Elizabeth Proctor (Norton) - Trouble

It really is pretty much the same except for the terminology and some of the paperwork. We have a guardian instead of a trustee, who is holding the assets and managing them for the child, without the legal apparatus of officially setting up a trust. Taxation was very different in those days so there isn't an annual tax filing, but there's an annual court filing instead. Some states might still have an annual court filing today - federal tax law is the same everywhere but other aspects of estate and trust management are controlled by state law.

In the modern world, I simply don't see trusts for minor children in action because their parents are living longer. It's mostly surviving spouse trusts, which follow a similar concept to the provisions for widows that you posted. There's less concern about conflicts of interest nowadays, and most people appoint one of their adult children to be the trustee on behalf of their surviving parent. There's an obvious potential for abuse there, but I haven't seen it happen.

There were two opportunities to appoint a guardian for John Bishop Jr, once when his mother married William Marriott and again when she married George Proctor. We might be missing the records for the first time a guardian was appointed. If William Marriott was appointed as the original guardian before he married the widow, no one might have seen any need to change things when he did marry her. He would already have put up a bond, and if he was trustworthy before the marriage he wouldn't become less trustworthy afterwards.

If William Marriott wasn't the original guardian, there wouldn't have been a need to appoint a new one when he died. But the original guardian might have died too and needed replacement. Or maybe John Junior wanted to choose his own guardian when he was old enough to have a say in the matter.

Here's another thought. Maybe a guardian wasn't needed the first time because John Bishop Senior didn't leave any assets behind. He could have been a laborer who was working for somebody else and just barely getting by. Then his widow caught the eye of a rich guy, who promised to leave some money to her son if she agreed to marry him. So a guardian was needed when William Marriott died.

I've remembered the document saying "MASON, Francis: Leg. - To son, James mason one-half of 300 acres of Land formerly belonging to John Bushup, late of this county, deceased."

I wondered from the start how the Masons ended up with John Bishop's land. Francis Mason died around 1696 according to https://www.colonial-settlers-md-va.us/getperson.php?personID=I0605... His will doesn't specify whether he acquired the land from John Bishop Senior or Junior. Geni is currently saying that Junior died without issue in 1678, so Mason could have inherited the land from Junior if they were closely related, like cousins or uncle and nephew.

Or he might have bought the land from Senior during Senior's lifetime. The best reasons I can think of for Senior to sell would be (1) he wanted to go back to England (if that's where he was born, which we don't actually know) and died before he could take ship. In that case he should have left some money behind. Or (2) he needed money to pay his debts. In that case he might not have left anything behind. The best source of debts that I can think of is gambling or some kind of failed business venture.

There's something that's not adding up here. Here's the timeline from https://www.houseofproctor.org/genealogy/getperson.php?personID=I26...

"Sept. 4, 1672 Court proceedings show that the wife of George Proctor was formerly the wife of Major William Marriott, and before that the wife of John Bishop. Francis Mason was guardian of John Bishop, orphan."

"On 7 July 1674 a portion of the estate was awarded to John BISHOP. He was evidently the son of William MARRIOTT's widow (formally the widow of John BISHOP Sr.) per an Orphans Court judgment (which no longer exists)."

"John Bishop Estate. Admin granted to Francis Mason. Signed at James City by the Governor, 14 June 1676."

"George PROCTOR was again ordered to pay out of the estate to John BISHOP in 1677."

So Francis Mason was Junior's guardian in 1672. They don't say this is a new appointment, so maybe he'd been the guardian ever since Senior died.

Part of the estate is awarded to Junior in 1674. Nothing weird there.

Francis Mason is granted the administration of the John Bishop estate in 1676. What the heck is this? John Senior died years earlier, and Francis Mason was already Junior's guardian in 1672. Are there two Francis Masons, and one is taking over for the other? Or did Junior die in 1676 and they're talking about his estate?

Finally there is another payment to John Bishop in 1677. Does this mean that Junior is still alive, or was the payment actually to Francis Mason in his role as Junior's heir and/or estate administrator?

Don’t forget how John Bishop Sr got that 300 acres - by transporting William Marriott & others into the Colony is 1641. The patent for the land was renewed in 1658 to John Jr, and it was described as waste (unimproved, I think).

