Monday, May 31, 2010

Haden Family - Anthony of Goochland, Part IV

Sorry, but there are more "traditions" surrounding Anthony Haden.  These are easier to refute.

Tradition:  Anthony served under the great Marlborough.
Marlborough’s battles were between 1704-11 and ended when he was accused of embezzling public funds. Seems very early for a man born in 1694 to have been in battle. No proof can be found and this tradition seems most unlikely.

Tradition:  Anthony settled first in North Carolina in 1720 where he was Councillor of State for 10 years. No, I don't think so.
No records of any Haden, any spelling, are listed in the Index of the North Carolina Colonial Records. No early land records exist, etc. that have a similar name. There is simply no proof found he ever lived in North Carolina at all. If the Bible record of his birth is accurate, he would certainly have been young for such a responsibility in government. It is my opinion that Anthony was never in North Carolina, although two of his sons moved there and a third son owned land in the "Carolinas". A migration directly into North Carolina and then a move to King William and Goochland Counties in Virginia would be highly unusual for that time and place. However, for sons to move from Virginia to North Carolina, looking for cheaper land, would be the normal course of events. Although Anthony owned land and slaves, he held no governmental or vestry positions in Virginia - that would not seem to be his profile.  Because of this "tradition" some of Anthony's children are sometimes seen as "born in North Carolina".  No, I don't think so - his children were surely all born in Virginia.

Tradition: Anthony served in the Revolution with sons and grandsons [would have been 80+, now how unlikely can that be!]
The Blakey Family says he fought at Battle of Point Pleasant where he was a Lieutenant. Said to have negotiated a treaty with the Cherokees, Chickasaw & Choctaw in 1780.
None of this is in the Calendars of the Draper Papers or any records I can find of Indian treaties. He is not listed anywhere in books that list soldiers from Virginia in the French & Indian Wars or the Revolution. Not mentioned in anything else anyone has been able to find.
Battle of Point Pleasant was the only major battle of Dunmore's War. It was fought on October 10, 1774, primarily between Virginia militia and the Indians.  It took place along the Ohio River near modern Point Pleasant, now West Virginia.  It seems highly questionable that a man 80 years old would be taking part in this campaign.
Some of Anthony's sons and grandsons did serve in the Revolution, but it seems highly improbable Anthony was even living by the time of the Revolution, and indeed I've found proof he was not. Grandson Anthony has Revolutionary records – he served as a Captain. I believe the records were simply confused. And there are records of that Anthony D. Haden who applied for his pension from Pittsylvania Co, VA. Perhaps early researchers were trying to account for two men named Anthony Haden from Virginia and made the assumption one of them must have been the very old Anthony.

Tradition: Anthony Haden died in 1797 at age 103.
Last record known to be his is the Tithable list from Hanover Co in 1763. He would have been about 60; old for that time. Taxed on 200 acres of land.  All other records found can be attributed to the grandson Anthony, who was born 26 Mar 1746 and old enough to create his own records by about 1767.

And then I found a deed, showing that Anthony was deceased and that his son Zachariah had inherited the homeplace and was selling it in 1774.

7 Oct 1774
Goodland Co, VA, Deed Book 10, p.491
Zachariah Haden and Elizabeth his wife of Goochland to John Hopkins of said County. For 120£ a tract of land containing 250 acres “in the county of Goochland on the Great Byrd Creek, being formerly purchased by Anthony Haden, in two separate parcels, the one of Thomas Stone Containing two hundred Acres, and the other of Edward Rice Containing Fifty Acres Both granted to the said Anthony by Indentures of Bargain and sale Recorded in Goochland Court and by the said Anthony Devised to his son Zachariah Haden, the present Granter thereof” Begin at Spanish oak on Byrd Creek, on said Edward Rice, line of markt trees in said Hopkins line, on Obediah Daniel, corner red oak on Byrd Creek, down the Byrd according to its meanders. Signed: Zachariah Haden, Elizabth Haden. Zachariah & Elizabeth Haden acknowledged the deed and she relinquished dower 17 Oct 1774.

In 1774 the word “devised” was a particular legal term with a single meaning – a bequest from a will.. So Anthony obviously left a will – probably in Hanover Co where so many records were lost. In 1769, the will of Edward Rice in Goochland as mentioned in the above deed, specifies land that bordered on Zachariah Haden, indicating that by 1769, this property already belonged to Zachariah and Anthony was probably already deceased. I also have the two deeds mentioned above when Anthony bought the acreage - and this is the only land Anthony bought that he had not otherwise given to his older sons years prior.
There are also conflicts concerning Anthony's wife and children.  I'll leave those for future posts.

