A peerage of fools (harlot, thine name is knowledge)

 

The profession of pedigree peddling has continued unabated since ancient times, and ranks next to prostitution as an occupation requiring nothing more than a willingness to screw people.  The Roman emperors claimed descent from the gods, as did early Saxon kings who ended Celtic rule in England.  Monks traced pedigrees back to The Flood for medieval monarchs (in amazingly few generations), and later it was stylish to plug a saint into the family tree.

In the 16th and 17th centuries, Heralds visited British families and collected their ancestry to prevent them from (gasp!) claiming a right to bear arms to which they were not entitled.  Although the intent was to weed out armorial corruption, some Heralds were themselves willing to put onto paper all sorts of things given a sufficient nudge (clink clink).  So the Visitations published by the Harleian Society (many of which are available online) have to be used with care, not only because of potential fraud, but because some of the material they contain was added at a later date.

I have no doubt that pedigree peddling is alive and well among us.  A genealogist caught engaging in such dishonesty will never be taken seriously as a genealogist again, but human nature being what it is, the desire for illustrious ancestry is as strong as it ever was, and that can lead to lapses in judgement (cough!).

Were only reliable lines included in some modern reference works on royal and noble pedigrees, the books would be half as large as they are, and so would their audience.  When does a “permissive”  attitude become a front for greed?  I don’t know.  Only the authors do, and there are websites devoted to correcting errors in some of these volumes.  I don’t intend posts on Acme Nuklear Blimp to serve that purpose, unless I have to deal with such issues in the course of research.

The solution is to take nothing for granted, and check out every important fact in the line you’re working on.  You can’t protect yourself against every error, and honest mistakes do happen, but you can take solace in the fact that hucksters will eventually be exposed.

A McCarthy Mor or less (plant a tangent)

MOR:

Ellis, Peter Berresford.  (2002).  Erin’s Blood Royal The Gaelic Noble Dynasties of Ireland.  New York:  Palgrave.

First, a little history:

In 1541 Henry VIII became King of Ireland.  Holders of Irish titles were threatened or intimidated into surrendering their titles and lands to the English crown.  Upon an oath of allegiance, they would receive English titles and such lands as were deemed fit in feudal tenure.  For example, in 1542 the King of Ulster became Earl of Tyrone.

In 1587, all Irish titles and Brehon Law were abolished.  But in 1944, the Irish Genealogical Office began to recognize “courtesy titles,” that is, to recognize chiefs who were modern descendants of those holding titles as they existed prior to the Tudor conquest.  It’s a tale of twists and turns, and the “courtesy titles” didn’t bring with them a return of ancestral lands.

For instance, Terence Maguire, who in 1991 proposed formation of a council of Irish chiefs, became known as The Maguire, Prince of Fermanagh.

Enter Terence McCarthy, “The McCarthy Mor, Prince of Desmond and Lord of Kerslawny,” who, in 1992 had been given “courtesy recognition” as Chief of the Name.  But in 1999, following a two year investigation, the Chief Herald of Ireland stripped McCarthy of his honors.  McCarthy had lied about his ancestry.  His claim to be descended from Andrew McCarthy, a direct descendant of the King of Desmond, was a fraud.

Phony documents, fake royal regalia (cobbled together from antiques), non-existent family portraits, misleading statements, outright lies–how did he get away with it?  About thirty-five ”lordships” were sold to Americans, and McCarthy and his partner indulged in a jet-set lifestyle.

But in 1999 the house of cards collapsed, and on October 6, he abdicated.  In a final denial of reality, Terence’s youngest brother Conor claimed to be the new McCarthy Mor.  In the fallout, while Terence McCarthy and his cat enjoyed comfortable “retirement” in Tangier, everyone connected with the mess was embarassed.

It sounds like something out of the 1988 film “Dirty Rotten Scoundrels.”

*******

LESS:

Let me state at the outset I’m not equating MichaelAnne Guido with Terence McCarthy, who bilked the gullible, including Americans, out of hundreds of thousands of dollars from the sales of phony titles.  Nonetheless, the incident detailed here doubtless left many readers with a mistaken impression.

On May 11, 2006, Guido, a poster to the Google/Usenet message board “soc.genealogy.medieval,” in a thread entitled “Sonne-in-Law and Now-Wife,” made the following remarks:

“The deed of gift to Elizabeth Dale and William Rogers in 1677 also retained life use of the house for Edward Dale and Diana Skipwith.  This deed was a point of contention and had to be recertified in 1695 after the death of Major Edward Dale.  There were a number of lawsuits between Edward Dale and William Rogers in the period 1693-1695 in the Lancaster County Court and at the time Edward Dale wrote his will he was angry at William Rogers.  One of these entries follows:

“Lancaster County Court 13 of September 1693 p. 262  Mr. William Rogers being arrested to this court at the suite of Major Edward Dale for six hundred pounds of tobacco and ca:  and not appearing to answer the saide suite, and the Sheriffe not takeing security accordinge to Acte, Order accordinge to Acte is therefore granted against the saide Rogers.

