Several years ago, Shannon Graham of Missouri told me this was the proper address to use when addressing descendants of the family of John Chenoweth and Mary Calvert. Indeed we are all cousins and related to a family that is not only large but also diverse, spanning almost the entire 50 contiguous states as well as neighboring Canada and Mexico. One of my many highlights of the Elkins Reunion this summer was meeting Daniel Fred Chenoweth of Sonoma, MEXICO and his Uncle Gilberto Chenoweth of Arizona. They descended fromSommerville Chenoweth, a grandchild of Elijah Chenoweth of Franklin Co., OH. Elijah was of course 3^rd generation of the THOMAS line.

Another highlight of the Reunion was meeting Virginia Bird Johnson who has so lovingly put together the genealogy of the families of Revolutionary John who settled there in Randolph Co. in 1790s. It was a gracious and warm welcome we cousins received from the families of Elkins on the occasion of their 88^th annual picnic and reunion. Virginia Bird Johnson has attended every one of these. Her roll call of family members who had passed away since the last picnic was a deeply touching moment. It is a unique family rite. Some were surprised at the length of the list, but the families of John Chenoweth and Mary Pugh are great in number, some 10% of the website�s present database.

Each year some 40 to 50 people named Chenoweth pass away and are published in the Social Security death index. This means that at least 10 times that number, in terms of family members by various surnames, pass away each year. With each of them a bit of family history is often lost. The website and database is dedicated to trying to preserve that knowledge. The task is daunting because of the sheer size and help is most assuredly welcome.

Prior to the reunion, I had the singular pleasure to meet Greg Wulker of Ohio in Winchester, VA. This area is one of the significant cradles of the family. The deeds found in courthouses of Frederick Co., VA and the neighboring West Virginia counties of Berkeley and Hampshire are both numerous and of great import. During the few days there, Greg and I found the deeds that prove the William who married Elizabeth Hutchison was indeed William, Jr., misplaced in both published Chenoweth books. For me it was a fulfilling moment. I feel it confirms and completes the many structural changes in the early family tree that had quite unexpectedly begun in the third year of my work on the family genealogy. There is a sense in me that things have been set right for the first time. The process has rearranged some 16 family lines in the 3^rd and 4^th generation. Cora Hiatt was correct that the names of the children of the 3^rd generation were all known. She was incorrect in who they were.

Another milestone event is that Peter Chenoweth has finished sending me the details of his Census work from the 1850 to 1920 Census on the Chenoweth name. Together we have built a spreadsheet that identifies each male Chenoweth in the family and where they were in each census. We presently believe that there were some 1,650 Chenoweth named males in 1920 that are part of the family. We have identified where 77% of these were in the Census. The bulk of this identification are family listings and the majority of what is missing are single young men, aging bachelors and widowers. This Census work, from years of patient effort by Peter forms a body of documentation on the family that is the solid framework with which we have built the family database.

I would hope as many of you as possible would support, both in terms of funds and interest, Peter�s effort to establish this newsletter as a family connection and genealogy voice. Only you can make it a success. This success in turn will help bind us together and perhaps help with the preservation of knowledge for future generations. Peter and I would welcome any help offered on any level.

Confused??? Well so are we. Over the past years it appears that there are 2 different version of the Family Crest. So which one is the correct one? In an attempt to gather enough data to determine which one is the correct one, I have sent the following correspondance:

On behalf of the Chenoweth family, I come to ask two or three questions concerning two recorded coats of arms that pertain to the person or persons named Chenoweth or Trevelisek.

In 1925, a Chenoweth cousin published a book on the generations of Chenoweths descending from a John Chenoweth who was born at St Martins in Meneage, Cornwall, and who at age eighteen, came to America in 1700 and was married by 1702. A large grouping of us are descended from this man. In 1820, other people with the same surname started arriving.

In the above mentioned book, the lady included her idea of how one of the two Chenoweth family crests or coats of arms looked. We know that the picture we are all fond of is not really correct and we�re trying to go about getting better information.

Here�s the official descriptions as we have them:
From Celtic or Welch origin under the name, Trevelisek:

SA. On a fess, OR. Three clough�s heads. Motto: "Might makes Right."
From Cornwall, England, under the name Chenoweth:

SA. On a fess, OR. Three griffin�s heads erased, GUELS. The two names mottos were "A Guardian of Treasures" and "Lose Honor rather than Betray a Trust."

We have samples of griffins heads from modern sources and this was the crest that the authoress had created for her book. What we don�t have is an example of how a clough would be portrayed. I�ve also learned that there is also a bird name chough. I understand the former to be a raven sized black bird and the latter to be a crow sized black bird. We are trying to find a picture example of both.

The question:

• Can you provide me with a picture of both of the above noted family coats of arms as they are recorded in your records?
• Can you provide me with an appropriate picture of a clough and chough? Appropriate used here being how it would be used on a coat of arms. All the bird? Just the head? From the side?

You can communicate with me via electronic mail and electronic photography via the e-mail noted below. If there is a cost involved, we have the means to meet the expense.

Sincerely yours

Bill Chinworth, for the cousins

Thank you for your letter of 26^th September which I received as Officer in Waiting.

In order to answer your query it will be necessary to conduct a search amongst our Official Records to try and identify the two Arms of Trevelisek and Chenoweth, the blazons for which you provided in your letter.

My fee for this research will amount to US Dollars $200 and if you would like me to proceed I should be grateful if you could arrange to let me have a US Dollar cheque for this amount (made payable to the "College of Arms") and I will put the research in hand and send you a report in due course.

I look forward to hearing from you further.

Yours sincerely
Henry Bedingfeld
York Herald
The College of Arms
Queen Victoria Street
London EC4V 4BT