Good Evening, Group!!! In some early tax records, if the male, husband, etc was not living in the county at the time of the tax the wife's name was used. Do you think he could have been in another county, working, living, etc, temporarily. William

Good Evening!!! I am sure glad to hear from you. As I said, usually by the time I find a good lead the person is already deceased. Glad you are still kicking. I only remembered some three years ago when I first got on the web hearing of a lady in Texas whose ancestors lived on the Via land up into the 1880's. So I guesI was s that was you. Since you have worked with the Land Tax Records, do they start in 1782? The Vias that are listed, do you think any of them could be the "original" land of Wm. Amer. By the way, I am the one who has promoted the use of the name William Amer. When we placed stones for Daniel and Margaret Via Maupin in October 2000, I used the William Amer Via as her father and Margaret as her mother. My basis for this is that Margaret and Daniel Maupin named their children after other members of their families. William Maupin their son used the William A. on a few documents. We have never found the meaning of this "A". Also the most popular Via name by far is William and yet Amer or Amor is never used. I was of the opinion that "Amer" was a nickname. There is still some questions of how Margaret Via, an orphan by 1718 met Daniel Maupin who was living and working in Williamsburg in 1719. They married apparently in Williamsburg also. Was she living there with other older siblings, or ! was she somehow connected to Wm and Mary College who had a section for Indians and poor families during the early times. Would appreciate any data from the Tax reports you are willing to share from 1782-1810. I plan to check Mid-Continent Library here in Independence, Mo for the records they might have. Have you seen the posts on Jean Via Thompson? She is possibly the sister to Margaret Via Maupin. Dr. Charles Brown was the person who made the comment in one of his writings that his grandmother was the niece of Margaret Maupin. The only way this could be if that his great grandmother was Jean Via Thompson wife of Robert Thompson. Other close connections between the Robert Thompson family of the Free Union area and the Daniel Maupin family of White Hall makes this all the more likely. The two families lived about fives miles or less apart. The name Jean was sometimes written and Jane, seemed to be interchangable in the early days of these families. Now we are wondering if the wife of John McCord could be another sister due to the similarities in the names and the close connections of the families. Isabell was John's wife. Hope to hear from you soon. William Albertson [email protected]