“The Carters were given the entire estate because of Edward Dale’s anger at his son-in-law.”

This is a very interesting statement.  The first sentence is accurate enough.  The 1677/8 deed WAS a point of contention, but that wasn’t the proximate cause of the recertification.  It was necessary to obtain a new patent for the plantation because it had been abandoned.  As for the second sentence, I give a discussion of the actual patent William Rogers obtained from the Fairfax Proprietary in April 1695 in the “Take it for granted” column.

The third sentence is completely false.  I can locate but one lawsuit between Edward Dale and William Rogers in Lancaster County court records for the period of May 10, 1682 to July 12, 1699, and that is the lawsuit Guido quoted.

I wondered why Guido cited such a trivial lawsuit (worth less than half the annual production of one laborer), when litigation pending when Dale made his will in August of 1694 was more to her point–though even had there been a pending lawsuit, Dale’s quitclaim of his daughter Elizabeth Rogers would not have prevented it.

It turns out this entry is virtually a word for word clone of that on page 57 of Ruth and Sam Sparacio’s Lancaster County, Virginia Order Book Abstracts 1691-1695 (1995 The Antient Press).

I own a copy of this book (and a complete run of 1678-1699, plus the Duvall volume preceeding).  It consists of 110 pages including an index.  It’s in large print, and nearly all of the names are printed in capital letters, so even without the index it’s extremely easy to use.  There is, however, a difference between the Sparacio version, which was made from courthouse records, and Guido’s version:  the Sparacios say “Wm. Rogers,” while Guido gives it as “William Rogers.”  Regardless of the source of Guido’s text, she couldn’t possibly have seen a number of lawsuits between 1693-1695, because the one she posted was the ONLY one, and I can locate none before or after it.  It appears her statement was an intentional untruth.  Why?

The impression one has when reading this post is that MichaelAnne Guido had examined the records, viewed a number of lawsuits, and gave one entry as a sample.  She concluded that the reason Elizabeth Rogers received but twelve pence from Edward Dale was as a punishment for her litigious husband.  Many readers might then erroneously believe Elizabeth Rogers’ quitclaim was to protect the Carters against legal action from William Rogers through his wife renouncing her dower interest in any settlement.

In this specific case, since a quitclaim is an instrument of “estoppel,” and not a conveyance, the only beneficiary of such an act were it legal (which it wasn’t) would be William Rogers.  Edward Dale didn’t acquire anything through this quitclaim which then became the property of his estate.  He eliminated a potential impediment–for the sum of twelve pence.

Had women under coverture been accorded an independent right to convey their dower rights to a third party, the entire patriarchal structure of colonial Virgnia would have collapsed and economic chaos ensued.  Husbands would have no choice but to go begging to the holder of the dower rights in order to sell property. 

Why did Elizabeth Rogers agree to such a disadvantageous bargain?  In late 17th century Virginia, men still  outnumbered women and knew how to pressure them in financial matters.  Diana (Skipwith) Dale may have been made of sterner stuff, but she was about 75 years old when she died, a great age for the time.  Rogers, though of the colonial gentry, was not of the burgess class, and Elizabeth would have faced serious social consequences, including alienating her only surviving sister.

I wonder if MichaelAnne Guido has resolved her “conflict of interest” yet–you know, the one she had back in 2000–because there’s definitely a conflict.  And what did Douglas Richardson, who you met in the “It’s about time” column, tell me in the same May 11, 2006 thread?  “You make many assumptions, most of which are dubious…. MichaelAnne Guido has done a lot of work on this family.  You should pay closer attention to her.”

Well, I certainly agree with that last statement.  We all should have paid closer attention to MichaelAnne.

This points to a serious problem with Internet message boards like “soc.genealogy.medieval.”  You don’t know who you’re dealing with.  It could be someone brown-nosing for business, like creeps Will Johnson or Leo van de Pas.  Somone might be affecting an authoritative tone to impress others or mislead.  Even the name they’re using could be an alias.

Check the “soc.genealogy.medieval” archives to see if any work has been done on your family–and then verify the data.  But unless you want to risk picking up a creep or a parasite, don’t get involved.    

For a scan of this post + the compilation, see:

http://picasaweb.google.com/binky9/NowWife

*******

The Sparacio compilations, made from deed, will, and court records of old colonial Virginia counties, are extremely useful research tools.  They’re published by:

The Antient Press, PO Box 822, Arlington, VA  22216

http://www.antientpress.com

Highly recommended.

