freedmen's Bureau Bill, which President Johnson vetoed, and the Civil Rights Act of 1866, 14 Stat. 27, enacted over his veto. While these statements have some relevance to the intention of Congress in submitting the Fourteenth Amendment, it must be understood that they pertained to the passage of specific statutes and not to the broader, organic purpose of a constitutional amendment. As for the various statements directly concerning the Fourteenth Amendment, we have said in connection with a related problem, that although these historical sources "cast some light" they are not sufficient to resolve the problem; "[at] best, they are inconclusive. The most avid proponents of the post-War Amendments undoubtedly intended them to remove all legal distinctions among 'all persons born or naturalized in the United States.' Their opponents, just as certainly, were antagonistic to both the letter and the spirit of the Amendments and wished them to have the most limited effect." Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483, 489 (1954). See also Strauder v. West Virginia, 100 U.S. 303, 310 (1880). We have rejected the proposition that the debates in the Thirty-ninth Congress or in the state legislatures which ratified the Fourteenth Amendment supported the theory advanced by the State, that the requirement of equal protection of the laws is satisfied by penal laws defining offenses based on racial classifications so long as white and Negro participants in the offense were similarly punished. McLaughlin v. Florida, 379 U.S. 184 (1964). The State finds support for its "equal application" theory in the decision of the Court in Pace v. Alabama, 106 U.S. 583 (1883). In that case, the Court upheld a conviction under an Alabama statute forbidding adultery or fornication between a white person and a Negro which imposed a greater penalty than that of a statute proscribing similar conduct by members of the same race. The Court reasoned that the statute could not be said to discriminate against Negroes because the punishment for each participant in the offense was the same. However, as recently as the 1964 Term, in rejecting the reasoning of that case, we stated "Pace represents a limited view of the Equal Protection Clause which has not withstood analysis in the subsequent decisions of this Court." McLaughlin v. Florida, supra, at 188. As we there demonstrated, the Equal Protection Clause requires the consideration of whether the classifications drawn by any statute constitute an arbitrary and invidious discrimination. The clear and central purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment was to eliminate all official state sources of invidious racial discrimination in the States. Slaughter-House Cases, 16 Wall. 36, 71 (1873); Strty of measures which restrict the rights of citizens on account of race. There can be no doubt that restricting the freedom to marry solely because of racial classifications violates the central meaning of the Equal Protection Clause.

11 Appellants point out that the State's concern in these statutes, as expressed in the words of the 1924 Act's title, "An Act to Preserve Racial Integrity," extends only to the integrity of the white race. While Virginia prohibits whites from marrying any nonwhite (subject to the exception for the descendants of Pocahontas), Negroes, Orientals, and any other racial class may intermarry without statutory interference. Appellants contend that this distinction renders Virginia's miscegenation statutes arbitrary and unreasonable even assuming the constitutional validity of an official purpose to preserve "racial integrity." We need not reach this contention because we find the racial classifications in these statutes repugnant to the Fourteenth Amendment, even assuming an even-handed state purpose to protect the "integrity" of all races.

II. These statutes also deprive the Lovings of liberty without due process of law in violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men. Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival. Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535, 541 (1942). See also Maynard v. Hill, 125 U.S. 190 (1888). To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discriminations. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State. These convictions must be reversed. It is so ordered.

MR. JUSTICE STEWART, concurring. I have previously expressed the belief that "it is simply not possible for a state law to be valid under our Constitution which makes the criminality of an act depend upon the race of the actor." McLaughlin v. Florida, 379 U.S. 184, 198 (concurring opinion). Because I adhere to that belief, I concur in the judgment of the Court.

MY RACIST FAMILY:

The Garner’s and the Chappelear’s continue to write their volumes of books saying in them that my great, great, great grandfather Elias Chappelear died alone, dismissing his fifteen (15) children with Mary Lawson of Virginia -- --. Some really interesting emails from my cousin Jay Garner. As resent as 2006 I got in touch with a bloodline cousin to express my feelings, here's a glimpse of a few emails from J. Garner: May 11, 2006 ï likely owe you an apology not for the factualness of my response, which was all true, as far as I know, but for perhaps sounding too glib in dismissing your obvious pain of having been shunned (or your family shunned) by white cousins. Not my intention. I could say a lot more about race relations in America, but I would likely just mess up again in any response. Regards JG May 10, 2006 from J. Garner: George Washington’s great grandfather, Col. John Washington, is my 10ggrandfather. The Garner Keene book is Garner Keene Families of Northern Neck Virginia by Ruth Ritchie & Sudie Rucker Wood, originally published in 1952 by the Jarman Printing Co in Charlottesville, VA. It was reprinted by the Higginson Book Company, 148 Washington St, P.O. Box 778, Salem, MA 01970 Phone 978.745.7170 in the late 1990s or early 2000. I would call them if you would like to secure a copy, although there may be copies available at the library or thru Inter-Library loan. Elias Chappelear is mentioned in the book on p. 77.