From The Library of Virginia - Virginia Land Office

https://www.lva.virginia.gov/public/guides/Research_Notes_20.pdf

In that year Virginia became a royal colony, and all land issued by the royal governor was made in the name of the Crown. A method of private land distribution quickly evolved, known as the headright system. Each person who entered Virginia to settle was given fifty acres, but in practice the land was awarded to the person who paid the cost of transportation of the emigrant. An annual quitrent was to be paid to the Crown for each fifty acres owned, and the land was to be settled and cultivated within three years.
The headright system remained the chief method of land acquisition in Virginia for almost a century. This system involved several steps resulting in the issuance of a patent (called a grant after statehood), which conferred legal title to the land. The potential patentee had first to present proof to the county court that a stated number of persons had
Archives Research Services | 800 East Broad Street | Richmond, Virginia 23219-8000 | 804.692.3888 | www.lva.virginia.gov
RESEARCH NOTES NUMBER 20
been imported into the colony at his expense. Virtually no records are extant of this proof. The court issued a certificate of importation, which was in turn presented to the secretary of the colony in Williamsburg, who then issued a right. This was presented to the county surveyor. The land was surveyed and all papers were returned to the secretary. If all was in order, then a patent to the land signed by the governor was issued to the patentee, and a copy was entered into a patent book. Most patents typically contain the name of the king or queen in whose name the patent is issued; the name of the patentee; the size, location, and description of the land; and the date. Information concerning the land title, the patentee, and adjoining landowners may be included. The persons who are claimed as headrights are also named, and these names constitute the best surviving proof of immigration to Virginia in its early years.
The persons brought to Virginia as headrights received no land; only those who paid their own passage did. The right to land due by importing headrights could be sold to another person before the patent was issued. Patents were often issued years and even decades after the names of headrights were submitted, and the headright did not necessarily reside on the land described in the patent. Patents were often repatented to clarify or strengthen the title. An excellent discussion of these points is found in Richard Slatten, “Interpreting Headrights in Colonial Virginia Patents: Uses and Abuses,” National Genealogical Society Quarterly 75 (September 1987): 169–179.

BTW I did belatedly see this:
From https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Marriott-43#_note-7

The below is a repatent of a 1641 patent:

25 Mar 1658: JOHN BISHOPP, son & heir of John Bishop, dec'd., 300 acs. James City Co., 25 Mar. 1658, p. 176, (263). Wly. upon land of Thomas Crouch, Nly. upon land of George Powell. Granted to his father 4 July 1641, deserted & now renewed for trans. of 6 pers: Wm. Marriott, Georg Duell, Wm. Roberts, Joane Hill, Thomas Jarrell, Abigall Adcockes, Martin Johnson, Margery Longnan.

So you can forget my speculation about John Senior not leaving an estate. He obviously left a claim to land if nothing else. At this point my guess is that Francis Mason was the guardian all along, and he filed the repatent in 1658.

The events in 1676 are still a mystery, but this was18 years after the repatent was filed. Maybe the original Francis Mason died and was replaced by another, or maybe John Junior died.

We posted at almost the same time!

John Jr died. Francis Mason wrote his will in 1697:

From https://www.colonial-settlers-md-va.us/getperson.php?personID=I0605...

Wills & Administrations of Surry County, VA 1671-1750 by ELizabeth Timberlake Davis, Published by Genealogical Publishing Co, Balitmore 1980,. p 93 -

MASON, Francis: Leg. - To son, James mason one-half of 300 acres of Land formerly belonging to John Bushup, late of this county, deceased. . To daughter, Frances Holt..proper acres. To Frances, wife of Thos. Holt, negroes, etc. To granddaughter Eliza Holt one negro. To granchild, youngest od Daughter, Holt. To friends, Mr. Wm. Edwards, Arthur Allen, Thos. Binns, Mrs. Eliza. Caufield & Mrs. Mary White 20 shillings each, to buy a ring. To my wife all the land where I live for her life, then to son James Mason. If orphan Francis Price remain with wife, until he comes of age, to have two cows etc. and taught to improve reading and writing. Desires that William, son of Richard Jelks, continue with my son-in-law, Thos. Holt until 21 years old, and pay him what belongs to him of his father's estate. Wife Elizabeth. 4 Oct., 1696. Prob.: 2 Mar., 1696/7. Wit: Ar. Allen, Joseph Coron, Richard Hargrave. Book 5, p. 116.

