Search billions of records on Ancestry.com
   

PART I.

 IV. HENRY ROYER, SON OF III. CHRISTOPHER (?)

 
IV. HENRY ROYER, p. 601, moved to Ohio about 1818. As his
brother, IV. Goerge Royer, was born in Lancaster Co., Pa., he likely
was also. As to his parentage, see the preceding note. He died a
short time after settling in Ohio, when his children were small, so
that they never learned of their ancestry. The children were for a
time among strangers. The mother, whose maiden name we have not
learned, later married a Flory, when it seems that to some extent at
least, she gathered her children together agin. She had no children
by Flory. Henry Royer had at least six children:
 
Page Name Birth Death
 
602 V. Polly Royer
602 V. Elizabeth "
603 V. Abraham "
603 V. John " Mar. 24, 1814 Mar. 12, 1879
605 V. Henry " Mar. 9, 1816 Jan. 28, 1893
614 V. George " In 1817 or, 18 Apr. 9, 1897
 
CHAPTER I.
 
V. POLLY ROYER, p. 602, m. Isaac Schmidt, a farmer, in Darke
Co., Ohio. They had children, but we have secured no record of the
family.
 
CHAPTER II.
 
V. ELIZABETH ROYER, p. 602, m. Jacob Kurtz, who died south of
Union City, Ind. They were members of the Brethren Church. They
had children but we have also failed to get a record of her family.
She is said to have had sons. Abraham and John, another son and
a daughter.
_______
 
in the faith of the Brethren, and this fact would account for the two sons
being members of the church. The death of the father, young, the re-marry-
ing of the mother and the removal of the sons to Ohio would also account large-
ly for the loss of connection with the main Royer tree. We have no proof
that the name of the father of these two brothers was Christopher; but we
know from church records that two Christopher Royers, and married, were
in Lancaster Co., and were of about the age to be the father of these broth-
ers; and as said, there were not many other Royers of that time in Lanc. Co.
not accounted for. We are well satisfied that one of these Christophers was
a son of II. George Royer. We might also mention that II. Samuel Royer had
yet a son III. Henry mentioned in a Lancaster deed, who so far as his chronolo-
gical setting is concerned might have been the father of these brothers, but
we have no indication of his existance other than the mention of him on this
deed. With these our views the descendants of IV. Henry Royer and of IV.
George Royer must draw their own conclusions. No record in the Lancaster
Co. court-house, so far as we are able to find, sheds any further light on the
matter. See further remarks on IV. George Royer, p. 615
 
602
Homepage     Table of Contents     Indexes     Next Page