Monday, May 31, 2010

Haden Family - Anthony of Goochland, Part II

I'm continuing with the early records of Hadens found in colonial Virginia.  I can not prove Anthony was Virginia-born, but certainly there were Hadens available in the right time and place to have been his family.

Although Anthony Haden had come from King William County to Goochland County, he later moved to Hanover County.  Hadens were already present in that county.  Few records of early Hanover County exist today - it is said the court house papers were used as cannon wadding during the Revolution.  Certainly they are missing.  The St. Paul's Parish Vestry records show evidence of Hadens in Hanover County as early as 1719.  Although I will most often use the Haden spelling, the name is also found as Hayden, Haydon, and Haiden.

St. Paul’s Parish was created when St. Peter’s Parish was divided in 1704. The Parish lay in New Kent Co from 1704-1720; then was in Hanover Co. St. Martin’s Parish was part of Hanover beginning in 1727.

St. Peter’s Parish had been formed 1679 in New Kent. In 1691 when King & Queen Co was formed from New Kent there was a provision for the inhabitants of Pamunkey Neck to be restored and added to St. John’s Parish from which they had been taken & the Pamunkey River be the bounds between the two Parishes. [Parish Lines, Diocese of Virginia; Charles Francis Cocke; 1967, p.106]
Note:  Remember in the previous post that both John Haden & William Douglas of King William were living in St. John's Parish and King William County had been the area known as Pamunkey Neck.

Records from The Vestry Book of St. Paul's Parish, Hanover County, Virginia, 1706-1786 by Churchill Gibson Chamberlayne , 1940, Reprinted GPC, 2007, include the following.  These records are not complete and some years are missing.  Processioning - the walking of the lands to determine property holders' boundaries - was ordered by the Vestry to be done every four years.  The property owner was supposed to be present.  Some years are entirely missing and some reports of the processioners are incomplete.  Sometimes both the orders for persons to procession and the returned report are present.  More often, only the orders naming the land owners and the two processioners are present.  Detail varies, I'm sure according to the diligence of the processioners and the recording clerk.  Often the neighbors surrounding the entries of John Haden remained similar enough that it was evident a person of that name lived in the same place for some years.

12 Feb 1719   Jno. Haiden's lands were not processed; he being not present.   The description of this processioning is:  "Lands of David Crawford, Wm Barksdill, Thos Grubbs, Jno Mallory, John Haiden, and Thos Spencer, being one precinct, of which David Crawford & Wm Barksdill were overseers."  If this is the same John Haden of the patent in King William, he has moved from King William County, or he's an absentee landlord.    Dates throughout the 1720's indicate a lot of gaps in the records and the scheduled processionings either did not take place, or the returns have been lost.  He wasn't mentioned in the 1720's.

Vestry held 29 Oct 1731.    A John Haiden/Haden appears on two different processioning orders.  Either there are two men of the same name, or one man owns two tracts of land.
One order reads:  Michael Holland, Wm McGehee, James McCloughland, Saml Gentry, John Lovewell, Wm Macon, John Haiden, Cornelius Tinsley, Richd Anderson, Jno Ragland, Wm Merideth, Thos Lacy Junr, Roger Williams. Holland & Gentry processioners.  Holland & Gentry made return and had complied with the order, so apparently processioned all these properties.
Another order:  land of Wm. Clopton’s orphans, John Haden, Thos. Dickenson, Cornelius Dabney, Chas. Hudson, Anthony Pate, James Brewer, Mary English, Jonathan Ashworth, Wm Hanes, Adam Reatherford, David Gwin, Wid: Broadhust, Edmund Massey, Saml Bumpass, James Nuckles, Benj Whealer. Nuckles & Gwin to see to the Processioning.  [A Cornelius Dabney had been one of the original leasees from the Pamunkey Indians - believed to be the father of this Cornelius living in St. Paul's Parish.] 

It has been 12 years between the processionings and none of the neighbors in either order were the same from 1719 to 1731.  It is possible John Haden had moved.  It is also possible, if this is the same John Haden who had land prior to 1699, he could be growing elderly - the Lost Virginia Records gives the list of ownership changes from 1679 to 1699 - we don't when in this 20-year time span John Haden had acquired his land in Pamunkey Neck.  It is possible there is a son of the earlier John, given the same name, especially by 1731 and maybe even as early as 1719.  The possibility of a third generation John Haden cannot be completely eliminated but seems less likely. Since no deed records from this time period in Hanover survive, I can only speculate.  Although not all the land owners were present, Nuckles & Gwin did make report and they had processioned John Haden's land.

