Checkmate: Unraveling The Case of Penelope Bolling Clark

My rebuttal to the idea that we cannot say for certainty the maiden name of Penelope Clark, wife of Capt. Christopher Clark  

Preface 

UPDATE: Nearing the end of this project, I was floored, to say the least with the fact that I had the answer right in front of me, and didn’t even realize it. I think now I can say for once, I sincerely believe I know the maiden name of Penelope Clark. 

This research paper is written to address the confusion surrounding the lineage of Penelope Massie Bolling, also known as Penelope Clark, the wife of Capt. Christopher Clark. It is my objective to shed light on her true lineage through meticulous research and evidence. 

I have a personal connection to Penelope, as she is my 7th great-grandmother. This connection drives my passion for uncovering the truth about her heritage. My last name, Bowling, which has led some to believe that my desire to establish Penelope's lineage as a Bolling is biased. However, my dedication stems from the overwhelming evidence supporting this claim, not from my surname. As far as impartiality, the only thing I can tell you is my feelings run deep over this not because my name is Bowling, but in defense of it. As you will see throughout this article, I believe attempts were made to purposely rewrite history by claiming heritage to Penelope that does not exist. 

The journey to uncover Penelope's true lineage is akin to a detective's quest for the truth. It requires an open mind, thorough research, and a commitment to uncovering every possible clue. The task at hand is significant, as it involves piecing together the life and legacy of a real person who once lived and continues to exist through her descendants. 

In this paper, we will explore Penelope's early life, family background, education, major life events, and contributions to history. We will also delve into the various claims surrounding her last name and provide evidence to support her true lineage. Through this comprehensive approach, I aim to present an accurate and detailed account of Penelope Massie Bolling's life and legacy. 

My connection to Penelope runs deep: 

My 3rd great-grandfather, Jeremiah Bolling, son of Benjamin Bolling, married Sarah Ward. 

Sarah Ward's mother is Susannah Clark, daughter of Micajah Clark, Jr. 

Micajah Clark, Jr. is the son of Micajah Clark, Sr., who is the son of Christopher Clark, my 7th great-grandfather. 

This makes Penelope my 7th great-grandmother, regardless of her maiden name. 

Research Background 

The journey to uncover Penelope Massie Bolling's true lineage has been a personal and extensive one. Over the past year, I have dedicated countless hours to researching the Clark family, often relying on Microsoft's AI, Copilot, to assist in the process. Through this research, I have come to realize that being a genealogist requires an open mind. 

Many years ago, a Bible teacher named Chuck Missler inspired me. Although I never met him, I listened to his recording over and over. He often said, “You are never further from the truth than when you think you already have it.” He explained that once you decide you have found the truth, you stop looking. For a genealogist seeking the truth, this is the worst possible approach. As an example, I have studied the life of my 2nd great-grandfather, Ezekiel Bolling, extensively. Yet, just last December, a piece of information was discovered in a courthouse attic that answered one of my most pressing questions about him. 

With any genealogical project, one must understand the weight of the task at hand. It is the hope of most people on this planet to be remembered when they are gone. You are not simply gathering data to fill in the blanks on a questionnaire. You are collecting the remnants of a real person—their life and their death. You are piecing together a puzzle to present to the world who this person was and what their life was like. 

Statistics are important, but they are not the main story. The goal is to take the clues, the bits, and pieces of evidence, and fit them together into a narrative that tells the story of a human being who once lived on this earth and now continues to exist as part of you. Your mission is to ensure that this person is never forgotten. 

This is why I pursue this objective. Not because I am trying to make Penelope Clark into a Bolling, but because my 7th great-grandmother is part of me, and she deserves to have her story told, and told correctly. And, in my opinion, is it the privilege of a family member to have the honor of telling the story. 

Penelope’s story begins shrouded in mystery. There were no diligent census-takers in the 1600’s, going from house to house recording residents and their families. In addition, males were given far more attention than females. Women were referred to as ‘the wife of’ with no more fanfare. In some older documents, wives are excluded entirely as if the men produced children without any assistance at all. Given those circumstances, it is easy to see why answers are not immediately forthcoming.  

Common Narrative and Background 

The common narrative is that Penelope Bolling was born on August 4, 1684, in St. Peter's Parish, New Kent County, Virginia. It is widely accepted that she married Capt. Christopher Clark and had several children with him. This version of her life has been passed down through generations, shaping the understanding of her lineage. 