If you can stand any more issues related to the Proctor family, this is the guy that really started it all: Elias Sharpe

He married a Margaret Proctor who is the great-granddaughter of George Proctor of Bacon's Rebellion. HOP says he was transported to the colonies for theft and the pre-existing notes on his Geni profile repeated this. But I added a note saying the timeline is off. This link tells the story of the felon - it looks well-documented and says he was transported in 1725: https://myfamily2yours.weebly.com/elias-sharp-guilty-of-felony.html

"Our" Elias Sharpe had a daughter Mary who was born on American soil in 1715 and married a guy named John Parks. So either this is a different Elias Sharpe, or the birthdates of his children are off by at least a decade. A much-later birthdate for Mary Sharpe Parks would be inconsistent with the birthdates of her children. She's credited with having 19 children, which is pretty extreme but not completely impossible: Mary Parks

Wikitree's information on Elias Sharpe looks more reliable: https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Sharp-1762

It also says that his parents are unknown. His Geni profile has a family tree going back several generations, but I don't know where this information came from. I haven't seen any documentation on the felon Elias Sharpe apart from the link above, and it doesn't include any information on his parents.

His ancestry is unknown according to https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Sharp-1762

There's information on John Parks here including quotes from his will: https://www.genealogy.com/ftm/w/i/l/Larry-M-Wilson/GENE21-0003.html... He only mentions about half a dozen children, not 19. The birthplaces of the 19 or so are all over the place, so he was a travelling man if these really were his children.

My specific interest is in daughter Susannah Parks born 1751 who married William Jarrell. She may not actually be the daughter of this particular John Parks, but there is strong evidence that her father's name really was John Parks. The documentation for John Parks at https://www.familysearch.org/tree/person/sources/LHKP-QQW includes a handwritten note giving permission for his daughter Susannah to marry William Jarrell, and a marriage record for the couple with a note on it saying she had written permission.

Private User At this level of the tree, just add profile notes, and post links if there are connections to be disconnected by a curator. I put a link to the Geni profile of impossible or only possible parents found in the Geni tree. If there is certainty that the parents are unknown a curator can lock relationships against them being re added; if it’s still work in progress, leave it unlocked so managers / descendants can argue it out.

You did notice the Thomas Jarrell transported into the Colony in 1641 by John Bishop Sr, I hope? He was Thomas Marriott’s indentured servant. Had to sue to get his contract release honored:

https://www.genealogy.com/forum/surnames/topics/jarrell/84/

“Surry Co. Records, Book I at the DAR library shows a court record of 3 May 1658 on a servant, Thomas Jarrell, age about 23, who sought his release from the service of William Marriott.”

(meant William Marriott, of course)

This is the guy in my family tree: Thomas J Fitzgerald/Jarrell, Sr. His profile says he was indentured to William Marriott and arrived in Virginia in 1658 at the age of 23.

He would have been 6 years old in 1641 and not worth transporting unless they were bringing in whole families not just workers. It could be the same guy with some misreporting. If he was transported by John Bishop Sr, shouldn't he be Bishop's indentured servant instead of Marriott's? I've been wondering if Marriott himself started out as an indentured servant and worked his way up.

A couple of generations later this guy is born in North Carolina when his parents were born and died in Virginia: Henry Jarrell of North Carolina It's pretty likely that he's really my ancestor, but the generations before him are suspect.

There's a big pile of information at https://walterfitzgilbertdehamilton.wordpress.com/2015/11/26/cousin... including a paragraph about halfway through that has a whole bunch of court records on Thomas Jarrell all smooshed together. Here's the one related to the indenture:

"May 3, 1658: Thomas Jarrell made a deposition in court. He claimed he was aged 23 years old or thereabouts. He said that his master, William Marriott, sent him with John Brady to Mr. Mason’s house to carry some parcels, and that he asked Brady, who was once Jarrell’s master, along with John Spilltimber, when he should be free."

Notice that they're apparently going to Francis Mason's house. Jarrell's previous master is named Brady according to this, not Bishop, and apparently Jarrell figured his original master was the one who knew when the indenture was supposed to expire. I'd always thought that indentures were for 7 years, but they tell a more complicated story at https://www.encyclopediavirginia.org/indentured_servants_in_colonia...
"In its 1642–1643 session, the assembly passed a law mandating that any servant arriving without an indenture and who was younger than twelve years old should serve for seven years, servants aged twelve to nineteen should serve for five years, and servants aged twenty and older should serve for four years. Legislation passed in the 1657–1658 session adjusted these ages: anyone under the age of fifteen should serve until he or she turned twenty-one, while anyone sixteen or older should serve for four years. By 1705, the law had been simplified, so that all non-indentured Christian servants older than nineteen should serve until they turned twenty-four. ("Christian servants" generally referred to non-blacks and non-Indians.) Lawmakers entrusted the county courts with judging the age of each servant. In the meantime, they required slightly different terms for Irish servants.