Mr. Albertson, It may be I to whom you refer as "the lady from Texas who said that her Via line lived on the original William Amer farm." You suggest that, and I am paraphrasing, that a group could join together to research the Robert Via line. I think I have about completely plowed that field as far as I know. It would please me immensely if new data emerges that I have not seen or studied. In the early 1970's, when I made my first research trip to Hanover County and Richmond, it was possible to actually read, hands on, the Personal Property Tax and Land Tax Records of Hanover that commenced in 1782, and that were at that time housed in the Virginia State Archives. I can't remember if the records had been filmed then or if the filming was done a short time later. I read them all, and when I got home, I ordered through the University of Texas here in Austin, all of the microfilm reels of both sets of taxes. I copied by hand every Via entry (Peace and Turner also as I descend from these known families in Hanover also) from 1782, until about 1872, the last yeaar that had been filmed. I typed every year altering nothing. As footnotes, I wrote my own observations about entries. The Hanover Clerks who recorded these kept meticulous records with many explanatory notes in margins, and whose penmanships through the years were excellent and easy to read. No bleeding through pages, quality of paper and ink was superior. The Personal Property Tax Records serve as a head tax or poll tax if you will. One learns such valuable information about what was valued through the years and what each poll possessed. I have studied and studied through the years the various implications of what the entries include and do not include and have formed various conclusions based on educated preponderance of evidence observations. I think I have in my library every book that has ever been published that includes data on Hanover/New Kent County (and by the way, there have been two books published fairly recently of inventories of known cemeteries) and the people who lived in these counties. I have corresponded with June Banks Evans a number of times through the years comparing information and speculation about our families, based on what we have found in our respective research efforts. I may not be your "lady" after all. I have never refered to Amor Via as William Amer. As far as I know that William appendage was just stuck in front of Amer/Amor's name by someone who may have documentation that I have never seen. It would be most unusual in 17th century for anyone to be listed with double given name. I am not looking at my notes or the VESTRY..., but I believe that the last year that Robert I's land was processioned as his was about 1755. In the same precinct afterwards are sons listed, and they plus (probably) youngest son, Littleberry, are listed in the Land and Personal Property Tax Records commencing in 1782. I believe from evidence I have accumulated that Robert I probably married above his station. In other words, he married a woman who brought to the marriage about 500 acres of land (based on the amount of land the sons collectively inherited). I know precisely where in Hanover County this land is, and you are correct, I have copies of the tracts as the last generations sold it, the last being by Andrew Jackson Via's brother's heirs in 1934. The land is on Black Creek on Route 619 not far from its intersection with Route 628 in the lower end of the county. This was not Amor's land. I have made half hearted attempts to pinpoint that land (probably never more than the 1704, 50 acres), but I have not found sufficient data to do this with certainty, although I know the general area. I have tried through the years to find someone who is interested in the Robert Via lines and the Vias who remained in Hanover, but I have not been successful. I would be so pleased to receive and share data that I have accumulated through many years and much research. On a similar note, I should mention that I also descend from another son of Robert I. That is through son, Robert (of the deed of 1788) through son, Robert (same deed), through son, Robert, to daughter, Louisiana Via, who married her third cousin, once removed (I believe, unless I have miscalculated), Carter Via in 1828. She inherited a portion of the original Robert I's land, and their marriage joined some of the land before it was divided. I doubt there are many who are interested, but if anyone would like to contact me directly about any of the Hanover Vias, my E-mail address is [email protected]

My posting of Dec. 2 contained misinformation. The explanation of processioning is in the Introduction to VESTRY BOOK OF ST. PAUL'S PARISH HANOVER COUNTY, VIRGINIA 1706-1786 as opposed to being in the Introduction to Vestry Book and Register of St. Peter's Parish as I wrote yesterday.

Good Morning, Via Group!!! While living in Virginia I visited Hanover Courthouse many times. It is rather small compaired to the other counties. New Kent is very small, only one small building. Both counties were among those who sent their records to Richmond during the Civil War for safe keeping. The rumored story is that towns people of Richmond burned the buildings containing the records to keep the Union from getting their records. Anyway they were destroyed. Only two deed books survied in Hanover, only because they had fallen off the wagon on the way to Richmond and were found on the way back. So the records contained in both courthouses is after the Civil War. But should not stop us from finding out the line of Robert Via. As most of you know you are looking for various spellings of the name. While in New Kent County in the 1990's working out the Courthouse, I was told that their was a Via who worked at the Courthouse Complex. I say Complex because there were several small buildings each holding different offices. This was common at some of the older counties that still had their original buildings. Anyway, the young lady, apparently single, was in the Voters Registration department. I went there and talked with her. The last name was Vier, I commented on the spelling and she said her grandfather had told her that her family had always lived in New Kent County. If this is so her family would have been a descendant of William Amer Via. At that time I knew very little of the Via's, I was working on the Maupins, Fosters and Jones families. By working a combination of all the records available we could piece this line of Hanover and New Kent Co. back together. William Amer's actural farm is now located in Hanover Co., just east of Hanover Courthouse. There has to be a burial ground there since he died in an time when most people were buried on their own land. I have mention doing research on this with Judy recently. I would like to do a group effort to prove this line. Records are available but it would take a combination of many different types of records to locate the farm and prove the lines coming down. Personal Property Tax Records for Hanover County are available, some may have already been copied by members of the group. Land Tax Records also are probably available, from 1782 to the 1870s. Cemeteries records of Hanover County will need to be checked for this reason. Some years ago there was a lady, I believe in Texas, who said her Via line had lived on the original William Amer farm until the 1880s when they moved to Texas. This deed of sale would be available, also the names of the current owners could be located by a deed search. This would put us in the neighborhood or perhaps on the the exact farm. If there is a cemetery on the farm it will probably appear in a cemetery book of Hanover County. Once we get the name of the Via owners in the 1870-1880 we can trace the Land Tax Records backwards to 1782. By compairing these name to the Personal Property tax we can establish which Via line stayed on the original farm. I have done this type of reserch before, it t! akes a lot of time and a lot of patience but it is better if you have several people working and discussing the results to insure that the research is accurate. With several different points of view you will insure the accuracy of your work. Question yourself and question others working on the project. I will check the catalogue of the Library of Virginia for the Land Tax Records. I have already made a list of the Personal Property Tax records available and plan to order the rolls within the next month. If we could form a group of 5-10 people, each one taking a particular section and posting our findings we could do the work much quicker and more accurately. In fact two people working on the same section would be great to insure the accuracy because one might see something the other has overlooked. This would be a great way to check our work. Locating the records of the lady in Texas would help also. She may be deceased by now. That is what I have found to be true when I need someone research. While in Virginia I visited many people doing interviews. When I visited one Ballard family he was 92 she was 80's. He died two months later and she died six months later. I was so glad I did now wait any longer. Is anyone interesting in joing a group to work on this project?? Judy, would you head this project for us? William Albertson [email protected]