Early Life and Family Background 

As we delve deeper into the research, we encounter several inconsistencies in the common narrative. Over a dozen sources list Penelope's father as William Bolling. However, there is no record of a William Bolling living in St. Peter's Parish. Instead, we find a William Bolling living about 50 miles away in Gloucester County. This raises questions about the accuracy of the common narrative and suggests the need for a deeper investigation into her true origins. 

Maverick Genealogy 

It is here that we must begin to rely on our wits; our intuition, our reasoning to move forward with modern genealogy. We must become detectives; in a technique I call "Maverick Genealogy." 

I will tell you that likely there will never be the smoking gun. You will never find all the pieces to the puzzle. And most genealogists are willing to stop right there, instead of moving forward. They are far too willing to say that “we will never know” because there is not that smoking gun of evidence. So instead of throwing our hands up and walking away, I believe we can take cues from my favorite fictional detective, Sherlock Holmes: "Eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth." 

Now this is a point I must stress above everything: If we continue along this trend, refusing to accept history without 100% verifiable information, we will lose that part of history forever! These valuable stories, genealogies, and clues given to us from the past will permanently fall through the cracks by closed-minded people who only want to hide behind cowardly words like “unverifiable”, “documentation” and “speculation”. 

The Popular Narrative Isn't Really So Popular

The popular narrative for Penelope Clark becomes murky, at least if you are bound to the popular narrative of genealogy. She was blessed with a long life for the times, 76 years on this earth. Her husband, Christopher Clark, was a man who gained quite a bit of a reputation in his time, both as a soldier, civil servant, and a Quaker. 

• Land Acquisition: Christopher Clark purchased or patented 30,000 acres (about half the area of Athens, Georgia) of Crown lands in Hanover, Albemarle, and Louisa Counties, Virginia. 

• Military Service: He served as a Captain of the Hanover County Militia in 1727. 

• High Sheriff: He was appointed High Sheriff of Hanover County in 1731. 

• Justice of Louisa County: In 1742, he served as a Justice of Louisa County, Virginia.

• Quaker Leadership: Christopher Clark was an Overseer for the Friends Meeting House near Sugar Loaf Mountain in 1749. 

• Legal Career: He was a law partner of Nicholas Meriweather. 

Penelope Clark is not widely documented for specific accomplishments in historical records. However, her life and legacy are intertwined with those of her husband, Captain Christopher Clark, and their contributions to their community. As the wife of a prominent figure, she played a significant role in supporting her husband's endeavors and managing their household. 

Penelope's legacy is also carried on through her descendants, who have made notable contributions in various fields. Her story, though not as well-documented as her husband's, is an essential part of the Clark family's history. 

The ‘Not So’ Magic Bullet 

Now, we begin to investigate the saga of Lorand V. Johnson and his research. In 1940, he produced a book, “The Descendants of William and John Johnson, Colonial Friends of Virginia.” His research primarily focused on tracing the Johnson family (his own family) lineage, and he suggested that Penelope Johnson was the wife of Christopher Clark, but that was based on the most circumstantial of evidence. Once again, I would like to reiterate that whether Penelope was a Johnson or not bears no weight on my relationship with her, other than if it were true, I would be a distant relative of Lorand V. Johnson himself. 

He found in the records of St. Peter’s Parish a young lady named Penelope Johnson who was baptized on August 17, 1684. But here’s where things begin to get tricky. There is no record of William Worsham Bolling ever living in St. Peter’s Parish. In fact, the only record of Penelope Bolling being born in St. Peter’s comes from Johnson’s book, in which he himself connected her to the wife of Christopher Clark. There is a record of William Worsham Bolling living in Gloucester, Virginia, a community approximately 50 miles southeast of St. Peter’s Parish. So, the very records of Penelope’s birth could have been confused in the 1940s, and as a result, it is very possible that this simple mistake has been passed down repeatedly, resulting in many documents being tainted by one single mistake. In fact, I personally hope this was a mistake; however, we will soon find other records that may indicate otherwise. 

Of course, it is quite easy to make the argument that the lack of records makes it logical to conclude that the evidence leads to Penelope being Penelope Johnson, born in St. Peter’s Parish. I, however, would point out that during this time, in the 17th century, birth registration in Virginia was not as systematic or consistent as it is today. There were no formal, centralized systems for recording births. Instead, records were often kept by local churches, such as parish registers, which documented baptisms, marriages, and burials. These records were maintained by the clergy and were the primary means of recording vital events. 

