BOOK II

BOOK II.

III. GEORGE ROYER, SON OF II. GEORGE.

III. GEORGE ROYER, p. 504, m. Margaret Landis, b. near Ephrata,

Lancaster Co., July 13, 1763; d. near Reistville, Lebanon Co., Pa.,

Jan. 27, 1843. Margaret is said to be a sister of the wife of III. Chris-

topher Royer, p. 223. The fact that he married into this Brethren

family and was himself a member of the Brethren Church gives added

reason for believing that he was a son of II. George who, we have seen,

joined the Brethren.* III. George resided near Reistville (Achey's

Corners), Lebanon Co., Pa. The old homestead is still (1916) occupied

by the widow of his grandson, V. Ezra Royer, p. 589. Both George

and Margaret died here. He must have died between Sept. 24, 1803,

when he made his will, and Dec. 14, 1803, when it was probated.

When George died, Lebanon County was a part of Dauphin Co., and

his will is recorded at Harrisburg. His children at the time of his death

were all minors. John and Henry were to look after the farm as long

as their mother lived or remained a widow. She outlived him 40 years.

He valued his farm at (pounds)1,000. It was apportioned out to the two sons,

John and Henry, Mar. 8, 1816. John received 81 acres and Henry

received two tracts, one of 70 acres and another of 11 acres. Access

from one tract to the other was by a road through John's part. The

names of their children follow:

Page Name Birth Death

579 IV. John Royer Aug. 20, 1788 May 27, 1866

589 IV. Henry " Jan. 14, 1790 Sept. 18, 1866

596 IV. Lizzie " Feb. 27, 1792 Feb. 25, 1819

596 IV. George " Oct. 26, 1794 Sept. 17, 1868

600 IV. Susanna " May 29, 1799 Mar. 20, 1883

* George Royer, as to who he was, or his ancestor, is not so definitely known any-

more. However, the presumption is strong that he was a son of II. John Royer

(II. John George Royer). For the writer (the author) had good reason to believe

it, as he was informed years ago by his old uncle, V. Abram R. Zug, p. 431, that he

thinks this his mother and IV. Henry Royer, son of III. George, were second cousins.

So accordingly, if correct, then he was the son of the aforesaid II. John (II. John

George).

578