Haden Family - Anthony of Goochland, Part III

I once heard a professional genealogist make this recommendation. 
"If you have a theory or premise about an ancestor and can find no record to support that theory, perhaps you should look again at the theory."
If Anthony Haden was born in England and immigrated as a young adult, there should be some record.

Many persons have looked for evidence of Anthony Haden's birth/marriage in England without any success.  One researcher alerted me to the parish records of Ryton Parish, County Durham, as he believed he had found the entry for Anthony Haden's marriage.  Examination of the LDS Microfilm #0814230 revealed this marriage.
1711, Oct 28 Anthony Haddon and Mary Duglas, Winlaton [Home of many Douglas families]  The researcher thought "Mary" might have been mistaken for "Marg" an abbreviation of Margaret, but I did not agree - the name was plainly Mary.  As I read through the records, the surname was often written as "Hawdon".

There are other records, possibly of the same Anthony, or maybe not.
Bapt 12 Jul 1685 Antho s. ______ [unreadable, could be any other surname...]
Burial 8 Feb 1688 Antho Hadden of Colebournes
Bapt 18 Aug 1706 Will, s Antho Hawdon of Sibdon   [this child born before the marriage record]
Marriage 28 Oct 1711  Anthony Haddon & Mry Duglas, Winlaton
Bapt 6 Feb 1725 John s. of Anthony Haddon of Batehouse   [born 14 years after the marriage record above and no children earlier/between - seems there were children baptized elsewhere or this isn't the same man]

The surname Hawdon is recorded as early as 1606 and continues through the end of these records in 1808. I suspect these as perhaps being the same family with the name pronounced as “haw-den” with the “haw” to rhyme with the call of a crow as in “caw”. This could explain the use of the double d, rather than the spelling as Hayden. Today in the UK, the name Haden/Hayden is pronounced almost as High-den which explains the reason behind the phonetic Haiden spelling seen early in the colonies. Those with the spelling as Hawden included Ann, Anthony, Catherine, Cutbert, Elizabeth, George, Isabel, Jane, John, Joseph, Magdalene, Mary, Ralph, Thomasin, William.

The film with the Ryton records has other records from parishes in Durham. The surname Hawdon also occurs in Whickham, Stanhope, & St. Margaret’s. Whitburn records included baptisms, burials, and marriages and the surname Haton was prevalent here, never Hawden – there was a single occurrence of the surname Haddon: 1586 Feb 29 Elizabethe Haddon was buried. The surname Douglas was seldom present in these other parishes.
The problems with the parish records are these.  To start with, I do not believe that this is the same surname.  If Anthony Haden of Goochland was born in 1694 as indicated in the Bible record - he did not marry in 1711.  The bride was Mary, not Margaret.  The same Jouett Bible records contains a birthdate for John Haden, believed to be the eldest child of Anthony & Margaret as 10 May 1723.  In England the custom was to baptize soon after birth - the John Haddon, son of Anthony of Ryton Parish was baptized in February of 1725, and it seems most unlikely he would have been the first child of a couple married in 1711 in a time of no birth control methods.
No other parish records have been found that even come close.
Anthony Haden of Goochland has been linked to a manor known as Haddon Hall in England.  Some suggest he was born there, and have even altered the name to "Haden Hall", but Haddon Hall was the name of the manor, not the name of the family that lived in it.   Here is a webpage complete with pictures and floorplan and a map: 
"Haddon Hall is a fortified medieval manor house dating from the 12 th Century, and is the home of Lord and Lady Edward Manners whose family have owned it since 1567."  and
"Haddon Hall is probably the finest example of a fortified medieval manor house in existence. Present-day Haddon Hall dates from the 12th Century to the early 17th Century, whereupon it lay dormant for over two hundred years from 1700 until the 1920s, when the 9th Duke and Duchess of Rutland restored the house and gardens, and once again made it habitable."
It is open to visitors from April to October, located near Rowsley in Derbyshire.