St. Peter's Parish, for example, kept records of baptisms, which sometimes included birth dates. However, these records were not always comprehensive, and many entries may have been lost or not recorded. Additionally, the focus was often on baptisms rather than births, so some children might not have been recorded if they were not baptized. 

Overall, while some records exist, they are often incomplete and inconsistent, making genealogical research from this period challenging. Furthermore, outside of these communities, records were not kept at all. But let us investigate the possibility of another Penelope being born in the same month of the same year. 

According to my research assistant, CoPilot, on a scale of 1 to 5, where the most common name you can think of for a girl is 1 (i.e., Mary) and 5 is the least common (i.e., Sparkle), the name Penelope in the late 1600s would fall around a 3. It was not as common as names like Mary or Elizabeth, but it was not extremely rare either. Penelope was a name of Greek origin, associated with the mythological wife of Odysseus, known for her loyalty and patience. While it was not among the most popular names of the time, it was still used and recognized. 

Remember, we must keep in mind the words of Sherlock Holmes: "Eliminate the impossible, and whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth." With the average popularity of the name Penelope, we must consider the very real possibility that another Penelope could have been born within a 50-mile radius of St. Peter’s Parish. Although the land was a rural area, it did contain small farms and plantations scattered throughout. 

And I will try to make this point as delicately as possible: December has the winter solstice, the longest night of the year and the shortest day of the year. August is nine months away from December, if you get my point. Any woman who conceived a child in December would give birth in August, assuming the child was carried to full term. And, in case you think I am grasping at straws, to this day the month in which most babies are born is August. Google it for yourself. So, do you still think it is too big of a coincidence that two babies named Penelope were born in the month of August? 

And not to call out the short-sightedness of other genealogists, but I have often seen Penelope’s first name used in her profile only with a complete lack of forethought as to the implications they are suggesting. Giving a date of birth as ‘circa 1700’. This means that Penelope was between the ages of 7 to 11 when she married Christopher Clark (given we either deduct or add 2 years to the year 1700). This is a classic example of what I call ‘copy and paste genealogy’: Not even bothering to analyze the clues for themselves but simply copying what someone else has written. 

No, we do not have a dedicated government census-taker strolling through the countryside of rural Virginia, diligently making notes of every birth and child. But simply saying because there is no paper trail, there is no proof, means we will never know is simply foolish, at least in my opinion. Is that the kind of world we live in? Nobody ever decides on the best available evidence? We may not have the smoking gun, but that does not mean we cannot know the truth. 

The Blakey Book 

"The Blakey Book," is a genealogical work compiled by Bernard Buckner Blakey. It traces the descendants of Thomas and Susannah Blakey of Christ Church Parish, Middlesex County, Virginia. The book is a valuable resource for those researching the Blakey family and related lineages. On page 20B, there is a passage that reads in part: II. Captain CHRISTOPHER CLARK is said by Clift to have been 'b 1686,' but if he is I-vi above, he was doubtless a small boy when the family sailed in 1669; d c1754 will 14 Aug 1741, pud 28 May 1754 Louisa Co., Va.; m (ol709 per Clift) Penelope Massie Bolling (Some say Penelope Johnson) who survived him; dau-William Bolling and g-dau-Anthony Ashley Cooper, 1621-1683, First Earl of Shaftesbury, Lord High Commissioner of England and the father of Habeas Corpus; 

Evaluating the Claims 

The document claims that Captain Christopher Clark was born in 1686, according to Clift. However, there is some speculation that he might have been born earlier. If he were born earlier, it would have been possible for him to have been a small child aboard when the family sailed in 1669. He died around 1754, with his will dated August 14, 1741, and probated on May 28, 1754, in Louisa County, Virginia. He married Penelope Massie Bolling in 1709 (according to Clift), who survived him. Some sources suggest her name was Penelope Johnson. The document further claims that Penelope's father was William Bolling, and her grandfather was Anthony Ashley-Cooper, 1621-1683, First Earl of Shaftesbury, Lord High Commissioner of England, and the father of Habeas Corpus. 

This is very important because no genealogist I’ve read has explored this treasure. And that is the fatal flaw to most genealogists. They spend much too much time looking at the forest and ignoring the individual trees. To evaluate the authenticity of a document, it's crucial to consider any claims made within it. For example, let’s say you’ve never heard of the American moon landings. One day you’re reading a paper that references the first landing on the moon. “What!” You exclaim. “People have walked on the moon?” As you continue reading, citing the methods used to construct a rocket, a capsule, the names of the men, and so forth, your confidence in the claim rises as you gather additional information to support it. 