In a message dated 12/2/2002 1:12:32 AM Eastern Standard Time, [email protected] writes: > 17 Mar 1711/12 ..order to procession the land which included the land of > Marg > Via. > To me this means Amer was deceased. > > 3 April 1716..order to procession the land which included Mary Via. The > return says that processioning was done and referred to the land of Amor > Via. > This seems to indicate that the youngest child was not of age, so the > estate > was not distributed yet and remained the land of "Amor Via." > > There were no processioning records for the Amer precinct for 1719 and none > > for his lands until 1731 when William shows up in the same precinct Amer > had > lived in. So this could mean the youngest child came of age between 1719 > and > 1730. Then when the processioning records started in 1731 William was > there. > > Now I wonder if this could reflect who the eldest was William or Robert? > > Judy > Judy - Have you actually looked at the original records? The only thing I have seen is the transcription done by Chamberlayne and I have never been convinced that "Mary" and "Marg." actually referred to a woman. I have felt that it may have been a misreading of the name "Amer, Amor" by the transcriber. Particularly since Amor Via does appear later in 1716. I do not have any record of Amer being referred to as "estate of". I have always believed Amer Via was alive until 1716 and died before the next processioning where William Via appears. As for Robert Via, he seems to have been probably considerably older than his brother William Via. His land was first processioned in 1719 which would give him a birthdate before or about 1698. What do you think of this? <A HREF="http://members.aol.com/neddybarney/">Edna</A> <A HREF="http://www.ednabarney.com">ednabarney.com</A>

----- Original Message ----- From: <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, December 03, 2002 9:03 AM Subject: Re: [VIA-L] interesting tidbits > In a message dated 12/2/2002 1:12:32 AM Eastern Standard Time, > [email protected] writes: > > > 17 Mar 1711/12 ..order to procession the land which included the land of > > Marg > > Via. > > To me this means Amer was deceased. > > > > 3 April 1716..order to procession the land which included Mary Via. The > > return says that processioning was done and referred to the land of Amor > > Via. > > This seems to indicate that the youngest child was not of age, so the > > estate > > was not distributed yet and remained the land of "Amor Via." > > > > There were no processioning records for the Amer precinct for 1719 and none > > > > for his lands until 1731 when William shows up in the same precinct Amer > > had > > lived in. So this could mean the youngest child came of age between 1719 > > and > > 1730. Then when the processioning records started in 1731 William was > > there. > > > > Now I wonder if this could reflect who the eldest was William or Robert? > > > > Judy > > > > Judy - Have you actually looked at the original records? The only thing I > have seen is the transcription done by Chamberlayne and I have never been > convinced that "Mary" and "Marg." actually referred to a woman. I have felt > that it may have been a misreading of the name "Amer, Amor" by the > transcriber. Particularly since Amor Via does appear later in 1716. I do > not have any record of Amer being referred to as "estate of". I have always > believed Amer Via was alive until 1716 and died before the next processioning > where William Via appears. I really don't trust transcriptions. I've seen some glaring errors when compared to the original. I found one translation of a will where a daughter was listed as a son because of the spelling of her first name! > > As for Robert Via, he seems to have been probably considerably older than his > brother William Via. His land was first processioned in 1719 which would > give him a birthdate before or about 1698. > > What do you think of this? <A HREF="http://members.aol.com/neddybarney/">Edna</A> > > <A HREF="http://www.ednabarney.com">ednabarney.com</A> Sue