The Thomas Carter prayer book

Most people are familiar with Edward Dale’s “epitaph” in the Thomas Carter prayer book from the many transcriptions available.  I thought it useful to provide a photocopy of the actual image of the “epitaph” (or panegyric).  There’s also an image of the title page of the prayer book, along with ordering information to aid those who’d like to order copies of all the pages containing genealogical information.        

Book Of Common-Prayer And Administration Of The Sacraments, And Other Rites & Ceremonies Of the Church, According to the Use of the Church of England; Together with the Psalter or Psalmes Of David, Pointed as they are to be Sung or Said in Churches.  And the Form and Manner Of Making, Ordaining, And Consecrating, Of Bishops, Priests, and Deacons.  London, Printed by John Bill and Christopher Barker, Printers to the Kings Most Excellent Majesty.  MDCLXII.  [1662]  Cum Privilegio.

Thos: Carter Rappahanke Virga

Just click this link:

http://picasaweb.google.com/binky9/PrayerBook

Click “Download Album” and print.  It’s fun and it’s free!         

Take it for granted

If you’ve read “The McCarthy Mor or less” column, and section 8 of “A Cavalier Attitude”, you know that in 1695 William Rogers received a new land grant from the Fairfax Proprietary for the property Edward Dale had gifted to the Rogers on March 12 1677/8.  The plantation had not been “seated,” necessitating a new grant confiming ownership of the tract.

I first learned of this grant on April 24, 2006 in an e-mail from Joan Burdyck, a friend of MichaelAnne Guido.  Joan included her transcription of the grant.  I want to make it absolutely clear that there is no indication Joan Burdyck is anything but an honest genealogist.  Nonetheless, there are some troubling elements of her e-mail, and since others may be laboring under the same impression, they need to be addressed.

Of this grant, Joan said:

“Notice also that there is an error in Edward Dale’s name.  It is written as Edward Duke.  Again we see errors in court and legal records…. I think that William and Elizabeth wanted to take possession of the land and Edward didn’t want them to, so Elizabeth was out of favor as shown in Edward’s will.”

In my 20 year career as a genealogist (though not a professional), I have found that most of the time when I think I see an error in a record, it’s really an error in judgement.  Errors can occur in records from any period, but usually the “error” is a failure on my part to make out the handwriting or understand what I’m reading.

First, let’s address some housekeeping issues:

The Rogers grant is dated “ca. Apl. 1695″ by The Library Of Virginia, the custodian of old Virginia land grants.  Images of the grants are now available online.  There is no date in the Rogers grant.  So why does The Library Of Virginia date this document as “ca. Apl. 1695″?

The Rogers grant appears in Northern Neck Grants No. 2, 1694-1700, pp. 156-157 (Reel 288).  A note in the catalog indicates the grant falls within those issued by the agents of the Fairfax Proprietary issued between 1690 to 1781.  The book in which this grant appears lists grants in continuous order; that is, when a grant ends on a page, the beginning of the next grant starts immediately on the same page.  The Rogers grant occupies portions of 2 pages.  The grant preceeding the Rogers grant is dated April 4, 1695, and the one immediately following the Rogers grant is dated April 5, 1695.  I think the date in the catalog is conservative, and we can, for chronological purposes, date this grant as ca. April 4/5, 1695–as long as people know how we got there.  The exact day isn’t crucial.

This grant is not, of course, the document William Rogers tucked into his coat–that’s long since disappeared.  It’s a copy of the original document that has been written into the record book.  The person who wrote the original may not be the person who copied it into the record book.  Someone probably knows if the Fairfax Proprietary had another original document made for them as well.  But if so, unless the clerk intended to spend his summer vacation copying land grants into the record book, they probably didn’t pile up to his eyebrows.

These old records were written in pen and ink, and penmanship varies and ink bleeds and fades.  The writing in this grant is remarkably clear for such an old document.  It seemed odd to me that Rogers would accept a document in which the name of his father-in-law was misspelled, so I checked the name Joan interprets as “Edward Duke.”  I can understand the confusion.  A comparison of what she sees as a “k” against other verifiable uses of the letter “k” within the document shows me that I can see elements of a “k” in this letter, and though perhaps not as pronounced as other instances of “k” in the document, that could well be what it is.  

I have seen the letter “a” as a “u” on many old records.  That can happen due to image fading or sloppy penmanship.  Joan sees this as “Edward Duke,” and she might be right.  The important thing here is that the facts in the grant leave no doubt that William Rogers applied for a new grant of the Chetwood tract, so if it’s ”Edward Duke” there’s still no mystery about the legal event being described.

As for Joan’s remarks, there’s no evidence that Elizabeth Rogers was in the doghouse with her father–by the standards of her time.  If I’ve learned one lesson, it’s that you can’t apply modern standards to people living more than 300 years ago.  They inhabited a different world, and their mental landscape was different.  Visitors to Colonial Williamsburg think it’s quaint, but when Edward Dale died, Jamestown was still the capital of Virginia.  And the first edition of the King James bible was only 85 years old.  