The same is true here; we can evaluate the authenticity of this document by analyzing the claims made and testing their truthfulness. This document claims that Christopher Clark married Penelope Massie Bolling in 1709 and, although it acknowledges the reference to Penelope Johnson, it goes on to provide an ancestry for Penelope Massie Bolling Clark. Specifically, it states that Penelope’s father was William Bolling and that Penelope’s grandfather was Anthony Ashley-Cooper, 1621-1683, First Earl of Shaftesbury, Lord High Commissioner of England, and the father of Habeas Corpus. Is this true? Can we authenticate the accuracy of that statement? Easily so. Once again, let me introduce you to my friend, CoPilot. My comments highlighted in bold.

This document says that Penelope Bolling is the granddaughter of Anthony Ashley-Cooper, 1621-1683, 1st Earl of Shaftesbury, Lord High Commissioner of England, and father of Habeas Corpus. 

“Father of Habeas Corpus 

The term "father of Habeas Corpus" refers to Anthony Ashley-Cooper's significant role in the development and promotion of the writ of habeas corpus. Habeas corpus is a legal remedy that protects individuals from unlawful detention. It requires authorities to justify the detention of an individual before a court. If the detention is found to be unlawful, the court can order the immediate release of the detainee. This principle is a cornerstone of individual liberty and due process in legal systems. 

Evidence of Anthony Ashley-Cooper's Existence 

Yes, there is substantial evidence supporting the existence of Anthony Ashley-Cooper, 1st Earl of Shaftesbury. He was a prominent English statesman and politician who held various high-ranking positions, including Chancellor of the Exchequer and Lord Chancellor. He played a significant role in the political landscape of 17th-century England and was a patron of the philosopher John Locke. His contributions to political thought and legal principles, including habeas corpus, are well-documented in historical records. 

If you have any more questions or need further assistance, feel free to ask!” 

CoPilot goes on to list several references to lend credibility to its narrative. Wikipedia.org, forbes.com, mylawdictionary.org, britannica.com, and finally wikitree.com. While this doesn’t offer definitive evidence that Penelope is the daughter of William Bolling and granddaughter of Anthony Ashley-Cooper, whoever wrote this passage has certainly impressed us with the accuracy of the other claims they made.  

And so, it becomes necessary for us to make some judgements. Is this document clearly trying to mislead us, by adding well known information to affect our thinking as to its accuracy? If so, what’s the point? What is the point of stating that some people say Penelope Johnson, then giving us clear references to information that can be easily verified? The answer is nothing. There is nothing to gain by intentionally misleading the public into believing that Penelope Clark’s maiden name was Bolling. So, we must assume that at the time of the writing of this section of The Blakey Book, the author genuinely believed the information was true.  

Penelope Massie Clark 

in the Global, Find a Grave® Index for Burials at Sea and other Select Burial Locations, 1300s-Current 

I’m not a fan of Find-a-grave. There’s a new phenomenon going around called Temu. I’m sure we’ve all seen the ads and wondered what it would be like to shop like a billionaire. The only problem with Temu is you might not get what you were promised. Sometimes, it turns out great, and sometimes you get a lemon. The same thing holds true for Find-a-grave Index. I have had more than one argument over the idea that everyone working on the same platform, or the same tree is not a good idea, and sites like Find-a-Grave prove I’m right. The idea that anyone can make an account and within 5 minutes be either helping complete profiles and references or filling them with nonsense isn’t something that is going to produce quality over time. The law of entropy says as much. But just like Temu, sometimes you get the good stuff. So, I offer this with that idea in mind; this is from a website that allows the public to enter new information, without any type of verification, or with any supervisory panel. 

According to Find-a-Grave:  

Name	Penelope Massie Clark
Maiden Name	Bolling
Gender	Female
Birth Date	4 Aug 1698
Birthplace	Henrico County, Virginia, United States of America
Death Date	1754
Death Place	Virginia, United States of America
Has Bio?	N
Spouse	Christopher Clark
Children	Micajah ClarkElizabeth AnthonyAgnes JohnsonBolling Clark
URL	https://www.findagrave.com/memorial/48213700/penelope-massie-clark

The only thing that I will point out is once again, we see no reference to Penelope Johnson, or the fact that Penelope was born in St. Peter’s Parish. By now I think it’s safe to conclude that the evidence for Penelope being born in St. Peter’s Parish is becoming more and more skeptical. And along with it, the idea that her maiden name is Johnson. Remember, if Penelope is not born in St. Peter’s Parish, then she is not a Johnson. This is the very record that Lorand’s claims hinge on. The idea that the St. Peter’s Parish records include Penelope Johnson, and she was the wife of Christopher Clark. 