11 Feb 1735/6  John Haiden again present for processioning in the orders directed to Nuckles & Gwin.  Same neighbors as in 1731.  No orders can be found for the other area.  Nuckles & Gwin recommended the precinct be divided because of its size.

In 1740, there was some problem completing the processioning in a timely fashion and again Nuckles & Gwin recommended division.
First was orderd into one precinct for processioning the lands of Wm Clopton’s Orphans, John Hayden, Thomas Dickerson, Cornelius Dabney, Charles Hudson, Anthony Pate, James Brewer, Mary English, Jonathan Ashworth, William Haynes, Adam Reatherford, David Gwin, Widdow Broadhust, Edmund Massie, Samuel Bumpass, James Nuckolds, Benj. Whealer. James Nuckolds and David Gwin to see the said processioning performd.   Most of these gentlemen have been on the previous processioning lists with John Haden.

James Nuckols & David Gwin were processioners:
"Who made the following return …..received the within Order too late, could not perform it according to Law, therefore humblys prays the precinct may be divided …lands of Martin Baker, Majr Kimbro, James Nuckolds, Samuel Bumpass, Edmund Massie, Thos Massie, John English’s Orphans, John Hayden, William Cloptons Orphans be in one precinct.
And that David Gwin, Adam Reatherford, Wm Hanes, Joseph Hix, Jonathan Ashworth, Widdow English, Cornelius Dabney, Robt Walker, Thomas Dickenson, James Brewer, Rowland Blackburn, Jeremiah Frazer, Edwd Pate be in one precinct. Given under our hands this 23rd of Mar 1740. James Nuckolds, David Gwin"

Also in 1740, a John Haden became one of the processioners.  The possibility still exists that we have two John Hadens in the Parish, or that he owned two separate tracts of land. 
Here is his assignment: and some of the neighbors are familiar from the Holland & Gentry precinct of 1731.
Orderd into one precinct for processioning, the Lands of Michael Holland, Wm McGillaray, James McCloughland, Saml Gentry, John Lovewell, Wm Mackain, John Haden, Cornels Tinsley, Richd Anderson, John Ragland, Wm Merideth, Thos. Lacy Junr, Roger William.
Michl Holland, Gent and John Haden to see the Sd processioning perform’d.

The next processioning of 1744 again shows John Hayden in two different precincts.  James Nuckols and David Gwin processioned the "lands of John Hayden" as well as their own - some of those listed since 1736.  Several of the owners failed to show their Lines and their lands were not processioned.

Also in 1744, Michael Holland and John Hayden were again ordered to procession the same lands as in 1740, but there is no record of their return report.  

As a reminder, by 1745, Anthony Haden, formerly of King William County, was a resident of Goochland County.

No processioning notes for 1748 survive. 

The next orders for processiong took place in a Vestry meeting, 30 Sep 1751.  Cornelius Tinsley and Richard Anderson were to procession a neighborhood that matches the one previously assigned to Michael Holland and John Hayden.  However, listed as one of their assignments was "John Hadens Orphans", another was the "lands of Michael Holland, dec'd."  So a lot has happened in the intervening years and there exist no probate records from these years to help.  Also the other precinct that had contained a John Haden and his neighbors [one of which was always Dabney] from the early years, is missing in 1751, so there is no way to tell if there had been actually two Johns.

17 Nov 1755 - the processioning again lists John Hadens Orphans, same neighbors as in 1751.  The other precinct - that included the Dabneys and John Haden earlier is listed, but there is no Haden at all.   Were there two?  Did one move?  Did one of the Johns own two tracts of land, one of which he has sold?  Impossible to know.

The 1759 processioning lists John Haden's orphans, same neighbors.  The precinct that had the Dabneys is there but again no Haden is evident.  A 1763 tax list indicates the former property of John Haden's orphans was still there in Hanover County, although by then I would not think any children would be underage, and the tax list says "estate of" not "orphans of".  I should point out that if there had been very young children or a will with life estate for a spouse when John Haden died, his lands could have been tied up and the estate not settled for a number of years.