There is a tradition Anthony was "of Norfolk" in England.  Nothing can be been found to support this.  Some give the location of Haddon Hall as Norfolk to make it "fit".  Not.  Since English surnames were often derived from places, it is not impossible that some form of the name - Haden, Hadden, Hawden - did originate from the area near the Hall in Derbyshire.  It is always possible that some tradition of Anthony's family being from the area of Norfolk in England did persist in the family, but the grain of truth could have been that it was some generations earlier and not Anthony himself.

Anthony Haden has been given ancestors.  Again, they are "traditional" ancestors.  And, I think I found the original source of these "ancestors" and it was not even Anthony's family, but the family of Thomas Haydon of Spotsylvania County, Virginia.

There was a periodical published for a short time by a man named Charles Hayden who lived in Chicago, called The Hayden Family.  An article was published in 1929, prior to all of the books regarding the Haden family as given in the first "Anthony of Goochland" Blog.  I believe the early researchers had access to this article.
From  Vol I. No. 2. Second Quarter. April 1, 1929 p.59.

Copy of letter from Harrodsburg KY, dated Sep 4, 1928 to Charles Hayden [editor]
Dear Sir:
The papers I sent you through Mr. Hutton need not be returned, as I am very glad the opportunity was afforded me to give you the information in regard to the Haydon family.
My husband was Ezekiel Haydon, son of Ezekiel W. Haydon and grandson of William Haydon who lived in Jassamine [sic] County Kentucky. My maiden name was Sue S. Stephenson, daughter of Thomas Stephenson who was in the war of 1812. I am now in my eighty fourth year and I am enjoying wonderful health.
There is no stone in "The Pioneer Cemetery" (Kentucky's First Cemetery) marked Noah Hayden though there is some unmarked graves.
I hope you come to Kentucky some time and look up the Haydons of whom you may be proud to acknowlege as relations.
Thanking you again I am very sincerely your friend and kindred.
Mrs. Sue S. Haydon
An editor's note is at the bottom of the page "Anthony Haydon line"
But he was wrong.....

Here is the lady's Haydon husband's genealogy.
Susan Stephenson married 30 Jan 1862, to Ezekiel Waller Haydon, born 17 May 1836 in Kentucky and died 9 Sep 1897 in Independence, MO.  Ezekiel was the son of another Ezekiel, born 10 Oct 1793, Jessamine Co KY, died 1844 in Kentucky - married to Jane Dale, 19 Sep 1820, Woodford Co KY.  The elder Ezekiel was the son of William Haydon Jr., born circa 1766, Spotsylvania Co, VA, married Sarah Garnett, and died 1838, Jessamine Co KY.    William was in turn the son of John Haydon, born 1728, Northumberland Co VA, married possibly to Christan Brown and then to Lucy Morton, 31 Jan 1765, Spotslyvania Co.  John died Jul 1801 in Jessamine Co, KY, leaving a will that named Lucy and fifteen children - one of whom was probably the Noah whose grave Mrs. Sue Haydon could not find.  John was the son of Thomas Haydon, , born circa 1698, Northumberland Co VA, died 1782, Spotsylvania Co VA and Thomas's father was another Thomas, born 1640, England, died 1717, Wicomico Parish, Northumberland Co, VA.

Then in a later edition of The Hayden Family is apparently more of the data sent to Charles Haden from Mrs. Sue Haydon.
Vol 1, No. 4. Fourth Quarter. October 1, 1929 p. 166
Editor's note at the top of the page "Anthony Haydon line"
The article says:
"John Haydon" Born 1600; Beheaded 1656. "A man of herculean size and strength feet in height, weighing 320 lbs. and to have valiently handled on many a bloody field, a sword which weighed 26 lbs....  He was beheaded with many others for his principles..... his only regreat was that he did not live long enough to see his son James, hanged for espousing the cause of the Royalist."
After the paragraph about these men, John and James Haydon there is this note:
This record furnished by Sue S. Haydon.
"This line is traced on down through James born 1626 in England, Samuel born 1649 in England.  Anthony born 1694 in England and emigranted to Amera.  (Genealogy of the Haydon family obtained from John Haydon, who made the synopsis from the original record kept in the family of his father, which was unfortuately burned with his father's residence many years since.)
I have no positive proof at present but have reasons to work on the supposition that Anthony and Thomas Haydon of Spotsylvania Co VA were brothers. I find their descendants married in families of the same name."

