PART I

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