In 1764,  a Thomas Haden is listed. in the parish, but none of his neighbors are names from either of the earlier precincts, so he doesn't appear to be in the same place as John Haden had been.  It has been five years but it seems unlikely all the neighbors would have changed.  Is Thomas one of the earlier "orphans"?  No way to know, but he doesn't seem to live in the same place.  A 1763 tax list exists.
Virginia Tithables from Burned Record Counties, by Robert F. Woodson & Isobel B. Woodson, 1970, p.49
Haden, Anthony of Hanover Co, 1763, 200 acres. [probably land of his second wife, the widow Isabel Clement, and I believe this is the last known record of Anthony, the Elder.]
Hadin, John's Exors, Hanover, 1763 (1755), 580 acres.
Hadin, Thomas, Hanover, 1763, 200 acres.

Sometime between 1749 and 1755, Anthony Haden moved from Goochland to Hanover, as evidenced in his deeds.  There is a deed of Anthony's that Thomas Haden witnessed in 1761.  Perhaps I should note here that the Hadens were literate and signed themselves and did spell the name Haden.
Mar 6, 1761. Henrico Co VA Anthony Haden of Hanover, deeds his son-in-law Jacob Ferris and his daughter Ruth Ferris, a negro woman, Aggey and two children Amey and Sarah. Wit: Geo. Clopton and Thomas Haden.
Not only does this deed place Anthony in Hanover and name a daughter and son-in-law probably living in Henrico County, it is witnessed by a Thomas Haden.  It is also notable that George Clopton was involved - the Cloptons had been neighbors of the John Haiden in Hanover since the processioning of 1731.  Some have tried to say that Thomas was a son of Anthony Haden, but since there is evidence Anthony gave land to all other known sons, and nothing to Thomas, I don't believe he was a son.  Thomas is not a given name used much in Anthony's family, either.  The possibility must be considered that Thomas was perhaps a nephew or cousin.

Although I believe it likely Anthony died fairly soon after the tax list of 1763, and no one else in his family is known to have been in Hanover, there continue to be records of other Hadens.   One would have expected Anthony Haden, or an estate, to appear in the processionings since he is on the tax list in 1763.  However, in the vestry records of 1759 and 1764, it is noted that several precincts are lacking - neither the "Order" or the "Return" exists. 

In 1767, Thomas Haden was again processioned.
In 1771, Isaiah Haden was processioned.  A new name.  A name never used in the family of Anthony Haden.  Isaiah continued to live in Hanover Co, although indications are he was in St. Martin's Parish.
Then there are several vestry entries indicating Thomas Haden had died, or was absent, leaving children to the care of the parish.
22 Oct 1772    To Anne Wade for Keeping Thomas Haden’s Child from the 1st day of October for 1 Year to come 9£.
To Gideon Via for Keeping Thos Haden’s child 3 Weeks. 7sh 6p
To Mary Wade for Keeping another “Do” 7sh 6p  [presumably the "Do" was for Thos Haden's child]
Note:  I would interpret this to mean Thomas and wife perhaps both deceased and Mary Wade & Gideon Via cared for a child temporarily until placed with Anne Wade.  Possibly there was "another" child.  However there is evidence of a living Thomas Haden after these dates.
3 Dec 1773    Ordered that Anne Wade be paid for keeping Thomas Hadens Child from the first October last to this time at the rate of £9 per Year and from this time at the rate of £5 per Year for 1 Year to come.
22 Sep 1774    To David Wade & Anne his Wife for keeping Thomas Hadens Child 10 months & 8 days @ £5 per annum. 4£ 5sh 6p

There were no more entries about the child or children.  I've also wondered if Thomas Haden lost a wife and had a nursing baby that he could not care for.  It's a puzzle.  There is no connection between Anthony Haden's family and anyone named Via or Wade.

There is a single mention of a Thomas Haden in the Goochland County records, when he witnessed a marriage consent in 1778, four years after the last time the parish paid for upkeep for Thomas Haden's child.
William & Mary College Quarterly; Vol. 7, Series 1, p.105, “Marriage Bonds in Goochland County”
11 Feb 1778.  Solomon Williams to Lucy Holland. Security, James Williams. John Holland’s letter of consent to daughter’s marriage witnessed by John Massie and Thomas Haden. The latter, Lucy Holland, aged 21, Dec 6, 1779.
Again, neither the Massies or Hollands were families closely associated with Anthony Haden's family, although the early John had lived near the Hollands.