On the next page, page 167, Douglas C. Vest, Assistant Attorney General of the commonwealth of Kentucky wrote a letter apparently in response to an earlier article:
"Mr. William Haydon of Frankfort, KY, has recently shown me a letter written to by you.  As my mother was a Haydon (Owen Co, KY) I am interested in tracing the line back as far as possible. 
By records in this state, we can directly trace back as far as William Haydon, who a resident of Lexington in 1779, and was my great-great-great-grandfather.  Can you give me the date of William Haydon's birth and death and tell me whether or not, he was the son of Anthony Haydon Sr who came to America.
I desire to tell you that the records of Woodford Co KY show that, John Haydon, b. Va. 1723, d. Ky. July 1801, m. Lucy Dale, widow of John Dale. 
If John was the son of Anthony Sr. how could he have been born in Va. in 1723?  Anthony came to America according to your records in 1730.

The editor printed in a footnote the following. "There is a flaw in the records furnished by Mrs. Sue Haydon, probably a typographical error. I hope to have an answer soon."

Now what I know that Mr. Douglas Vest did not is that William Haydon his ggg grandfather actually owned the land where Lexington would be located.  I received documents from the Kentucky Land Office about him when I inquired about my husband's William Haden of Logan Co KY who was about the same age.  Mr. Vest's William Haydon was a half-brother to John Haydon who married Lucy Dale.  John Haydon who married Lucy Dale was born 1728, not 1723.  1723 was actually the year that John Haden, son of Anthony was born instead of John Haydon, son of Thomas Haydon of Spotsylvania Co.  This is not the first time that I've evidence of confusing cross-over between the two different families.

My observations:  No answer from the editor seemed to be forthcoming in the volumes that exist. There was no further explanation of the flaw in the records. But in the years to come, traditions concerning Anthony's ancestors as Samuel, James, and John appear.  This publication seems to be the origin as the later stories are very similar.  As is evident to me, if these men whose actual record has long since been lost were anyone's ancestors, they were ancestors of Thomas Haydon, who was born circa 1640 in England, since the records were handed down in his family [and lost years earlier in a fire].  Even then, there are serious problems with the dates compared to what records can now be found and researchers of Thomas Haydon don't claim them, either.  No one has produced any records of these English Haydon martyrs.  It would also appear since the date of 1694 for Anthony's birth, which is from the Jouett Bible record, as well as the birth of a John in 1723 have appeared in this picture - that perhaps information about the Anthony Haden family had appeared at some other time in an edition of The Hayden Family  Only a handful of editions survive, filmed by the LDS.  The July edition of 1929 which was between the two quoted above, had nothing about Anthony's family, but possibly something had been printed earlier prior to the receipt of the letter by Mrs. Sue S. Haydon.

Anthony could not have been part of these traditions of the Haydon family and the Haydons left many record tracks in Virginia. DNA has proved these families are not related.  Good solid research has adequately separated these two families and sorted out the various Johns and Williams.  I can point out that the name "Anthony" doesn't occur among the many descendants of Thomas Haydon.  There are other names, such as Jarvis, that appear often in the Thomas Haydon family that do not ever appear among Anthony's descendants.

It is very true that descendants of both Thomas Haydon's family and descendants of Anthony Haden's family married into the same family. However, that happened in Missouri, and not until the 1830's. Abner Haydon married Amanda Kirtley, 15 Feb 1838, in Boone Co, MO. Abner was a grandson of the John Haydon who married Lucy Dale. Amanda's sister Zerelda married Joel Harris Haden, 4 Jul 1838, Boone Co, MO., and after Zerelda's death, Joel Harris married another Kirtley sister, Sarah, on 18 Sep 1872. Joel Harris Haden was a great, great grandson of Anthony of Goochland. By one of those strange quirks of fate, members of both families had migrated from Virginia to Kentucky and on to Missouri, along with the tide of those headed west.  They had not arrived in Missouri by the same route, as the families did not live in any of the same counties in Kentucky, nor had they lived near each other in Virginia.

Now there are a few other "traditions" that must be examined in the next post.

Note:  I did not include this earlier.  The entries from the Bible of Capt. Jack Jouett were published in Kentucky Ancestors, Vol. 3 #4, Apr 1968. The Bible itself was published in 1803.  Many of the entries were timely.  The sheet pinned in the Bible traced the earlier three generations of William Dabney Haden's family - many of these dates can be proved with other records.

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.