Here's my grandfather's WILL. The will of William Chappelear, Elias father, does mention Elias several times:, William Chappelear, of the count of Rappahannock, I give to my beloved Wife, Ann Chappelear, the farm upon which I now live, 250 acres, together with such farming utensils, horses, stock, etc. To my daughter, Mary Welch, one-ninth part during her natural life, the same to go to her daughter , Anne Best. The residue of the estate give to my wife, Ann, for life, then to be divided among my children. To my son, Benjamin, one-fourth part; to my daughter , Maria Palmer, one-fourth part; to my son , Elias, one-fourth part; to my daughter , Anne Raeger, and to my son-in-law, Henry Raeger, one-fourth part, but should my daughter, Anne Raeger, die without heir, her part to be divided among the above named children in such proportions as above named, so that my daughter, Elizabeth de Latourandais, and her heirs shall receive an equal share with my son, Benjamin, my daughter, Maria Palmer, and my son Elias. My daughter , Mary Welch, to receive only one-half a share during her life and at her death to go to her daughter, Anne Best , and her heirs. But my desire to be expressly understood that my daughter, Elizabeth de Latourandais, and her heirs are not to receive any other portion of the estate give to my wife , Anne Chappelear, except that part given my daughter, Nancy Raeger. My estate both real and personal to be divided among my following named children: my daughter, Mary Welch; my son, Benjamin; my daughter Maria Palmer; my son, Elias Chappelear; my daughter , Nancy Raeger; my daughter, Elizabeth de Latourandais. I charge my daughter, Maria Palmer, with the sum of 253 dollars; my son, Benjamin, the sum of 363 dollars; my daughter, Mary Welch, the sum of 130.25 dollars; my son Elias, with the sum of 642.85 dollars; my daughter, Nancy Raeger, with the sum of 961.13 dollars. I desire by ex'ors to pay to my daughter , Elizabeth, for her sole and separate use, the sum of 400 dollars, 250 dollars is to be paid out for building her a dwelling house, to be erected upon land set aside for her by a deed of trust. My son, Benjamin, my sole ex'or". Signed: William Chappelear (seal). Witnesses: A Turner, Robert Deathrage and J. W. Fletcher. Division of the estate showed that William owned 477 1/2 acres of land and twenty-one slaves (W.B. A, pg. 47 , Rappa'ck Co. -- --My family continue to disown Elias family offspring’s just because he fell in love with Mary Lawson, a Native American Indian do to Virginia’s racist law and according to knowledge he was disinherited which is a direct violation to his fathers will and the order a court of law.

Here's an email I got from a Garner cousin: Email: May 9, 2006 �I am rather more dubious about my lines connection to the main G-K line than some of my cousins, but I have it as I got it (for now). The interesting thing is my line is the line of Cactus Jack John Nance Garner, the VP under FDR during his first two terms Email: On May 10, 2006 GARNER, JOHN NANCE (1868-1967). John Nance (Cactus Jack) Garner, the thirty-second Vice President of the United States, the first of thirteen children of John Nance and Sarah (Guest) Garner, was born on November 22, 1868, in a log cabin near Detroit, Texas. J. Garner.

Email: May 9, 2006 I located the web site of your cousin Dr. James Hamilton. Do the descendants of Elias & Mary Lawson go by the surname of Chappelear or by Lawson-Chappelear? I see it as the former in some of his reports published at his site but he captions pics of his mother and maternal grandparents as the latter. Look forward to hearing from you Jay Garner)";

Now let us continue with my Family and our Royal BloodLine by Venita Benitez:

My grandfather Elias Chappalear and Mary Lawson; their son Alious Lawson married Adda Bundy; their daughter Ollie Lawson married Oscar Louis Deane (the son of Morton Deane; their daughter Nancy Ophelia Deane and William Veney; their only daughter Lillian Renee Deane who married Antonio Benitez, Sr., their children are Antonio Benitez, Jr., Venita Maria Benitez, Yolanda Mercedes Benitez and Carmen Lillian Benitez.

These are our children:

Jeff Lee Benitez; Antonio Benitez, III; Phillip Sutton; Marquis Benitez; John DeBerry; Peter Isaiah Benitez Harris; Nikkia Benitez; Andrian Benitez; Jamale Benitez Porch; Avery Benitez; Austin Benitez; Jaylen Bryant Sutton and GeGe Sutton.

There is so much more that I would like you to know about us but the story is way too long and detailed that I need to take a break from it all for a few years before my book in 2010. The past three years of studying this has been very painful for me.

