Letter
from William Thorndale:
14
July 1978
Pleasant
Green Taylor Family
C/o
Mrs. Nola Wheelwright
871
37th Street
Ogden,
UT 84403
Dear
Family Members:
Since our letter of 31 May 1978 we
have made good progress in pushing back your Taylors to 1665 on Julian Creek,
Norfolk County, but still have not found how Joseph Taylor fits into the
family. A Joseph Taylor has been found administering the estate of Dinah
Taylor, deceased, in Norfolk County 1752-1755, which fits perfectly with your
Joseph entering 652 acres on Conetoe Creek in 1756. But no reference so far has
been found to any Joseph Taylor in the Taylor wills or deeds of Norfolk County,
which complicates things.
This report is in three parts. Part
1 presents two references showing your Taylors thought they came from Virginia.
Part II gives the data so far found on Joseph Taylor in Norfolk, while Part III
explains how we trace your Taylors back to 1665.
Part
I
Two facts exist saying your Taylors
lived in Virginia 1747-1751. Reputable researchers saw an entry in the bible of
Nicholas Wren Taylor, grandson of Joseph II (c 1751-1818), stating that Joseph
II was born/christened 1751 in Virginia. This bible is said to have been
destroyed in a fire in Kansas about 1935, but there is no reason to doubt the
fact the bible had such an entry. If Nicholas Wren Taylor started his bible
entries at the time of his marriage (c1854), then the entry was made at least
35 years after the death of his grandfather and this, coupled with the entry
date being just the year suggests “1751” was from someone’s memory or estimate,
and not copied from another bible. But the bible is fairly good proof the
family thought it came from Virginia.
The second fact is much better. In
1832 Richard Taylor of Edgecombe County, age 85 and a native of Virginia,
claimed a Revolutionary pension. He enlisted from the Edgecombe-Martin area but
did not say which county (E-13). However, two fellow vets attested to his
service and in their pension records is mentioned a third man who likewise
served. All three of these men served from Martin County (E-16). Further proof
comes from the absence of any Richard Taylor in the Edgecombe records during
the Revolutionary years; nor is there one in the 1790 Edgecombe census. So this
1832 pension petition tells us a Richard Taylor of Martin-Edgecombe was born
about 1747 in Virginia. Just which Richard Taylor he was is still unproven, but
he was probably the son of the Richard Taylor who sold the 75 acres in Norfolk
County in 1785. This is discussed below in Part III. (Rev. War pension files:
Richard Taylor, frame 0491 film 972,351; Jesse Coburn, frame 0162 film 970,589;
John Moore, frame 0615 film 971,756; William Price, frame 1180 film 971,975.)
Part
II
The wills of Norfolk County,
Virginia, have been published in abstract 1637-1735 and the various names in
these wills are therefore indexed (E-6 and E-4). Also, the loose wills in the
courthouse that were never recorded in books have likewise been published and
indexed (E-5), so we can be fairly certain no Joseph Taylor is named in a
Norfolk will of the period. We have read the actual Taylor wills to be certain.
We have also read all the Taylor deeds in Norfolk 1695-1799 and no Joseph
Taylor is mentioned (E-1, E-2, and E-7). The Norfolk County marriage records
are almost entirely lost for the years before 1750, which presumable includes
Joseph’s marriage (E-24 and E-25). The Church of England parish registers for
the area are also missing, but there is a vestry book (i.e., a book on parish
business affairs) for Elizabeth River parish 1749-1761 that may help; it has
not been read.
We then read the court order books
1742-1756, which was laborious as usual. On 16 April 1752 letters of
administration were granted Joseph Taylor for the estate of Dinah Taylor (E-9).
On 21 August 1755 Joseph won in court a small cash settlement for the estate
from the estate of a Richard Ballentine, deceased. These two references are all
that we have found so far on any Joseph Taylor in Norfolk. Further, Dinah
Taylor is not named as the wife of any man in the Taylor deeds and there is no
indication so far of who she was. An inventory of her estate was taken 2 May
1752 (E-26) for household goods and a few farm animals and this shows us she
was not the wife of Joseph. Unfortunately the inventory does not mention any of
Dinah’s kinsmen. It is obvious this Dinah Taylor is a very important clue in
identifying Joseph but so far both of them have been very elusive. The best bet
for finding more about them may be to read the Norfolk deeds page by page
looking for these two mentioned as witnesses. Dinah was probably either the
mother or sister of Joseph, so she needs to be identified if possible. (Norfolk
County, Virginia, order book 1750-1753 p.79, film 032,808; order book 1755-1759
p. 2, film 032,809. Dinah’s inventory in wills and deeds vol. I 1736-1753 p.
