Haden Family - Anthony of Goochland

Anthony Haden was my husband's ancestor - his sixth great grandfather.

I must admit I have put off posting corrections and conflicts I've found in the Haden family - probably because there are so many.  The progenitor - Anthony Haden first said to be "of King William County" and later of Goochland and Hanover Counties - is perhaps the most controversial subject.  So many myths surround him - from his birth to his death.  I will attempt to deal with only what I personally have discovered about him.  It will take more than one post just to talk about Anthony Haden.

To begin with, I do not believe that he was the immigrant although this is what is proposed in all the books in print.  There are at least four books that are widely circulated - three of them now out of copyright and digitized - that contain traditions that have been interpreted by readers and reproduced as fact, and also contain some outright errors.  All four are on microfilm from LDS.  Three of the books are about the Blakey family and indirectly deal with the Hadens, as one of Anthony's daughters married Thomas Blakey - these are now available in digital format.  My Father's Family by Edith Attkisson Rudder, Leader Publishing Co, Salem, IN, 1947.  The Blakey Book by Bernard B. Blakey, Little Falls, MN, 1977.  A Genealogy of the Blakey Family and Descendants : with George, Whitsitt, Haden, Anthony, Stockton, Gibson and many other related antecedents, compiled and edited by Lue Adams Kress, Caldwell, Idaho, 1988.  Most of the research on the Blakeys seems fairly accurate - there are early Bible Records, at least one of which is available on the Library of Virginia website.  Other families in these three books did not fair so well.  Especially the Hadens and also the Whitsitt and Proctor families who are included in the last two of the Blakey family books.  John Haden of Virginia, by Dorothy Kabler Haden, Adams Press, Chicago, 1968, is well written and contains a chapter of "traditions" which she plainly says are only traditions for which she has found no proof - it is obvious her caveat has been ignored by many.  A fifth book, which is actually a reprint of four installments from The American Historical Magazine, published by the Tennessee Historical Society Quarterly, 1904, "Annals of a Scotch-Irish Family: The Whitsitts of Nashville Tennessee" by William H. Whitsitt, Richmond, VA, 1904, also perpetuates the Haden [and Proctor] errors.  It was republished as a book by the Friends of Mill Creek Baptist Church Graveyard, Nashville, NT, 1996.  Some similarities in data can be found in all of these - the later authors obviously had access to the earlier books.

I had accepted that Anthony Haden was the immigrant in the beginning, but as I begin to research other families and also learn more about early colonial Virginia, I became aware that many of the genealogies in print seem to have reached the conclusion that an ancestor was an "immigrant" when they could no longer go back up the family tree.  An assumption often proved incorrect by more current and thorough research.  This is a situation quite often confronted in the Virginia counties that have lost most of their pre-Revolution or pre-Civil War records.  Nothing about the life of Anthony - the first record in 1742 shows he was then of King William County and buying land in Goochland County, VA - suggested he was an immigrant.  His deeds show close association with neighbors who had been in Virginia for a few generations and he distributed his land and slaves to his sons and daughters in the typical Virginian manner, even leaving the home place to the youngest son.  He signed his own documents.  In his later years, he moved to Hanover County, probably after marrying again.  Anthony's first wife Margaret did not appear on his deeds after 1745, and since dower releases were required in Virginia, it is likely she died soon after that year.

I have just mentioned two facts that do not appear in any of the printed material - Anthony leaving land to his youngest son and the taking of a second wife.  But I'm not going to explain those in this post.  Later.  I have substantiation for both.

Unfortunately King William, and its parent county, King & Queen, have had major loss of records, as has Hanover County.  However among the references I have been able to find concerning the earlier years prior to 1742, I have found indications there was a John Haden/Hayden quite early in Virginia.  And he lived near a William Douglas, in a part of King & Queen Co that became King William, in a time frame that could have made them possible parents of Anthony and his wife Margaret, long thought to have been the daughter of a William Douglas although no proof actually exists.  You will often see in print or in databases on the Internet, a birth for Margaret in Scotland - but the truth is that Margaret Douglas died at age four, when you continue in the parish records that list that birth.

I digress.  Some have even linked Margaret Douglas to the family of the Reverend William Douglas of The Douglas Register but that is not possible.  He listed his family in the book and he was at St. James Northam after the probable death of Margaret Douglas.  All of the books state she was a Scot, but like her father's name, there is no evidence of recorded proof.  That many of her descendants were named "William Douglas" as their given names is indisputable and appears to be the best reason for ascribing that name to Margaret's father.  The Haden family did abide greatly by the English naming patterns.  Only one record - a Goochland deed in 1745 - lists Margaret as the wife of Anthony Haden.

As in all family traditions, there rests that small grain of truth.  I think it quite likely Anthony was of English descent, and his wife was Margaret Douglas.  Perhaps her heritage was Scot - I just don't think either was the immigrant, but Virginia born.

I will not list all details concerning proof documents in the following, but can furnish more - if you are a dedicated Haden researcher.  Please contact me with questions.  The books now digitized on Ancestry were not there when I did this resesarch - I did my work in libraries.  Please understand that I don't have the last word, either.  I cannot connect the following records directly to Anthony Haden, but the presence of Hadens in Virginia in an earlier generation or two cannot be denied.  This is a work in progress and there exists the possibility that there is nothing else to discover and such a connection will never be proved. 

