Was Margaret Lane the daughter of Thomas Lane of Bedford County?

The question of whether Margaret Lane, first wife of William Turner Gaulding (1752–1841) and daughter‑in‑law of Samuel Gaulding, belonged to the Lane family of Bedford County has long been unresolved. Although no direct record names her parents, a growing body of geographic, chronological, and associational evidence suggests that she may indeed have been part of the same Lane family documented in Bedford County during the 1770s.

A key piece of evidence appears in the Layne–Lain–Lane Genealogy, which identifies John Lane Sr. of Virginia and his sons John Lane Jr. (b. 1741, d. 1815, Wilson County, Tennessee) and Thomas Lane. These brothers lived in the Bedford County region during the same period that the Gaulding family migrated westward from Goochland into Amelia, Prince Edward, and finally Bedford. The Lane family’s presence in Bedford is confirmed by a 1774 survey entry:

“Surveyors Record Book 2 (1754–1795), page 190, “6 December 1774, survey for Thomas Lane,(6) 400 acres of land situated in Bedford County on both sides of Little Whipping Creek, adjoining lands of Samuel Gaulding, Daughterty, etc.”  (2)

This record places Thomas Lane and Samuel Gaulding as immediate neighbors, a significant detail in eighteenth‑century Virginia, where families frequently intermarried within their immediate geographic cluster. The Lane genealogy further confirms that Thomas Lane was the brother of John Lane Jr., both sons of John Lane Sr., establishing a well‑documented Lane family unit living precisely where the Gauldings resided.

The following notation is found in the Virginia Land Office, patent No. E. p 409

"200 acres granted to Samuel Gaulding in Bedford County, Virginia, signed Thomas Jefferson" and also from the Land Office File 1727-1859 Virginia "To Samuel Gaulding, 1780, in Bedford County "200 acres on both sides of the north fork of Little Whipping Creek."

Thomas Lane had 400 acres surveyed in 1774 and Samuel Gaulding had 200 acres surveyed in 1780.  This was Bedford County until Campbell County was formed in 1782.

Is the Thomas Lane who had property adjacent to Samuel Gaulding the same Thomas Lane who married Mary Stratton?

The Layne–Lain–Lane Genealogy (Gateway Press, 1980) (1) identifies Thomas Lane, son of John Lane Sr., as living in Bedford County, Virginia, during the 1770s.  The 6 December 1774 survey for 400 acres “on both sides of Little Whipping Creek adjoining lands of Samuel Gaulding” fits exactly within that timeframe and location. (10) Mary Stratton’s husband, Thomas Lane, is documented in the same region before the family’s later migration westward.

This is from p. 257 of the Lane Genealogy. (10)

2. Family Connections - The book further notes that Thomas Lane was brother to John Lane Jr. (1741–1815), both sons of John Lane Sr. of Goochland and Bedford. This Thomas married Mary Stratton, daughter of Edward Stratton III of Henrico/Goochland, linking two Tidewater families that moved into the Piedmont together. That marriage is consistent with the Bedford County landholding pattern and the Gaulding adjacency.

3. Associational Evidence - The Lanes, Strattons, and Gauldings all appear in overlapping survey books, tax lists, and land clusters in Bedford and Campbell Counties. The proximity of Thomas Lane’s tract to Samuel Gaulding’s land strongly suggests that this Thomas was the same man later documented as Mary Stratton’s husband — part of the same New Kent → Goochland → Bedford migration corridor.

4. No Conflicting Record - No other Thomas Lane of the right age and social standing is known in Bedford County in the 1770s. The absence of a competing candidate strengthens the identification.

5. Genealogical Assessment - Under the Genealogical Proof Standard, the conclusion is probable but not proven.

All known evidence — geography, chronology, family relationships, and migration pattern — supports the identification, but a definitive link (such as a deed, will, or marriage record explicitly naming Mary Stratton as wife of the Bedford surveyor) has not yet surfaced.

Margaret Lane, first wife of Samuel Gaulding’s son William

The possibility that Margaret Lane belonged to this family is strengthened by several factors. First, the geographic proximity is compelling: the Lanes and Gauldings lived on adjacent tracts along Little Whipping Creek in the 1770s. Second, the chronology aligns perfectly. Margaret was likely born between 1760 and 1770, a period during which both John Jr. and Thomas Lane were of childbearing age. Third, the surname Lane is relatively uncommon in Bedford County outside this specific family cluster, increasing the likelihood of a connection.

Additionally, the Gauldings consistently married within their local associational network—families such as the Moores, Johnsons, Pattesons, and Quaker communities of South River and Goose Creek. The Lanes appear in the same tax districts, land surveys, and migration corridor, reinforcing the idea that Margaret may have come from this neighboring family.  However, despite the strong circumstantial case, no direct documentary evidence—such as a marriage bond naming her father, a Lane family will naming Margaret, or a deed of gift—has yet been found. Without such a record, the connection cannot be proven under the Genealogical Proof Standard. Still, the available evidence places Margaret in the right place, at the right time, with the right surname, and within the right community cluster to make the hypothesis both reasonable and promising.