253, film 032,832).
Part
III
Remember that in 1785 Richard
Taylor, his wife Dinah, and their son John, all of Conetoe Creek, sold 75 acres
on Julian Creek in Norfolk County, Virginia. It seems we have located this land
as part of the estate of a Richard Taylor who died in 1679. This is very
important because in the Norfolk records is a 1678 letter linking this Richard
to a brother-in-law John Harding, butcher, of Newgate Street, London, which
should help you greatly in finding the English home of your Taylors. The text
of the letter will be given below after explaining about the Julian Creek
lands. In 1665 Richard Taylor and a Thomas Nash patented 446 acres on Julian
Creek. In 1679 Richard died leaving a will naming wife Margrett and children
John, Margrett, Richard, and Suzan. A few months later his widow Margaret died
leaving a will naming the same four children plus a nursing infant Thomas and
saying they were small. Richard’s will left his home tract to son John and a
piece of land on the north side of Julian Creek to son Richard. In 1704 the son
John made an agreement with the son of Thomas Nash regarding the Julian Creek
lands, a deed which proves the next mentioned deeds refer to John son of
Richard who died in 1679. In 1713 this John and his wife Judith deeded their
home plantation (farm) to their son John and named their sons Thomas and Jonas
as next heirs in succession if John died without issue. At the same time John
made a deed regarding his brother Richard: John says Richard received 75 acres
by their father’s will but has not made a will leaving the land to
his—Richard’s---sons. Since John was the elder son and heir of Richard who died
in 1679 and therefore might have a claim on the 75 acres if it was not
correctly passed on to his brother’s sons, John here says the 75 acres should
go to brother Richard’s son Richard. If this boy Richard (grandson of Richard
who died in 1679) dies without issue, then the land goes in succession to the
boy’s brother Thomas and so on down through William, John, and Edward. So here
we have three generations of Julian Creek Taylors; Richard I died in 1679
leaving son John (who had sons John, Thomas, and Jonas), son Richard II (who
had sons Richard III, Thomas, William, John, and Edward), and son Thomas.
(Right here we should point out an example of the inaccurate family group
sheets made by Oscar Russell—the sheet for Richard who died in 1679 lists an
eldest child Mary not named in the wills of either Richard or his wife Margrett
nor in the June 1679 division of Richard’s estate. Because a neighbor William
Taylor is said to be a brother-in-law of a John Taylor, his wife is plugged
into the Richard Taylor family on no good evidence. Sad to say, but Oscar
Russell let his imagination fly too high.)
We
roughly calculate John, Richard II, and Thomas were born about 1671, 1675, and
1679, so Richard II probably married around 1700. This would fit well Richard
II having five young sons by 1713. It is therefore our hypothesis that the 75
acres willed to Richard II in 1679 and deeded to Richard III in 1713 is the
same 75 acres on Julian Creek sold by Richard and Dinah Taylor in 1785. Either
Richard III was the same who sold the land in 1785 or, much more likely, the
1785 seller was the eldest son of Richard III. This latter idea would make the
1785 seller Richard IV (? The 1756 chain carrier and joint owner of the
652-acre Conetoe tract?) and thus make
his son the Revolutionary vet Richard V (c1747-after 1832). A Richard Taylor
Sr. died in 1807 in Edgecombe leaving a son Richard Jr. whom we think was the
Revolutionary soldier, so it would not be likely that Richard III, who was the
eldest of five young brothers in 1713, could have lived to 1807. Therefore, we hypothesize
that the 75 acres on Julian Creek passes down from Richard III to his eldest
son Richard of Conetoe who in 1785 sold the land. This would make Richard III a
good bet as the father of Joseph. If all these Richards leave your head
swimming, there are three points taken from the above that need stressing.
(1) The Julian Creek Taylors were
very probably Joseph’s family. By 1713 there were eight boys in the third
generation, any of which could be Joseph’s father. The chronology fits. Since
even the youngest of the eight would have been of marrying age by 1730 (taking
1713 plus 18), any could have been Joseph’s father and still allowed Joseph to
be at least 21 in 1752 when he administered Dinah Taylor’s estate. This
chronology also fits the Revolutionary vet who was born c 1747 and seems to
have been the son of the Richard who came to Conetoe about 1756.