The assembly declined to dictate standard terms for privately negotiated indentures; as a result, contracts varied in length and specificity. On September 7, 1619, Robert Coopy, whose age went unnoted, signed an indenture for three years' service to the proprietors of Berkeley's Hundred requiring that he be "obedient" to his betters and that they "transport him (with gods assistance)" to Virginia and there "maintayne him with convenient diet and apparel." In a much shorter document, dated March 14, 1664, Lott Richards, a merchant from Bristol, England, sold "one Sarvant boy by name William [F]reeman being about eleven years old and haveing noe indenture" to John Barnes for a term of eight years."

I've wrestled with the older branch of the Jarrells before without coming to a satisfactory conclusion. William Jarrell 1750-1818 is the first one who looks very reliable. His alleged father John Henry Jarrell has more problems than being born in a different state than his parents, his mother was also 50 years old when he was born. John Henry's Geni profile talks about sources but doesn't list any, and I haven't found any sources but family trees on Ancestry.

FamilySearch has a somewhat different ancestry for William Jarrell but it's messed up and lacking in documentation too. So I don't have much confidence in anyone before William Jarrell.

The Geni line:
Thomas Jarrell Sr 1635 England -1713 Surry VA & Jean Cook b. 1635
Thomas Jarrell Jr 1673-1741 b&d in Isle of Wight Va & Ann Atkinson 1670-1748
Henry John Jarrell b 1720 NC, d 1753 NC
William Jarrell b 1750 NC d 1818 Kentucky

The FamilySearch line:

Thomas Fitzgerald Jarrell 1644-1713 about 10 years younger and no mention of the Marriott indenture

Thomas Jarrell Sr 1673 - 1741
Two alternate wives at https://www.familysearch.org/tree/person/details/L8SG-85B
No son named Henry with either one.

Thomas Jarrell Jr 1703-1753 & Martha Kinchen 1713-1759 https://www.familysearch.org/tree/person/timeline/L8SG-85B
Geni lists Thomas as Henry Jarrell’s brother
FamilySearch has children in too many places with four born after his death

William Jarrell 1745 NC -1818 KY

:/

This is fun. Here's a book showing a transcript of the actual court records from when Thomas Jarrell sought his freedom. Unfortunately they're not showing the end of the story, but William Marriott does NOT sound like a fun master. It's on page 119, and you might have to scroll a little to get there: https://books.google.com/books?id=WCH_7LB7ItgC&pg=PA27&lpg=...

:/

“The below is a repatent of a 1641 patent:

25 Mar 1658: JOHN BISHOPP, son & heir of John Bishop, dec'd., 300 acs. James City Co., 25 Mar. 1658, p. 176, (263). Granted to his father 4 July 1641, deserted & now renewed for trans. of 6 pers: Wm. Marriott, Georg Duell, Wm. Roberts, Joane Hill, Thomas Jarrell, Abigall Adcockes, Martin Johnson, Margery Longnan.”

There is not at all a correlation between indentured servant and who did the transporting.

I would think this 1641 “or before ... or after” Jarrell was part of the Marriott group, yes.

I think I’m saying that the land was held before, in 1641. And then in 1658 was re patented as a headright, and we don’t know the transportation date.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.dailypress.com/news/dp-xpm-1990120...

“ ... Although the year of entry of persons mentioned as headrights is seldom given, the exact date when a tract was received was recorded. The records may include death dates, references to wills of former owners, marriages which resulted in changed ownership, residence in more than one county, moves to another area, or previous grants to an individual. ...”

“ ... Anthony Spilltimber of Surry received a grant in 1648 which descended to his granddaughter, Mary Carrell, wife of Thomas Carrell. Anthony was son of John Spilltimber, a neighbor of Thomas Warren.”

(I’m looking for the John Spilltimber who was once Thomas Jarrell’s Master).

Some references here:

https://books.google.com/books?id=k1qvRRwqI5AC&lpg=PA58&dq=...