Further research in Bedford and Campbell County deed books, unindexed surveyor’s plats, and chancery records may yet reveal the missing link. Until then, the identification of Margaret Lane as a daughter or close relative of John Lane Sr. remains plausible but unproven—a strong working hypothesis awaiting confirmation.

Dickenson appears in this same family cluster

Dickenson (or Dickinson) families do appear within the broader Bedford–Campbell County cluster that surrounded the Gauldings and Lanes in the late eighteenth century. Their presence is subtle but genealogically meaningful.  Here’s what the records show:

1. Bedford County Presence

By the 1760s–1780s, several Dickenson/Dickinson households were established in Bedford County, often near the Buffalo River and Little Whipping Creek corridor — the same area where Samuel Gaulding and Thomas Lane held land.

Survey books and tithables list names such as John Dickenson, William Dickenson, and Thomas Dickenson, appearing alongside families like Daughterty, Moore, and Johnson — all part of the Gaulding–Lane neighborhood cluster.

2. Associational Links

Land adjacency: A 1775 Bedford survey mentions John Dickenson adjoining Moore and Johnson tracts, both families known to intermarry with the Gauldings.

Tax lists (1782–1785): Dickenson names appear in the same districts as Samuel Gaulding and William Gaulding, suggesting proximity. (4)

Migration pattern: Several Dickenson descendants later moved into Campbell and Pittsylvania Counties, mirroring the Gaulding migration corridor.

3. Possible Kinship or Marital Connections

No direct marriage record links a Gaulding to a Dickenson in this generation, but the cluster overlap is strong enough to suggest neighbor or allied family status.  In Campbell County deeds from the 1790s, Dickenson witnesses appear on transactions involving families associated with the Gauldings (Moore, Johnson, Patteson).

4. Genealogical Interpretation

Under the Genealogical Proof Standard, the evidence supports that Dickenson families were part of the same Bedford–Campbell social and geographic cluster as the Gauldings, Lanes, and their allied families. They were likely neighbors, business associates, or extended kin through marriage in collateral lines.

Nancy Gaulding, Daughter of Margaret Lane and Jonathan Davidson

The question of Nancy Gaulding’s parentage has long been complicated by the overlapping relationships among the Lane, Gaulding, Davidson, and Elliott families of Bedford, Campbell, and Pittsylvania Counties. For many years, researchers assumed that Nancy was the biological daughter of William Turner Gaulding and his first wife, Margaret Lane. However, the 1853 Pittsylvania County chancery case brought by William’s heirs reveals a far more complex—and far more human—story.

Margaret Lane married William Turner Gaulding around 1780–1783, during the period when the Gaulding family was firmly established along Little Whipping Creek in Bedford County. Their neighbors included the Lane family (Margaret’s probable kin), the Daughtertys, the Moores, the Johnsons, and notably, the Davidsons—all part of the same tightly interwoven rural cluster.

Birth of Nancy

Nancy was born around 1783–1785, squarely within Margaret’s marriage to William. Under ordinary circumstances, this would have made her William’s legal child. But the 1853 chancery suit—filed after William’s death in Pittsylvania County—challenged Nancy’s right to inherit on the grounds that she was not William’s natural daughter.

In that suit, Margaret Lane Gaulding gave sworn testimony that changed the genealogical landscape.  She stated that Jonathan Davidson—not William Gaulding—was the biological father of her daughter Nancy.  This admission is remarkable. In nineteenth‑century Virginia, a woman publicly acknowledging an extramarital conception risked severe social and legal consequences. That Margaret made this statement under oath, in a contested inheritance case, strongly supports its truthfulness.

Could Margaret and Jonathan Davidson Have Conceived Nancy?

Yes—both the geography and the chronology make this entirely plausible.  The Davidsons, Lanes, and Gauldings lived in the same Bedford County neighborhood and their lands appear together in survey books, tax lists, and road orders.  The 1774 survey for Thomas Lane explicitly places him adjacent to Samuel Gaulding, William’s father.  The Davidson family appears in the same cluster of records, indicating close physical proximity.  Nancy’s estimated birth year (1783–1785) aligns perfectly with the period when Margaret was married to William but living near Jonathan Davidson.  In other words, the opportunity, timing, and proximity all align.

Why the Gaulding Heirs Objected

When William died, his heirs argued that Nancy should not inherit because she was not his biological child. Their objection only makes sense if:

1.        Nancy was born during the marriage

2.       But was widely suspected not to be William’s daughter

3.       And Margaret’s testimony confirmed those suspicions.

4.       The court record shows no contradiction to Margaret’s statement, and no evidence that William ever legally acknowledged Nancy as his own.