Joan’s comment that ”Again we see errors in court and legal records” might be interpreted to mean no document can confidently be used as evidence, and makes me wonder just what it was she was telling me.  Some genealogists are only happy when nothing means anything, especially if some of the facts of the case are inconvenient.

For me, the fascinating aspect of this document is that William Rogers obtained it while Edward and Diana (Skipwith) Dale were alive.

Since the land grant is a short document, I decided to make my own transcription rather than follow Joan’s.  She had altered some letters from the original, and while those alterations didn’t change any facts, I went back to the original.  I did consult her version to help decipher a few words.  There is a character that appears three times in the original that Joan interpreted as “ye,” but it doesn’t resemble an actual ”ye” as it appears in the text.  In the grant following, this character appears some 9 times, and I think it’s probably just punctuation.  Again, it doesn’t alter the meaning.

It’s interesting that neither the Rogers grant, or the one following to Randell Kerk, mention the county where the land was located.  A check of the patent catalog shows Kerk’s land was located in Westmoreland County; the Proprietary retained the mineral rights.   

(The Library of Virginia also has two land grants totalling 403 acres in Lancaster County issued on December 17, 1691 to David Fox and William Rogers as dual grantees.  On May 17, 1682, William Rogers was appointed justice of the peace and High Sheriff for Northumberland County.  On February 11, 1684/5 in Lancaster County court indentured servant John Wells sued his master, William Rogers, for his freedom, but lost.  On December 14, 1687, Rogers was appointed a member of the troop of horse of the Lancaster County militia.)  

Here’s my transcription of the land grant:

William Rogers

500 Acres

Examined.

 

Margarett Lady Culpeper Thomas Lord Fairfax To all Whereas Know ye that we for and in consideration of the composition do grant to William Rogers, bounded as followeth /Viz/ beginning at an old corner red oak stump standing on a point near the head of a Swamp formerly called Chettwood Swamp a corner Spanish Oak being marked just by, thence running by marked trees south west half degree West thirty eight poles crosing the said swamp to a corner Peck hickory standing in Col. Matthew Kemp’s line thence along the said Kemps line of marked trees two hundred and eighty two poles to a corner white oak saplin standing on the East ward side of a branch, thence down the said branch on Cross the first mentioned Swamp, north thirty five poles to a corner red oak saplin standing by the side of the said swamp on the north side thereof thence down the said swamp the several courses thereof which being upon a direct line is North West by West seventy seven poles to a marked corner red oak standing by the side of the said swamp, thence by marked trees North East half degree East one hundred and eighty six poles to a corner white Oak stake in a Valley near the head of a branch called White Marsh, thence by marked trees South East three hundred and twenty poles to the place where it first began, the said land being being formerly granted to Mr. Thomas Chettwood for five hundred acres by patent dated the ninth of July one thousand six hundred and sixty seven and by the said Chettwood sold to Major Edward Duke [?] given to his daughter now the wife of William Rogers and for want of due seating deserted.

W.F.

 

The King James Version

Captain Gabriel Archer, of the James Towne fort, wrote that:

“Sunday [May 30, 1607] they [Indians] came lurking in the thickets and long grasses, and a gentleman one Eustace Clovall unarmed straggling without the fort, shot 6 arrowes into him.”

Clovill died a week later.

Later, Archer wrote that:

“3 of the [Indians] had most adventourously stollen under our bulwark and hiden themselves in the long grasses.”

Finally, an Indian “counselled us to Cutt Downe the long weedes around our fforte.”

{from Kelso, p. 114]

Hey, hats off to Clovill, huh?  He must have been a tough SOB.  If I’d been hit with 6 arrows I’d have expired on the spot.  These weren’t the dainty arrowheads Robin Hood used at the Big Tournament-this was some heavy artillery.

As for the colonists, I wonder how we survived to overrun the New World.  Wasn’t there a fetid, uninhabited swamp somewhere in Scotland where these dopes could practice survival skills?  This must be origin of the term, “Waiting in the weeds.”

American Beduin

[under construction]

It’s about time

Genealogists working with colonial records will often see a date such as ”March 24, 1672/3.”  “March 24, 1672″ is the date in the Julian calendar, while “March 24, 1673″ is the date in the Gregorian calendar.  This applies to dates of January 1 to March 24 in the years 1582 to 1752.  March 25 was considered the first day of the new year.

Double-dating was not uniformly followed in the British colonies.  Dates should always be noted exactly as they appear in the record.  If a date falls within the double-date parameter, but only a single-date is shown, give the date as it appears in the record, then the double-date in a manner indicating it’s your conclusion.  If you are uncertain if the single-date is Julian or Gregorian, check it against other records.

*****

Allow me to give an example involving an ancestor:

Richardson, Douglas; Everingham, Kimball G., ed.  (2005).  Magna Carta Ancestry A Study In Colonial And Medieval Families.  Baltimore:  Genealogical Publishing Co., Inc.