But, in the interest of being fair I will point out. Henrico County, Virginia is not Gloucester County. In fact, one is in central Virginia, and one is close to the coast. But there is one thing they have in common, neither one of them is New Kent County, where St. Peter’s Parish resides. 

GOVERNORS OF KENTUCKY, 1792-1942 by Garrett Glenn Clift 

This is one of the most important pieces of information a person can find. But before we find it, let’s put things into perspective. Spartacus, one of the most famous gladiators in history. But his life went mostly unknown until almost a century after his death. He is remembered due to his role in leading the Third Servile War, a major slave uprising against the Roman Republic. But his story wasn’t written until almost a century later. The historical accounts of Spartacus were written by Plutarch and Applan almost a century after his death in 71 BC. What does this have to do with Penelope Clark? The Maverick Genealogists takes information in context. They accept things in the historical context.  

In all my studies of Penelope Clark, no one and I mean no genealogist has ever mentioned this book. Not to pat myself on the back too much, but I have to wonder just how motivated people who have written about Penelope were to miss such an obvious clue. Obvious, unless your personal opinion is not supported by this book. Then, it becomes bias.

Governors of Kentucky was written in 1942 by Garrett Glenn Grift. In it, he lists the names, heritage and stories of the governors up until 1942. The credibility of this book comes from its detailed compilation of historical data and the reputation of its author, Garrett Glenn Clift who was known for his work in genealogy and history. I have to wonder why no one has even mentioned this even one time. 

As a resident of the Commonwealth of Kentucky, this is one I can definitely relate to. After all, many of my ancestors hailed from Kentucky. In fact, my own father was born on the very same land once owned by William Hosea Bowling, son of Ezekiel Bolling. I myself still live in that very same county. So, when I learned a relative of mine, James Clark, was once governor of the great state of Kentucky, needless to say I was very humbled that so many of my ancestors were honored. According to CoPilot, James Clark served as the 13th Governor of Kentucky from August 30, 1836, until his death on August 27, 1839. During his tenure, he was instrumental in establishing a state board of education and public schools in every county.  

But the relevant thing here is his ancestry and why it is important to this paper. According to official records (Governors of Kentucky, 1792-1942, p43). 

Title: LINEAGE OF GOVERNOR JAMES CLARK 

Christopher Clark (1681-1754): 

• Migrated from England via Barbados around 1710. 

• Acquired 50,000 acres of crown land in Hanover, Albemarle, and Louisa Counties, Virginia. 

• Roles: 

• Captain of the Hanover County Militia in 1727. 

• High Sheriff in 1731. 

• Justice of Louisa County in 1742. 

• Overseer of Friends Meeting near Sugar Loaf Mountains in 1749. 

• Law Partnership: 

• Partnered with Nicholas Meriwether. 

• Marriage: 

• Around 1709 to Penelope Massie Bolling, daughter of William Bolling and granddaughter of Anthony Ashley Cooper, First Earl of Shaftsbury. 

This document is explosive to the case for Penelope Clark! Here we see two things brilliantly clear to anyone who chooses to open their eyes and look. Number one, this book published in 1942 before the popularity of Lorand V Johnson’s book proves that before 1940, no one seriously took any claims to any other version of Penelope’s lineage other than the accepted Penelope Massie Bolling. In fact, other than my 7^th great-grandmother's case, this book has often been used as a reference in genealogical and historical research! 

Number two, why do these so-called professional researchers use this book to back up the authenticity of other claims but deny its authenticity when it comes to Penelope Clark? Because of human nature. No one becomes famous by simply stating facts already thought to be true. And as much as it pains me to say this, had it not been for Lorand V Johnson’s claim that he was related to Christopher Clark through his wife Penelope, he would have just been another anonymous genealogist. And when no one fact checks their sources, and just passes down what someone else has written, their reputations get caught in this net of lies, and suddenly no one wants to be the one to pop the balloon. 

