Ann Witt

From http://www.genfiles.com/Witt/John_Witt_II.htm

• The Tuckahoe area was still frontier at the time. A law at that time required that there be for every 500 acres "one Christian man, perfect of limb, provided with a well-fixed musquett or fuzee, a good pistoll, sharp simeter and tomahawk”.[4]  
• John Witt II seems to have married Ann Rogers, but perhaps as a second wife. The will of John Rogers of Westover Parish, Charles City County, recorded on 5 August 1730, left livestock and other items to his daughter Ann Whitt, wife of John Whitt.[5] Whether she was the mother of his children is in some doubt. Of the four daughters named in Rogers’ will, two were unmarried. While they could have been aged spinsters, it’s more likely they were still teenagers or younger – the severe shortage of women at the time guaranteed that few would remain unmarried much past the age of 25 and most would be married before reaching 18. That suggests that Anne Rogers was a relatively young woman, thus probably a second wife.[6] It also suggests that John Witt II, probably born around 1675, could have still been fathering children by a young wife as late as 1725-30, and could perhaps the be father of our Charles Witt. 

John Witt’s children are uncertain, though it is clear that he had sons named John and Sylvanus.  

• 1.     John Witt III (c1700? – aft1778) He was apparently the eldest son.
• 2.     Sylvanus Witt (by1718 – aft1774) He can be proven to be a son. He first appears on 26 March 1739/40  He first appears on 26 March 1739/40 recording a grant of 400 acres in the part of Goochland County that became Cumberland County in 1749, located about 10 miles south of William Witt’s residence at the time. He had actually relocated there by 1745 when he became “reader” at Worley’s Church and later clerk of South Chappel in Southam Parish.  Evidently had no children of his own. 
• Charles Witt: A Possible Son  

It is possible that Charles Witt was a son, rather than a grandson, of John Witt.   

• Possible Daughters?  

It has been proposed that David Barnett and John Farrar, who witnessed the 1751 deed, were sons-in-law of John Witt. However, there is no evidence of a relationship, and they may simply have been friends or neighbors. John Farrar seems to have lived considerably west in Albemarle County at the time, though he owned land adjacent to the 1747 sale by John Witt. It’s intriguing that David Witt and a William Barnett jointly patented land in Halifax County five years later in 1756.  

• The Sarah Harbour Theory  

Practically all descendants of Thomas Harbour claim that his wife Sarah was a daughter of John Witt II. We examine this claim in a speparate document. Though a widely accepted theory, this hypothesis is not supported by any persuasive evidence. 

GEDCOM Source

@R-846509476@ Caribbean, Select Births and Baptisms, 1590-1928 Ancestry.com Ancestry.com Operations, Inc 1,60245::0

GEDCOM Source

1,60245::167599

GEDCOM Source

@R-846509476@ Caribbean, Select Births and Baptisms, 1590-1928 Ancestry.com Ancestry.com Operations, Inc 1,60245::0

GEDCOM Source

1,60245::167599

GEDCOM Source

@R-846509476@ Ancestry Family Trees Online publication - Provo, UT, USA: Ancestry.com. Original data: Family Tree files submitted by Ancestry members.

GEDCOM Source

Ancestry Family Tree http://trees.ancestry.com/pt/AMTCitationRedir.aspx?tid=74793048&pid...

GEDCOM Source

@R-846509476@ Ancestry Family Trees Online publication - Provo, UT, USA: Ancestry.com. Original data: Family Tree files submitted by Ancestry members.

GEDCOM Source

Ancestry Family Tree http://trees.ancestry.com/pt/AMTCitationRedir.aspx?tid=74793048&pid...