On page 754, Richardson gives this data concerning Edward Dale:

“[MAJ.] EDWARD DALE, Gent., died at Lancaster County, Virginia 20 Feb. 1695/6.  He left a will dated 24 August 1694, proved 11 March 1695/6.”

The problem here is that the dates of death and probate Richardson provides are not what appear in the actual records.  Capt. Thomas Carter records Edward Dale died on February 2, 1695, and the Lancaster County clerk wrote that Dale’s will was proved on March 11, 1695.  Both dates fall within the double-date parameters.  Although the reader doesn’t know it, Richardson is saying the date Dale died and the date his will was proved fall under the Julian calendar.

But do they? Is there additional evidence to settle the matter?

Price gives a transcription of an inventory of Edward Dale’s estate made March 30, 1696, and exhibited April 8, 1696.  March 30 and April 8 don’t fall within the double-date parameter, so the dates of the record actually are March 30, 1696, and April 8, 1696.

Of the deaths of Edward and Diana (Skipwith) Dale, the Thomas Carter prayer book says:  “Mr. Edw: Dale Departd this life on ye 2d Day Feb: 1695 and Mrs. Diana Dale died ye last day of July.”  No year is given for her death, but Carter goes on to say:  “who is left a little while to Mourn Him.”  So we know she died the July 31 after the death of her husband, but July 31 is not within the double-date parameter.  If Edward Dale died on February 2, 1694/5, then his wife died on July 31, 1695.  The prayer book of itself does not provide the answer.

Based on evidence thus cited, we still don’t have enough data to determine whether Edward Dale’s will was proved March 11, 1694/5, or March 11, 1695/6.  The inventory could have been made 19 days after probate, or a year later.  We have a death date for Edward Dale, but we do not know when he died.  We’ll have to dig deeper to solve the problem.

__________________

Did you guess the outcome?

Fortunately, Sparacio: Orders 1695-1699, p. 4 provides the answer:

“Lancaster County Court 11th of March 1695/96 p. 334.  A Probate of the Last Will and Testament of Major EDWARD DALE [deced] is granted to EDWARD CARTER, his grandone, KATHERINE CARTER his Daughter and ELIZABETH CARTER his Grand Daughter according to the tenor of the Will and THOMAS BUCKLEY, JOHN CHILTON, JOHN MULLIS and JOHN DAVIS are ordered to appraise the Decedent’s estate and to bee sworne by the next justice, an inventory to bee exhibited to the next Court”

And that appears to be the only entry pertaining to the estate of Edward Dale.  Although according to the inventory, the inventory was exhibited on April 8, 1696, there is no entry recording it.  Had Douglas Richardson not interpolated dates, but cited the court order entry documenting probate of Dale’s will, much confusion would have been avoided.  That is unacceptable.

Finally, we can construct a chronology of the last months of Edward and Diana (Skipwith) Dale:

{a}  Edward Dale made his will on August 24, 1694.

{b}  Edward Dale died on February 2, 1695/6.

{c}  Edward Dale’s will was proved on March 11, 1695/6.

{d}  Edward Dale’s will was recorded on March 17, 1695/6.

{e}  The inventory of Edward Dale’s estate was taken March 30, 1696.

{f}  The inventory of Edward Dale’s estate was exhibited in court April 8, 1696.

{g}  Diana (Skipwith) Dale died on July 31, 1696. 

I have only two further observations:  (1) it appears that in this case, where only a single-date is cited of a date that falls into the double-date parameter, the dates are those under the Julian calendar; and (2) before the inventory was made, the Carters had strip-mined Dale’s estate and stuffed their cupboards to bursting, because the remaining items are of little value.

So there you have it:  a case study in double-dating, and the reason you should not interpolate dates. 