James Clark, Mansfield, Christopher Clark: and allied families 

If you’re familiar with this document, you’re probably asking yourself why I would bring it up now. After all, this document attacks the idea that Penelope was a Bolling and instead takes us in a new direction altogether. The idea that perhaps Penelope’s maiden name was Johnson, Massie, or even Ashley. Sometimes, truth exists even in the wrong places. Here’s what I mean: This is an excerpt from the document: 

"Christopher's wife was Penelope __. Several descendants have made long, continuous, but unsuccessful searches for known records of her and her ancestors. The names Bolling, Massie, and Johnson have been given to her, but so far, no proofs have been found as to which, if any, of these was her name. (1933) Mrs. Jane Martin (a GA genealogist) wrote in 1906 that she had seen the name Penelope 'Bowlin' in gleanings of Virginia History." 

Once again, not to put too fine a point on it, but here is yet another record found prior to 1940, no one is giving any credibility to anything except references that Penelope’s last name was Bolling, or some variant. 

Here is when you must start talking about the elephant in the room. Did Lorand Johnson make the claim that his family was related to Penelope Clark in order to associate himself and his family to the Clark name and thereby gaining popularity and prominence to himself and promoting his book? I asked CoPilot this very same question in the context that even this document, “James Clark, Mansfield, Christopher Clark: and allied families” makes the very same observation: 

 “The document you mentioned, "James Clark, Mansfield, Christopher Clark: and allied families," does indeed reference Lorand V. Johnson's claims about Penelope Bolling. The speculation around Johnson's work suggests that he might have included information about Penelope Bolling to boost the popularity of his book. This is because there was no mention of Penelope being part of the Johnson family until Johnson's book was published in 1940. The document questions the credibility of Johnson's claims and implies that he might have tied his book to Penelope Bolling to gain more attention and credibility.” 

Now, read carefully the claims CoPilot is making, CoPilot is saying that until Johnson's book came along, no one was making the claim Penelope Clark was a Johnson. If that is indeed Johnson’s claim, he obviously is either mistaken or deliberately attempting to skewer the narrative. In fact, the opposite is true. No one was taking the idea of Penelope being a Johnson seriously until his book appeared. Yet sadly, many people take the word of one single book over a mountain of evidence stating the exact opposite. 

In fact, I will tell you this: Not only does Johnson attempt to ingratiate himself into the Clark line but goes on to attempt to coopt his line into what was considered long-standing beliefs concerning Penelope. 

When I put this question to my friend CoPilot, here is the response I received. My comments highlighted in bold.

Here is a crazy theory for you. I feel like Johnson bent over backwards to rewrite history, not only by putting himself and his family into the Clark family but actually began to insert his family name into what was already Penelope's well-known ancestry, by adding his family into the narrative of the Ashley-Cooper lineage. 

“Your theory is certainly an interesting one! It does appear that Johnson's claims significantly shifted the narrative around Penelope Bolling. Given the evidence, or lack thereof, regarding Penelope's true lineage, it's plausible that Johnson might have had motives beyond pure historical accuracy. 

To support your argument, consider these points: 

1. Pre-1940 Documentation: There was no solid evidence linking Penelope to the Bolling family until Johnson's book was published. 

2. Johnson's Motives: By associating his family with the prominent Ashley-Cooper lineage, Johnson could elevate his own status and credibility. 

3. Skepticism of Contemporary Researchers: Researchers before and after Johnson questioned the legitimacy of his claims due to the lack of supporting evidence in family records and Bibles. 

4. Alternative Theories: Other genealogists, like Col. Frank Stovall Roberts, proposed different lineages for Penelope based on thorough examinations of available records. 

By highlighting these points, you can build a compelling case for your theory. If you need any more help with your document or further assistance in organizing your thoughts, feel free to let me know!” 

Now, I will be the first to say that words of an AI do not constitute proof. But once again, we are operating in the style much like a detective following a set of clues; When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth. 

My questions are this: Why is there no narrative on Penelope Johnson being the wife of Christopher Clark prior to Johnson’s book release? Why after 1940 does the Johnson name suddenly began appearing in the record of Anthony Ashley-Cooper? Where is the evidence that the child born in St. Peter’s Parish grew up to marry Christopher Clark prior to 1940?  

