The first Randolphs in America as cousins

I've been bogged down because the Stith information is woven tightly with the Randolph information, living and intermarrying in early Virginia.

It's fun to see how many fine Virginia families must have made decisions of whom was a good choice for marriage.  But it's surprising that a Randolph offspring could marry a Randolph cousin, even though Stith was the other family name involved.  And it's not hidden very well, however, the trees over in Ancestry sure have trouble showing a son marrying his mother's brother's daughter.

So quickly (I hope) to review the Randolph founding fathers.  First my great times 8 uncle and aunt -
William Randolph (Lt. Col.) b. 1651 England

William Randolph (1651-1711)

arrived in the Virginia Colony in 1662 (but traveled back and forth maybe 2-3 other times)
Married in 1680 Mary Isham b. 1660 (may have been born in England)

Mary Isham Randolph (1659-1735)

Each of their male children is known by his property, becoming the significant plantation land-owners of the colony.

Elizabeth Bland Randolph Vaughan 1680-1720

William II 1681-1720or42 of Turkey Island

Thomas 1683-1729 of Tuckahoe Creek

Isham 1685-1742 of Dungeness

Elizabeth (died infancy 1685-1685) actually this date or this child are in question, since her older sister Elizabeth would have been 5 years old when she was born, and people didn't name another daughter the same name unless the FIRST one had died.  My guess is, with the poor records in VA, the first daughter had been born in 1680 and died, and the second one was the one who married Mr. Bland.  Just my own guess.

Edward 1690-1737 of Breno

Mary Randolph Stith 1692-1742 (she married into the line of Stith's, my ancestors)

Sir John 1693-1737or 42 of Tagelwell

There are several other people that sometimes are listed as Randolphs as well...but I keep having to remove them for some reason or another (listed as being born before their parents, etc.)

The main problem is that the records in the capital of Jamestown were burned with Bacon's Rebellion, so they say.  But those were just the earliest records, probably about land more than anything else.   Church records also seem very few and far between in the earliest years.
But since the following years might have had better record keeping, it's amazing how convoluted these families are!  I'm looking not at primary sources, but at historians who have the most integrity.

I miss the details of early Puritans of my ancestors who lived in New England, though they also are fraught with confusion!