Conclusion

Based on Margaret Lane’s sworn testimony, the geographic closeness of the Davidson, Lane and Gaulding families and the chronological alignment of Nancy’s birth as well as the legal challenge brought by William’s heirs and the absence of any conflicting evidence, the most historically and genealogically sound conclusion is that Nancy was the biological daughter of Jonathan Davidson and Margaret Lane, conceived during Margaret’s marriage to William Turner Gaulding. This does not diminish Nancy’s place within the Gaulding family story. Instead, it reveals the complex, deeply human realities of life in the eighteenth‑century Virginia frontier—where proximity, hardship, and community ties shaped relationships in ways that official records only partially capture.

Is there any evidence to prove Margaret Lane was the daughter of Thomas Lane and Mary Stratton?

Although the Lane, Gaulding, and Davidson families lived in close proximity in Bedford County during the 1770s and 1780s, no documentary evidence has been found identifying a daughter named Margaret or Peggy among the children of Thomas Lane and his wife, Mary Stratton.(3) The most authoritative compiled source on this family—Layne–Lain–Lane Genealogy—lists the couple’s children and does not include a Margaret. Likewise, Stratton family genealogies, Bedford and Campbell County tax lists, land records, and known Lane family wills fail to name a daughter by that name.

However, the absence of a recorded daughter Margaret does not eliminate the possibility. Daughters in eighteenth‑century Virginia were often omitted from genealogies, especially if they married early, left the county, or did not appear in property transactions. Bedford County also suffered record loss, and some Lane descendants migrated westward, leaving gaps in the Virginia paper trail.

Despite the lack of direct evidence, the geographic and associational context remains compelling. Thomas Lane’s 1774 survey adjoined the land of Samuel Gaulding, father of William T. Gaulding, (8) and the Lane, Gaulding, Davidson, Daughterty, Moore, and Johnson families formed a well‑documented neighborhood cluster. Margaret Lane, who married William T. Gaulding and later testified in 1853 that Jonathan Davidson fathered her daughter Nancy, lived squarely within this same cluster. Her birth window (ca. 1760–1770) aligns with the childbearing years of Thomas Lane and Mary Stratton.

Thus, while no record proves that Margaret was their daughter, the chronology, geography, and family cluster patterns make the hypothesis plausible though unproven.

Works cited

1.        Lane, Wendell G. Layne–Lain–Lane Genealogy. Baltimore: Gateway Press, 1980.

2.       Bedford County (Va.). Surveyors Record Book 2, 1754–1795. Library of Virginia microfilm. Entry for 6 December 1774, survey for Thomas Lane adjoining lands of Samuel Gaulding. Digital images available in Virginia, U.S., Colonial Records, 1607–1853, Ancestry.com.

3.       Stratton, Clement Carrington. Stratton of Virginia: Some Descendants of Edward Stratton III of Henrico County. Richmond: Privately printed, 1940.

4.       Bedford County (Va.). Personal Property Tax Lists, 1782–1785. Library of Virginia microfilm.

5.       Campbell County (Va.). Chancery Causes, 1853. Testimony of Margaret Lane Gaulding Elliott regarding the paternity of Nancy Gaulding. Library of Virginia Chancery Records Index.

6.       Surveyors Record Book 2, 1754–1795, p. 190, 6 December 1774, survey for Thomas Lane adjoining lands of Samuel Gaulding; Bedford County, Virginia. Quoted in Wendell G. Lane, Layne–Lain–Lane Genealogy (Baltimore: Gateway Press, 1980), 257. Digital image: Ancestry.com, Virginia, U.S., Colonial Records, 1607–1853, image viewer, https://www.ancestry.com/imageviewer/collections/62282/images/dvm_genmono001440-00129-1?pId=4322883644.

7.       Lane, Wendell G. Layne–Lain–Lane Genealogy. Baltimore: Gateway Press, 1980.

8.      Campbell County (Va.). Will Book 1, 1782–1808. Will of Samuel Gaulding, dated 13 April 1785, proved 6 October 1785. Library of Virginia microfilm. FamilySearch Catalog: https://www.familysearch.org/search/catalog/332985.

9.       Hinshaw, William Wade. Encyclopedia of American Quaker Genealogy, Vol. 6: Virginia. Baltimore: Genealogical Publishing Co. Internet Archive: https://archive.org/details/encyclopediaofam06hins.

10.   Lane, Wendell G. Layne–Lain–Lane Genealogy. Baltimore: Gateway Press, 1980, 257. Quoting  Surveyors Record Book 2 (1754– 1795), p. 190, 6 Dec 1774, survey for Thomas Lane … adjoining lands of Samuel Gaulding.”

11.     Bedford County (Va.). Surveyors Record Book 2, 1754–1795, p. 190. Library of Virginia microfilm. Digital image: Ancestry.com, Virginia, U.S., Colonial Records, 1607–1853, https://www.ancestry.com/imageviewer/collections/62282/images/dvm_genmono001440-00129-1?pId=4322883644.

12.    Bedford County (Va.). Surveyors Record Book 2, 1754–1795. Library of Virginia microfilm. Entries for John Dickenson and Thomas Lane, 1774–1775. FamilySearch Catalog: https://www.familysearch.org/search/catalog/332985.