Where there’s a will there’s a way

In the Name of God Amen the twenty fourth day of Augt 1694 I Edward Dale of the County of Lancastr in Rappk River in Virga Gente being of sound & p’fect memory God bee praised doe make and ordaine this my last Will & Testamt in manner & forme following ffirst I commend my soule into the hands of Almighty God my Creator and Reedeemer my body to the Earth from whence it Came to bee decently interred without any wine drinking as for such worldly Estate as it is pleased God to blesse mee wth I dispose of in manner and forme following , Imps if it shall soe please God that my now wife shall happen to overlive me I give unto her for her maintenance dureing her life the whole pffit of my Estate whatsoever some respect being alwaies had to her as an honest woman a Gentle woman many years my wife and after her decease I give the plantacon wheron I now live to my two Grand Children Peter and Joseph Carter to have and to holde to them and their heirs and assignes forever to bee equally divided betweene them and in Case of the mortality of either of them before they come to the age of one and twenty years then the whole to the survivor and in Case of the mortality of both of them then to my Grand Son Jno Carter  Item I give unto my two Grand sons Peter and Joseph Carter all my instrumts of husbandry upon or belonging to the sd plantacon  Item I give unto my Grand daughter Elizabeth Carter my best bed and the trunck  Item I give unto my two Grandsons Peter and Joseph Carter and to my two grand daughters Elizabeth and Katherine Carter all my P’sonall Estate whatsoever to bee equally devided betweene them and in Case either of the Girls happen to dpart this life before their day of marriage or eighteene years of age I give her part to the survivor  Item I give to my Grandson Peter Carter my Negro boy James & to my Grandson Joseph Carter my molatto boy Robin  Item I give unto my daughter Elizabeth now wife of William Rogers twelve pence in full of all claimes whatsoever  Item It is my desire for the better improveing of my Estate for the uses aforesaide that my Estate bee continued together upon the saide plantacon and after my wife bee supplied with necessaries and the plantacon likewise yearly I give unto my daughter Katherine Carter and my Granddaughter Elizabeth Carter during her life the p’ffit of all the Estate whatsoever.  Item I doe nominate and appoint my Grandsone Edward Carter and my daughter Katherine Carter and my Grandaughter Elizabeth Carter when she arrives to the age of sixteene yeares of age to bee my Executors  In witness whereof I have hereunto put my hand and seale Dated the day and yeare above written.  Edward Dale ye seale

Signed sealed and published in the presence of

John Chilton p sigr    Tho: Carter junr    Henery Carter

The above will was proved in in the County Court of Lancaster the 11^th day March 1695 by oaths of John Chilton, Thomas Carter, Junior and Henry Carter, witnesses in court. Recorded the 17^th day following by John Stretchley, Clerk of the Court.

[Price (1992) gives a transcription of Edward Dale's will found in Lancaster County, VA Inventory and Wills Book 8-C, pp. 55B-56 1690-1709, with inventory following on pp. 57-58.  Archaic letters have been modernized.  The inventory was taken March 30, 1696 (which doesn't fall into the double-dating parameter), and the transcript in Price lists the estate then being worth 10,607 lbs. of tobacco.  The only items of value remaining were livestock, Indian corn, wheat, and a small amount of tobacco.  Edward White owed the estate 81 lbs. of tobacco.  To put this figure of 10,607 lbs. of tobacco into perspective, on November 12, 1691, Joseph Harrison, son of Daniel Harrison, stated he received 19,486 lbs. of tobacco as his share of the estate.  Daniel Harrison died intestate, and there were 3 Harrison children, so as a crude estimate we can place Daniel Harrison's estate at a total worth of some 60,000 lbs. of tobacco.  Harrison's estate would have consisted of more than just personal property, which is what's listed in the Dale inventory.  (Sparacio, Court Orders 1691-1695, p. 3.)]

*****

This seems a good place to give the text of Capt. Thomas Carter’s “epitaph” of Major Edward Dale from the Thomas Carter prayer book since it is often cited:

“Mr. Edw: Dale Departd this life on ye 2d Day Feb: 1695 and Mrs. Diana Dale on ye last day of July.

Hic Depositum Spe Certe Resurgendi in christo quicquid habuit Mortale  EDWARDUS DALE, ARMIGER.  Tandem honorum et Dierum Obiit 2d Febry: Anno Dom: 1695.  He descended from an Ancient Family in England & came into ye Colly of Virga after the death of his Unhappy Master Charles ffirst.  For above 30 years he enjoyed various Employments of Public Trust in ye Coty of Lancaster wch he Dischargd with great Fidelity & Satisfacn. to the Governor & People.  As Neighbor-father-Husband he Ex celled and in early yeares Crownd his other Accomplishments by a Felicitous Marriage wth Diana ye daughter of Sr Henry Skypwith of Preswold in ye coty of Leicester Bart. who is left a little while to Mourn Him.”

I obtained photocopies of the actual prayer book pages.  I don’t think there’s a discrepancy in the dates given Edward Dale’s death in the two sections;  that is, given as February 2 in the preamble, and February 20 in the body of the panegyric, as is often supposed.  The “0″ in “30″ is written as a full character, so I think what’s been interpreted as “20 Febry:” is really just “2d Febry:”, as only the bottom half of the “d” is visible.  The image in that section is faded, and it’s unlikely Carter erred in the space of a  few sentences.  That makes Capt. Carter’s death date for Edward Dale as February 2, 1695.  Diana Dale died the following July 31.  Though the year of her death is not explicitly stated, there’s no doubt that’s what was meant.

For a copy of the actual “epitaph,” see the “The Thomas Carter prayer book” column.