With Love, Venita Maria Benitez, United States of America.

Let me share with you my cousin Dr. Hamilton's research on much more about our family. The late Dr. Hamilton, my wonderful and beloved hardworking cousin. His mother Ruth, father's name was James H. Lawson (Chappelear). James H. Lawson (Chappelear) brother Alious Lawson (Chappelear) was my GGGrandfather. Before Dr. Hamilton passed away in February 2008, Dr. Hamilton sent me what his mother wrote about her son Dr. Hamilton and I would like to share some of her love for her son with you.

She begins with "Some of My Royal Blood Lines by Ruth Aura Lawson-Chappelear Hamilton Proctor.

"My son, Dr. James G. Hamilton, is researching my family tree. Thus far, his research has revealed that I have blood lines leading to the following Royal Dynasties: Angelus, Anjou, Ardennes, Arpad, Babenberg, Blois Burgundy, Capet, Carolinian, Comments, Franconia (Salian), Guelph (Welf), Hohenstauffen, Hohenzollern, Lascaris, Limbourg, Merovingian, Namur, Normandy, Piast, Premyslid, Saxon, and Valois.

My royal ancestors include Emperors and Empresses, Kings and Queens, and reigning Princes and Princesses of the Kingdoms of: Anglia, Germanic England; Antioch (Asia Minor city in Pisidia now Turkey); Aragon, Spain; Austrasia (Germanic Gaul now France); Austria; Bavaria, Germany; Bohemia, Czechoslovakia,; Ancient Britain, Bulgaria; Burgundy, France:

The Byzantine (Eastern Roman) Empire; Castile, Spain; Colchester, England; Cologne, Germany; Constantinople (now Istanbul, Turkey); the Dalcassians in Ireland; Dalriada in Ireland & Scotland; Deira in England; Denmark; Dublin, Ireland; England, Great Britain; Egypt; France; Franconia, Germany; Germany; Heruli, England; Holland (The Netherlands); the Holy Roman Empire; Hungary; Hy Kinsale in Ireland; Ireland; Israel in Palestine; Italy; Jerusalem and Judah in Palestine; Kent, England; Kumans; Leinster, Ireland; Leon, Spain; Lorraine, France; Man and Mercia, England; Munster, Ireland: Naples, Italy; Navarre, Spain; Neustria (in Gaul now France); Northumberland, England; Norway; the Picts (in Coledonia now Scotland); Poland; Pomerania (formerly a Prussian province in Germany, now in Poland); Powys, Wales; Provence, France: The Saxons of Germanic England; Saxony, Germany; Scotland; the Scythians (Sakas), who migrated from Central Asia to Russia; Sicily, Italy: Soissons, France; Sweden; Transjurane (Upper Burgundy), France; Tyre, Lebanon; Vandals (Germanic North Africa); Wales; and Wessex and Wight, England.

Other Royal Blood Lines -- In addition, I have royal blood lines to the ruling count and countesses, granddukes and grandduchesses, dukes and duchesses, and margraves of: Angouleme and Anjour France; Argyllshire, Scotland; Austria; Auvergne, Bar, Blois, Boulogne, and Brittany, in France; Catalonia, Spain: -- Champagne and Dreux, France; Flanders, Belgium; Holland, the Netherlands; Kiev, Russia; Luxembourg; Toulouse, France.

I also have blood lines to Gallo Roman Senators and Consuls, Viking Leaders, Dukes, Marquesses, Earls, Viscounts, Counts, Barons, Spiritual Lords, Companions of William "the Conqueror" (as well as to him), Magna Charta Sureties, Noblemen named in the Magna Charta, Original Knights - Order of the Garter and Order of the Bath, leaders of the first and subsequent Crusades, Crusader Kings of Jerusalem, and to Saints in the Christian Church.

Connections to the Holy Bible: Furthermore, I have blood lines to Biblical Kings of Israel, Judah (including the Southern Kingdom), and Tyre. My Biblical ancestors include: Jezebel and her husband Ahab (112GGP); Solomon, King of Judah and Israel, and his wife Naamah (116GGP); David, King of Jildah and Israel, and his wife Bathsheba (117GGP); Ruth (The Book of Ruth, afterwhom I was named) and her husband Boaz (120GGP); Noah (of the Ark) and his wife Naamah (140GGP); Methuselah (142GGF); and Adam and Eve (149GGP).