And James Mason, father of Francis, was the overseer of John Spiltimber’s 1672 will:

https://www.colonial-settlers-md-va.us/getperson.php?personID=I0352...

The William and Mary Quarterly, Vol. 7, No. 4, (Apr., 1899), pp. 226
From Surry Co. records: Anthony Spilltimber made his will March
30, 1672. Names wife Mary, dau. Patty and dau. Martha, brother John.
Speaks of a debt due from Capt. Jennings. In the same records Anthony
Spiltimber is mentioned as son of Mr. Spilltimber, dec., who died
about 1656, leaving James Mason overseer of his will.

Hello, there’s a Dorothy Bishop.

John Spiltimber

On 16 November 1648, John Spiltimber patented 100 acres at James City County, Virginia, about 1 1/2 miles above the head of Smith's Fork Creek, bounded westerly by the land of John Corker and southerly by a swamp between this and the land of Thomas Warren. 50 acres of this parcel were formerly granted to William Coffer on 10 Feb 1640, and 50 acres are for the transport of Dorothy Bishop.[2]

https://archive.org/stream/cavalierspioneer00nuge#page/184/mode/2up/

So do we think that perhaps William Thomas Jarrell was the man transported to the Colony in 1641, who “son” b 1635 was first the servant of John Spiltimber (d 1656) & then the servant of William Marriott ... or was the son transported as a 6 year old child orphan?

I read somewhere that the rights to land that were earned by transporting workers didn't have to be exercised right away. If I remember right there was a 3-year period to exercise the rights, but rights that weren't exercised during this period could be renewed at almost any time in the future. It looks to me like this is what happened with the John Bishop land.

I suspect that there are two different Thomas Jarrells here, who may or may not be related to each other. Jarrell isn't a super common name but it also isn't particularly unusual, and is thought to be a variation of Fitzgerald.

https://www.encyclopediavirginia.org/indentured_servants_in_colonia... talks about the urgent need for laborers in the colony, and states the obvious fact that people who could afford their own transportation usually didn't arrive as indentured labor. So it doesn't make any sense to transport a 6 year old child, who wouldn't be much use even as a "showpiece" house servant. If the 1641 immigrant had a son who also immigrated, I think he must have come over a lot later, when he was at least 16. The indenture terms were variable, but for someone who came in 1641 to still be indentured in 1653 seems way out of line. It looks like about 7 or 8 years was the max.

It's unfortunate that no one in the court case said when the indenture was supposed to expire. Thomas Jarrell himself didn't know, but he believed himself to be 23 years old at the time and probably wasn't off by more than a couple of years, so his birthdate is as firm as you'll ever get for this time period. His former master Brady seemed to think that it was about time for him to be free, but apparently didn't know the exact date either. William Marriott essentially said that the only way Thomas would be free before the indenture was up was if he got himself hanged first, but didn't say anything helpful like "oh, you'll be free in six months anyway so just stick it out".

This raises an interesting question. There's a surprisingly long list of court records for Thomas Jarrell at https://www.genealogy.com/ftm/w/a/l/Kevin-Howard-Walters/WEBSITE-00... If we have two Thomas Jarrells who arrived in the same general area a few years apart, how many of these records are for one and how many are for the other? If these two Thomases have been having sons named after themselves, there could be three or four different people here.

I have seen children as household servants. They would have been related to someone though. Also, the 1641 date is the original land patent, it was renewed in 1658 as a headright claim. So we don’t know the transport date: before 1656 when John Spiltimber is dead. Maybe there’s tighter dating by looking at the other former master, John Brady.

Would they give someone a land patent before they had actually transported the people? A system like that seems like it would have a lot of potential for abuse.

We can always cook up a scenario to explain it, for example someone imported a child to give their own kid a playmate, and put a really long indenture on the imported child so they could get their money's worth later on. But "it's not the same guy" seems more likely. For all we know, the first Thomas could have come over in 1641 and died three weeks later.

Land patents, transportation dates, and head right claims are all different date stamps. And yes, lots of abuse in the headright system.

I think it’s the same Jarrell so far. Or let’s put it like this: any other Jarrell arrivers to Surry County?

No other Jarrell immigrants anywhere that I know of. Not that I've tried to track them all down.

If it's the same guy, then William Marriott held the indenture of a man who was transported at the same time he was. Unless John Bishop got his claim by transporting six people in smaller groups spaced several years apart.