It’s a family affair

In 17th century Virginia, a wife acquired dower, or financial interest, in property acquired by her husband.  Her dower rights came into play when the property was conveyed–either through a sale or death of the husband.  These rights entitled her to a third of the revenues of the property, and ownership of a third of the personal property.  This is the origin of the term “widow’s thirds.”  What constititued dower depended on what was being conveyed.  In 1694, personal property included slaves, who were often more valuable than they land they worked.  In 1705, the law was amended to classify slaves as real property.

Men couldn’t unilaterally strip women of their dower rights.  These rights had to be addressed in some legal fashion.  Women didn’t have to accept less than the value of their dower.  When a man made a will (testator), the usual practice was to offer his wife a “life interest” in lieu of dower.  This meant that for the remainder of her life, she would receive all the revenues of his estate, and while these revenues could be assigned, they could not be passed on to her heirs.  The advantage to the testator was that his property wasn’t permanently lost to the people he wanted to have it.

Husbands and wives didn’t always agree on financial matters, and if a woman thought her husband had cheated her in his will, she could go to court and reclaim her dower.  Planters didn’t want that to happen.  The status of the family depended upon wealth, wealth that could be diluted over successive generations.  Edward Dale was no exception in wanting his estate to be held by one heir and her children, and that’s what he said in his will.  Children whose fathers left them out in the cold weren’t happy about it.

Women died in childbirth often enough that they were terrified by the prospect of labor.  Given the staggering mortality rates in Virginia, regarded as one of the least healthy colonies, men and women could expect to have more than one spouse, and occasionally as many as four or five.  Married women were “feme covert,” meaning under protection of her husband, and couldn’t make a will, convey property, filt suit, etc.  If a wife died before her husband, and possessed no estate of her own, a genealogist will be fortunate to find a reference to her death in a church record or bible record.  Most of the time, multiple wives are inferred from other records.

When a man made a will, he could leave his property to anyone he chose, as long as creditors were paid and his wife’s dower satisfied.  Children had no inherent claim upon their father’s estate; had it been otherwise, the courts would have been clogged with children complaining of their father’s stinginess.

Edward Dale had three children by two wives.  By the first:  Katherine, who married Capt. Thomas Carter, and Mary, the wife of Daniel Harrison and Humphrey Jones.  Katherine had a large family.  The progeny of Mary is less well known, but she did have one proven son, Humphrey Jones, Jr. whom Dale acknowledged.

By his second wife, Edward Dale had one daughter:  Elizabeth who married William Rogers of Northumberland County.

Dale seems to have got on well with Carter and Harrison, men much closer in age to himself than William Rogers.

In his will, made August 24, 1694 (rec. March 17, 1695/6), Edward Dale inserted a quitclaim from his daughter Elizabeth Rogers:  “I give unto my daughter Elizabeth now wife of William Rogers twelve pence in full of all claimes whatsoever.”

Why did Edward Dale obtain a quitclaim from Elizabeth Rogers?  The short answer was that he feared Diana Dale’s resentment over his treatment of her daughter would cause her to hijack a portion of his estate.  She could have given one third of Edward Dale’s slaves to Elizabeth Rogers, along with a share of any other personal property Dale owned.  That’s a large portion of Dale’s estate permanently alienated.

Dower was not generic–it was something accumulated over the course of a marriage.  If a man was wealthy, a woman might have a fortune in dower, while a poor man’s wife had very little.  The laws governing dower and inheritance were different.

Elizabeth Rogers couldn’t sell or mortgage her dower rights to her father independently of her husband, and since there is nothing documenting such a conveyance we can be certain it never happened.  Until her husband took possession of property there was no dower.

Any judgement granted in a lawsuit to William Rogers belonged to William Rogers–if Edward Dale wanted to prevent lawsuits he’d have to deal with him, and whatever agreement they reached would be memorialized.  

Lancaster County court orders show only one lawsuit between Dale and William Rogers, that of September 13, 1693, in which Dale sued William Rogers for 600 pound of tobacco.  Rogers failed to appear, and a summary judgement was entered for Dale.  Earlier, on May 11, 1692, Edward Dale had been sued for 1000 pounds of tobacco by Edward Herbert.  Dale failed to appear, resulting in a summary judgement for Herbert.  So if you thought you were going to lose, you didn’t show up in court.

Tobacco was then used as currency, actual specie being rather rare.  Tobacco was purchased by the pound, and according to Kulikoff (1986) by 1670 tobacco was worth about a penny a pound.  Planters could make a profit at that price.  Annual production of tobacco per laborer was about 1600 pounds in the 1670s.  The cost of shipping fell, and by the late 1670s Chesapeake planters were exporting more than 20 million pounds a year.  Tobacco was packed in barrels (hogsheads, caskes), and planters often employed creative methods to increase weight.  So, while 600 or 1000 pounds of tobacco was not a negligible sum, a judgement in those amounts was hardly catastrophic.  (By the way, Kulikoff’s Tobacco & Slaves has everything you want to know about colonial tobacco production.)   