Extensive Connections to the British Royal Families --

"My son has already traced over 50 blood lines to Kings of England. By two of these lines, Edward III (Plantagenet), King of England 1327-77, is my 16th GGF. Tracing the ancestry of Queen Elizabeth, the current resigning monarch of England by the blood lines of the Kings of England, Edward III is her 18th GGF. This makes the queen my 17th cousin twice removed and she is related to me (Ruth Hamilton-James) more than 50 times. Kings of England traditionally intermarried with other Royal Families. Having already found 54 blood lines to the Kings of England, I can multiply by up to 54 all the Royal lines they lead to. My blood lines to Royalty, as well as the Peerage, multiplied many times because of their tendency to marry cousins.

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION

Queries in genealogical publications are an excellent way of obtaining information about your ancestors. In Part I of "Tracing Your Family Tree" (The Melting Pot, Vol. 1. No 3, published in Simsbury, CT) my son wrote about his query in - Nutmegger, published by the Connecticut Society of Genealogist.

He received two very helpful replies to this query which sought the maiden name of Mary, wife of Thomas Garner (my 4th great grandfather) of Stafford (now Fauquier) County, VA. One response came from Florence /vest Ellison of San Antonio, TX and the other was from Ruth Albright Kysor of Junction City. KS, both of whom are my sixth cousins.

From them we learned that Mary was the daughter of Charles Bilshnell of New England. Although the same Bushnell genealogy is in Hartford, CT and Richmond, VA, I have not as yet determined my relationship to Horace Bushnell of Connecticut. Our blood lines could meet in England instead of here in America.

Thomas was the son of John Garner and Susanna Keene of Garner's Creek, Westmoreland County, Va. John was a neighbor and friend of Col. John Washington, the great grandfather of General George Washington, our first President. Over the years there was a close relationship between the Garner and Washington Families.

Spencer Garner (my second cousin twice removed) married Alice Bailey Washington and General Washington signed the security agent for their marriage bond. I need more information to determine the relationship between George and Alice.

The General's brother, John Augustine Washington, married Hannah Bushrod (my third cousin fourth removed), daughter of Col. John Bushrod and Mildred Corbin of Bushfield, in Westmoreland County, VA. John and Hannah's son, Supreme Court Justice Bushrod Washington (my fourth cousin third removed) inherited Mount Vernon upon Martha Washington's death. As a result, the last four private owners of Mount Vernon were my collateral cousins and are buried there.

Another Garner relationship was the overseer for the slaves on the President's plantation. And George Washington has his first Headquarters in (Little) Washington, VA in Rappahannock County were my family lived. No doubt, further research may reveal other connections to George Washington.

John Garner (my fifth great grandfather) was also the ancestor of John Nance Garner, Vice President of the United States during the first two administrations of President Franklin Delano Roosevelt. The Vice President was from a branch of the Garner's that lived in Prince William County, VA.

It is possible that John Nance descends also from John and Rachel (Henry) Garner of Anderson County, TN. Mrs. West sent me information about an Obediah Garner ( 1790-1822) who was married to Jane, daughter of Isaac and Jane Nance.

The information that Mrs. West sent was extensive and I am deeply indebted to her for her assistance. Included were pedigree lines that connected our Keenes to ten (10) Magna Charta Barons. After two years of additional research my son found other Magna Charta Barons, and connections to the Royal Families of Europe and Soviet Block countries.

Our family history is being researched by my son Dr. James G. Hamilton. Listed on the following page are the Hereditary Societies he has already found eligible ancestors for: To join them we need to find sponsors or be invited by the members, and may have to overcome discriminatory barriers."

HEREDITARY SOCIETIES:

Below is the list of hereditary societies that my son has already found eligible ancestors for membership in:

• The Baronial Order of the Magna Charta (1898)
• The Colonial Order of the Acorn (1894)
• The Descendants of the Illegitimate Sons and Daughters of the Kings of Britain (1950)
• The Guild of S. Margaret of Scotland (1975)
• The Huguenot Society of the Founders of Manakin in the Colony of Virginia (1922)
• The Jamestowne Society (1951)
• The National Society Americans of Royal Descent (1908)
• The National Society Colonial Dames XVII Century (1915)
• The National Society Daughters of the Barons of Runnemede (1921)
• The National Society Sons and Daughters of the Pilgrims (1908)
• The National Society Southern Dames of America (1962)
• The Order of Americans of Armorial Ancestry (1962)
• The Order of the Crown in American (1898)
• The Order of Three Crusades 1096-1192 (1936)
• The Plantagenet Society (1902)
• The Society of Descendants of Knights of the Most Noble Order of the Garter (1929)
• The Society of The Ark and The Dove ( 1910)
• The Somerset Chapter Magna Charta Barons (1932)
• The United Daughters of the Confederacy (1894)

I, Venita Benitez, am currently a member of the Wingfield Family Society at www.wingfield.org please learn all about the first President of America in May, 1607, our family, the voyage and the settlement of Jamestowne, the New World (America).