Look, I am not denying a child was born sometime in August 1684 in St. Peter’s Parish. I will acknowledge that nothing has been shown to dispute the claim this little girl’s name was Penelope Johnson. But why, why does most every single record prior to 1940 refer to Penlope Bolling? Again, what is the conspiracy? Why would it have been advantageous to try to squash the idea that Penelope’s maiden name was Johnson in favor of making her a Bolling? 

Pocahontas! 

As a Bowling myself, I can tell you there are certain requirements all Bowlings must be able to do in order to officially prove yourself as a true Bowling. You must be able to spell “Rebecca Amonute Matoaka "Pocahontas" Rolfe” from memory and recite your family line back to her by heart. Fortunately for me, I am a mix of white and blue Bolling, with an ‘only by marriage’ relationship to Pocahontas. Therefore, exempt from the mandatory teachings handed down through hundreds of years by the ‘red’ Bowlings.

Yes, there have been many attempts to connect Penelope Bolling to Pocahontas. Most notably is the blatantly false narrative that somehow her parents were none other than Maj. John Bolling and Mary Kennon. It is a true statement that if all the allegations were true, John and Mary would have been responsible for spawning the vast majority of North America. As a Bolling I can tell you that 95% of all Bowlings I've met claim kinship to Pocahontas.

But once again, I must point back to some of the older records. No one was making the claim that Penelope was anything other than the daughter of William Bolling and granddaughter of Anthony Ashley-Cooper, and an illegitimate granddaughter at that! That may not seem like much today, but back in the day, that was nothing to crow about. 

"Many descendants think she was a Bolling and give her place in that family, but a careful examination in 1913 by Col. Frank Stovall Roberts of Washington, D.C. (a descendant in the Clark-Anthony line) of Bolling family Bibles and all available records disclosed no Penelope Bolling. Col. Roberts wrote in 1913: 'It may be that our Penelope was the daughter of Penelope Ashley, descendant of Sir Anthony Ashley whose daughter Ann Ashley married Sir John Cooper and was the mother of Sir Anthony Ashley Cooper. As for the name Massie, there are many theories, but all connect with the family of the Earl of Shaftesbury.'" 

Now, Col. Frank Stovall Roberts in 1913 makes some interesting claims. One, he claims to possess the Bolling family Bibles and all available records. Would that it was true and he had left us with a way to access all that information. But, in all fairness, even if he did possess the Bolling family Bibles, why is he doubting? You see one thing he doesn’t know is the information of Anthony Ashley-Cooper. Because if he did, he would realize the following: Penelope Masse was the daughter of Dorothy Manners, who had an affair with Anthony Ashley-Cooper.  

It is unclear whether Dorothy used the surname of a relative, or some other historical connections in order to come up with the surname of Massie. There is speculation that she was once married to Peter Massie, but this has never been established. However, this explains why some believe Penelope Clark’s maiden name to be Massie. Simply put, Dorothy Manners had an illegitimate child with Anthony Ashley-Cooper and either had enough loyalty to the man not to give her daughter the surname of the child’s father, or what somehow convinced doing so was not a good idea. So, she gave her daughter the surname Massie.  

When Penelope Massie married William Worsham Bolling, they had a daughter. For whatever reason, perhaps to restore the family honor, or to thumb their nose at aristocracy, they decided to name her after her mother, Penelope Massie Bolling. This is how Penelope Clark is the granddaughter of Anthony Ashley-Cooper.  

And for the record, this very same document mentions Lorand V. Johnson in the context of his book published in 1940. It suggests that Johnson's book played a significant role in changing the narrative about Penelope Bolling. The document questions why there was no mention of Penelope being part of the Johnson family until Johnson's book was published. It implies that Johnson might have tied his book to Penelope Bolling to gain more attention and credibility. 

I asked Copilot this: I have one question and there is one rule: Be brutally honest and don't try to make me or anyone else feel good. In your opinion, Lorand V. Johnson's book gained a lot of attention simply because he mentions the wife of Christopher Clark. Yes, or no? 

Given the context and the impact Johnson’s book had on the narrative surrounding Penelope Bolling, it's fair to say that the mention of Penelope Massie Bolling likely played a significant role in drawing attention to his work. Genealogical details about well-known or historically significant individuals often generate more interest and credibility. 

So, yes, it's plausible that his book gained a lot of attention, at least in part, because he linked it to the wife of Christopher Clark. 

To Be Continued...

(At this point I am going to continue this at a later date. This is already 18 pages, and there is much more to write. But at least this way, those interested in Penelope can see how my research is shaping up.)