Isaiah Haden was in the processioning in St. Paul's Parish in 1779.

Then there are some later Hanover tax records that suggest Thomas Haden either did not die, or perhaps the child under the care of the parish was also a Thomas and has now grown up.

Hanover County Taxpayers, Saint Paul's Parish, by William Ronald Cocke, 1956.  Covers 1782-1815.
Haidon, Thomas  was listed once, in 1782 [no slaves,horse,cattle – just himself as tithable, so this could be a young man just come of age]
Haden, Isaiah was listed in St. Martin's Parish in 1782, 1783, 1784, 1785, 1786 1788-89 and 1790.  The last two times, he appears with another adult male in his household.

There are a few more records of Isaiah Haden that survive and I include some records of his neighbors to show they were all in the general area.
William & Mary College Quarterly; Vol. 22, Series 1, “Records of Hanover County”, p.121
21 May 1784. Minor Mead [signed Minor Meed] of Hanover to Stephen Haynes. 350 acres on Stag Creek, willed to sd Meed by his Father. Adj. Rich’d Winn, Cornelius Toler, Jno Hicks & Jno Mead.
2 Apr 1786. Jno Meed & Elizabeth his wife of Hanover to Stephen Haynes. 20 acres, part of Homestead.
5 Dec 1786. Isaiah Haden & Ann his wife of St. Paul to Wm Lumpkin. 284 acres. Hadin’s Homestead, South Anna.
25 Sep 1786. Jno Meed & Elizabeth his wife to Lipscomb Moore. 209 acres adj Isaiah Haden, Jno. Butler & Stephen Haynes.
14 Feb 1788. Isaiah Haden & Ann his wife of St. Paul’s to Richard Littlepage. 247 acres. Haden’s homestead on South Anna River adj Jas. Cross, Wm Lumpkin.
Definitely the same Isaiah as in processionings, as the names Haynes, Mead, and Winn were in his neighborhood.

Interestingly, there is a later Anthony D. Haden living in Pittsylvania Co, VA - he applied for his Revolutionary Pension, File S-18103 and his widow applied after his death for his pension and for bounty land.  The same person gave testimony about his service on two occasions - one time he said Anthony D. entered the War from King William County - another time he said Hanover County.  This Anthony D. Haden has no place in the family of Anthony the Elder of Goochland.  He did have land adjoining that of a John Haden in Pittsylvania Co.  Descendants of John have not been able to trace him further back than the early 1800's in Pittsylvania Co, nor have they found proof of any relationship to Anthony D. Haden, although they appear to be of approximately the same age and interact with each other.   DNA tests show descendants of John to be perhaps distantly related to the descendants of Anthony the Elder of Goochland.  No male descendants of Anthony D. have been located although he certainly had sons.
Virginia, Pittsylvania County, August Court 1835.
Evidence produced to the Court to be certified that John Haden, Silas Haden, Sarah Haden, Joseph Haden, & Elizabeth Haden are the children and only heirs at Law of Anthony Haden Dec'd, late of the County of Pittsylvania who is reported to have been a Soldier of the Revolution and that the said Anthony Haden died intestate and that the said children are over the age of twenty-one years.
Papers certified by Will.Tunstall, Clerk of the County Court, 12 Sep 1835.


Is there a connection between the Hadens found early in King William, those found in Hanover County by 1719, and Anthony the Elder of Goochland?  Were there members of Anthony's family here prior to his first appearance in the Virginia records in 1742.   I believe that it is very likely Anthony was a second or third generation Virginian.  I believe it also likely that he had other relatives and they likely lived in Hanover and later Pittsylvania County.  There is no proof at this time.

Only a handful of DNA tests have been done by possible Anthony Haden descendants. Not enough to be really helpful except that it is certain the descendants of Anthony Haden have no common heritage with the family of the Thomas Haydon who lived in Spotsylvania County, Virginia, and had numerous sons and descendants. Nor do they have common DNA with the Haydens who were Catholics and residents of Maryland in colonial times, and they do not have common DNA with the Haydens found in New England early on. Speculation has existed that Anthony was somehow related to one or another of these groups by various researchers. He was not.

I will deal further with some of the other traditions surrounding Anthony Haden in the next post.

No comments:

Post a Comment

Post a Comment