(2) The 652-acre tract was split
among Joseph, Thomas, and Richard. The Julian Creek Taylors ran to the names
Richard, John, and Thomas. It may seem such names are too common to mean much,
but actually in this case the prevalence of Richards is a good lead.
(3) We must untangle the Julian
Creek Taylors. Since reading the Norfolk deeds seems the best way to do this
and since we need more facts regarding Joseph and Dinah in Norfolk, we will
continue that approach. It might be mentioned that Julian Creek also had a
Theodore Taylor who is kinsman to Richard I and who left sons.
All
of the above is still tentative though it fits together quite well. Since there
are many leads to be followed, the exact documentation has not been given,
though a set of our notes has as usual been sent to Mrs. Wheelwright. One last
point is the promised 1678 letter from John Harding of London to his
brother-in-law Richard Taylor of Virginia. Richard Taylor’s 1679 will is
recorded in Norfolk volume 4 of wills and deeds, page 51 (film 032,825).
Immediately below is recorded the letter because it had a bearing on the assets
of the estate (abbreviations expanded and few periods inserted; underlined
works are unclear):
Brother Taylor
I have sent severall letters to you butt never
received any answer. You gave a letter of attorney to one Jno. H____ [Hewss?] about two or three years since
to trouble mee to noe purpose. I am afraid you have been misinformed concerning
mee, and that may bee the occasion that I have heard from you by other hands. I
am willing that you should receive from me that which is your due, therefore if
you will order mee to pay you any thing by my very good friend Mr. Richard
Parrett S____ [Segt or Senr ?] residing in Rapahanock [i.e., along the Rappahannock River in Virginia], write me your
mind, and desire him to incluse it in such lines to me, and I shall
answer your expectations my self. With your sisters love to you and yours
wishing you with health and hapiness here takes leave who is/
Your loveing brother Jno. Harding
butcher next doore to the 3 tuns
taverne in Newgate Street,
London
Sept 1678
These to Richard Taylor upon the Southerne
brance of Elizabeth River in the Virginias
There
remains a minor matter regarding Swan and Lost Creeks in Warren County,
Kentucky. Mrs. Wheelwright informs us that Mrs. Colleen Evans of Durham, North
Carolina, showed a copy of our sketch map of Warren (sent with the letter of 25
January 1978) to a long-time resident of Warren County and he said we got Swan
and Lost Creeks backwards. Se this connection should be made: Swan flows into
Barren River and Lost into Green. We can see how disconcerting it must seem: If
the Ancestral Research Center researcher [probably
William Thorndale] cannot get such a simple fact right then what about all
the rest of his information? Actually, it makes no difference to the arguments
of the 25 January letter which way the creeks flow, since the important fact is
that they were and are north of Green River. As it happens, in doing the
research there was conflicting statements about these two small creeks. The
deeds seemed to point to the facts as we now know them (see B-13 and
B-19) but rather than take the time to unravel this minor matter, we relied on
an 1818 map which shows Swan flowing into Green River (see our notes B-16a).
The map was wrong and so were we.
Mrs. Evans also learned another
fact—that Swan Creek is aso called Taylors Creek. Our letter of 25 January says
we could not locate the Taylors Creek mentioned in the early Warren records but
it seemed to be south of Green River. Since the letter distinguished between
the Taylors north and south of Green River, this fact that Swan Creek is
alternatively called Taylors Creek needs comment. We have re-read our notes and
find Taylors Creek is mentioned only once: In the 1808 Warren tax list the
Gaspers River Taylors are shown as living on Taylors Creek (B-12). There is no
question that these Taylors Creek Taylors were the Gaspers River Taylors—the
first names are easily identifiable (Moses, Absolom, Reading). Further, these
exact Taylors are listed in the years before and after 1808 as living on West
Gaspers River. Since it is absolutely certain these Taylors Creek Taylors lived
south of Green River and are separate from your Taylors, we are left to explain
the matter. Perhaps “Taylors Creek” was a mistake; more likely the creek where
these Taylors lived was called Taylors Creek because, after all, many Taylors
lived on it. In any case, since there is no doubt these 1808 landowners lived
south of Green River, the matter does not affect our conclusions of 25 January.
We have written Mrs. Evans thanking her for the
information and asking her suggestions on furthering research. She also
received a copy of this letter because it discussed her Warren County findings.
Sincerely,
William
Thorndale
Research
Department