Based on all records I can find, the eldest son of Anthony & Margaret Haden, was named John.  The name John, although admittedly a very common name, was certainly perpetuated in all branches of the their descendants. That might suggest Anthony's father was also a John Haden.  Interestingly, there were two John Hadens transported to the colonies in an earlier time.  Nothing is known about whether or not either of them were ever in Virginia and they would probably have been two generations earlier than Anthony.
The Complete Book of Emigrants, Vol I, Peter Wilson Coldham
p.457 12 Apr 1660 John Haden bound to George Ingleton to serve 5 years; by “Little John” for Barbados.
Vol II.
p.179 10 August 1671 The following apprenticed in Bristol: John Hayden to Mathew Cradock, 7 years Virginia by “Trial” [name of ship]

English Duplicates of Lost Virginia Records, Louis des Cognets, Jr. 1958, is also available on Ancestry.com in digital format.  Page 57 and following, describes early leases the settlers had obtained from the Indians, from the Queen of the Pamunkeys.  This was an area around the Pamunkey river in Virginia - now parts of many counties, including King & Queen and King William.  The English crown eventually claimed this same land and wanted the rents from it. Several persons had held leases for 99 years – named by Order of Assembly held at James City on 25 Apr 1679 and should have priority and first grants - one of these was a Peter Adams.  Between 1679, and 1699, several of the original leaseholders had divested and by 1699, John Hayden is shown with 370 acres he received from George Adams, a son of Peter Adams, quit rents paid.  There are other surnames on both lists that are familiar as later associates of the Haden family in Goochland County, particularly Dabney as a Cornelus Dabney was one of the original leaseholders.

In Cavaliers and Pioneers, Vol. III, Nugent, p.48 [also in digital format at Library of Virginia], there is a patent to John Hayden, 196 acres in King & Queen County, St. Johns Parish, Pamunkey Neck, adjacent Thomas Nichols, dated 25 Apr 1701.  Patent Book 9, p.368.    Note:  King William County was formed in 1702 out of the area of King & Queen, known as Pamunkey Neck, which lay between the Pamunkey and Mattaponi Rivers. http://tinyurl.com/2vsfdbk

Digression.  Circa 1745, John Haden, son of Anthony & Margaret, married Jean Moseley, whose mother was a Nichols. Any relationship to Thomas Nichols is unknown, but the occurrence of the surname in a relatively unpopulated Virginia is noted.

There are a number of patents signed in the same area, Pamunkey Neck, in 1701 - many of these names match those from the 1699 English Duplicates list, and apparently are finalizing their right to these lands.  Many of the same names are also found on the Quit Rent lists in 1704 in King William County.
Two of these names which appear in 1704 in King William are:
Wm Douglas – 200 acres
John Haydon – 150 acres
The Quit Rents of Virginia 1704, compiled by Annie Laurie Wright Smith, reprinted by Genealogical Publishing Co, 1975, also digitized on Ancestry.com.

On p.168 in Cavaliers, there is a patent to William Douglas, 275 acres, in King William County, St. Johns Parish on the Mattopany River.  23 Dec 1714.   Patent Book 10, p.226.  
This places William Douglas in the same place and he was also there prior to 1714, as shown by the Quit Rent rolls.  Possibly he purchased his earlier property from an individual and therefore would not be in the patent books.  Other patents listing neighbors suggest both Haden and Douglas to have been near the Acquinton Swamp.

Then, of course, in 1742, Anthony Haden purchased his first tract of land in Goochland Co, and he was said to be of King William County.  By 1745, other deeds show that he was by then living in Goochland.  The fact that over the next few years, Anthony buys land which he gives to his sons, and gives slaves to his daughters, in all likelihood, as each was married, would indicate that he was a middle-aged man when he moved to Goochland County.

There is a single record of Anthony Haden's birth.  It appeared on a handwritten slip of paper in the Bible of a descendant many years after the fact.  The notation was simply:  Anthony Haden the Elder was born Aug 26 1694.  The Bible originally belonged to Capt. Jack Jouett whose daughter Elizabeth married William Dabney Haden, a great grandson of Anthony.  The Bible had descended to Elizabeth Jouett Haden as it also contains births and marriages of her children.  Family data from Anthony down to William Dabney was included in the Bible, or on the loose paper.   William Dabney's father was also named Anthony Haden, hence the need to write in "the Elder". There is no place of birth for Anthony, nor is there any data for his wife, and there is no death date.  However, this year of 1694 would certainly fit well with the age of man giving land and slaves to marrying sons and daughters in the mid 1700's.  It does seem reasonable to me, that since a birth date for Anthony survived in the family history, if he had been the immigrant, that would also have been notable enough to record.

So we have nothing to tie together these early Haden and Douglas records in King William County to Anthony of King William circa 1742, and likely some years earlier.  There are simply so few surviving records of that period. 

Hanover County is another place where traces of Hadens are found prior to 1742.  Although most of the county records of these years are missing, some parish records survive.  The information therein about another John Haden/Hayden [or could he be the same as the John in King William?] will be the subject of the next post.