The “life interest” arrangement Dale reached with Diana Dale was, after all, a transaction between husband and wife.  When a husband asked his wife to relinquish dower in property, she usually did, but Diana Dale never relinquished hers in the tract Edward Dale gave the Rogers on March 12, 1677/8. 

There were no such restrictions on inheritance.  The only person against whom Elizabeth (Dale) Rogers had a claim was Diana (Skipwith) Dale, because after creditors, Diana was the only person with a claim against Edward Dale.  Had William Rogers pending litigation with Dale when his father-in-law died (and he didn’t), then the executors would have assumed Dale’s part and dealt with Rogers.

This isn’t intended to be a complete discussion of 17th century Virginia property and probate law.  It’s an examination of how property passed from one generation to another in the context of Edward Dale’s family.  Check out the “Tobacco Road” bibliography.

Endless knight

Kimber, E.; Johnson, R.  (1771).  The Baronetage Of England: Containing A Genealogical and Historical Account Of All The English Baronets Now Existing: With Their Descents, Marriages, and Memorable Actions both in War and Peace.  Collected From Authentic Manuscripts, Records, Old Wills, our best Historians, and other Authorities.  Illustrated with their Coats of Arms, Engraven on Copper-Plates.  Also, A List of All the Baronets, Who have been advanced to that Dignity, from the first Institution thereof.  To which is added, An Account of such Nova-Scotia Baronets as are of English Families.  And A Dictionary of Heraldry, Explaining such Terms as are commonly used in English Armory.  Volume the Second.  London:  G. Woodfall, et al.

On pp. 351-357 is an account of the Skipwith baronets of Newbold-Hall in Warwickshire, which gives much information on the earlier generations of the family and carries the line to where it splits upon the two marriages of Sir William Skipwith, high sheriff of Lincolnshire in the 18th year of Henry VIII.

Sir William Skipwith married first, Elizabeth Tyrwit, daughter of Sir William Tyrwit of Kettleby in Lincolnshire, by whom he had four daughters and four sons:

The sons were William; Lyonell; John; and George.  The daughters were Elizabeth, who married Thomas Clifford; Anne, who married William Hatcliffe; Bridget, who married — Cave; and Eleanor, who married Richard Bolles.

“The said Sir William, by Alice, his second wife, daughter and heir to  Sir Lyonell Dymock, of Scrivelsby in Lincolnshire, Knt. (with whom he had a great estate) left issue, a son, Henry, ancestor to the Skipwith’s, of Prestwould….”

{pp. 354-355}

Which Henry Skipwith was ancestor to the Skipwiths of Virginia.

All sources agree that this Henry Skipwith was the son of Sir William Skipwith’s second wife, Alice Dymoke, who could claim descent from the Capetian kings of France through Margaret, daughter of Philip III of France; this Margaret (Marguerite) being the second queen of Edward I.  The Dymoke and Welles arms are on the achievement* at the tomb of Alice’s grandson, Sir William Skipwith, in the church at Prestwould, and that should settle the matter.

If you’re familiar with this achievement, and the arms displayed, the early history of the Skipwiths to Alice’s son Henry, given on pp. 351-355 of the above volume, will be of interest.  I have posted these pages, along with the transcription of the tomb achievement, at:

http://picasaweb.google.com/binky9/SkipwithAndDymoke

Bear in mind that in 1771, the letter “s” was written as “f”, so the word “possessed” is spelled “poffeffed,” but otherwise it’s not difficult to follow.  On the very early generations of the pedigree I won’t comment.

However, in the generation of Sir Thomas Skipwith (d. before 19 Henry VI), who is alleged to have married Margaret, daughter of John Lord Willoughby of Eresby, I think there’s an error.  I can’t verify this marriage.  It’s been alleged that Sir Thomas Skipwith was somehow connected to Cardinal Henry Beaufort.  The questionable authenticity of any Henry Beaufort descent aside, the Skipwith claim originated in confusion concerning members of the Danvers family.  The identity of Sir Thomas Skipwith’s wife is unclear, and her relationship to anyone unproved.

The Complete Peerage (1953) Vol. XII Pt. 1 pp. 603-604 states:  “George (Tailboys), Lord Tailboys… was b. about 1522…. m., between 26 Apr. and 15 May 1539, (h) Margaret, cousin to his guardian, William [Fitzwilliam], Earl of Southampton, niece of Sir Thomas Henneage, (l) and da. of Sir William Skipwith, of Ormsby, co. Lincoln, by his 2nd wife, Alice, da. and coh. of Sir Lionel Dymoke, of Mareham-on-the-Hill, co. Lincoln.”  Sir Thomas Heneage, d. 21 August 1553, m. Catharine Skipwith, dau. of John and Catharine (Fitzwilliam) Skipwith. 

*A heraldic assemblage of certain components, among them the arms the individual was entitled to display.