----- Original Message ----- From: <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, December 02, 2002 10:14 PM Subject: [VIA-L] Robert > In a message dated 12/2/2002 4:49:32 AM Pacific Standard Time, > [email protected] writes: > > > > Anyway, has anyone traced and verified the line of Robert Via, > > William's brothe? > > > > Sue, > If you're referring to Robert that stayed in Hanover County I know some work > has been done on his line. As to verifying I'm not sure how well it's > documented. Hanover's a burned record county. Some records so exist however. > > Judy > I did find court rolls stating his land was secessioned (spelling) every few years up until the Revolution. So it could have been father, son, grandson all owning the same land, all with the same first name but that's just speculation. Robert wasn't that common of a name back then. I really don't even remember which county the land was in, although I did find a copy of a very old (early 1700s) map of Orange Co. which has a plot of land assigned to a Robert Viar in it. Of course, since the county lines changed so many times, there's no telling which county this plot eventually ended up in without the aid of something like AnaMap. Sue, thinking she may buy herself AnaMap for Christmas

In partial response to the messages contained in VO 2 #168, from VESTRY BOOK OF ST. PAUL'S PARISH, HANOVER COUNTY, VIRGINIA 1706-1786, p 251, Precinct 16, the orders to procession in 1715, did not include land of Robert Via, but when the return was made, the land of Robert Via was included, which indicates to me that Robert Via had acquired land in Precinct 16 between the time of the last processioning in 1711, and the return in 1715. Amor Via's land was in Precinct 14, and his land was inherited by William or bought by him. There was processioning done every four years, but there is explanation in the Introduction by Chamberlain that many pages of the Vestry are missing or partially torn out which could account for William's not being shown until 1731/32. The Precinct in which he is listed is 15, it appears, but in the course of the intervening years, the precinct numbers could have shifted from Amor's 14. Remnants of the same land holders or their heirs are in this same precinct that was occupied by Amor Via. In 1711, Amor was ordered to procession, but the return shows that it was Marg or Mary Via (Vin), widow, whose land was returned. I think this is the reason that we accept that Amor probably died about 1711. I would dearly like to see the original Vestry Book. I know that it is generally assumed that Amor's wife was Margaret, but I think her name could have been Mary just as well. As far as I have seen documentation, this Vestry is the only place her name appears. Margaret would have been abbreviated Mart not Marg. Mary would not have been abbreviated necessarily. A "g" not closed is a "y." The reverse is true also; if a "y" is closed, it would appear to be a "g." Both easy to do as penmanship is so personal. I descend from Robert, and from the evidence I have seen, my deduction is that he was older than William. I believe that William was fairly young when his father died and did not have the benefit of his father's teaching him to write (or read, it is assumed). His will is signed with a mark. Robert and Amor could write. There is example of Robert's signature in this Vestry. He and Amor were overseers at various times in their precincts, and one of the qualifications of being overseer was that returns had to be "written." Hence, they could write. In The New Kent Vestry and Register Chamberlain gives an excellent explanation of the ramifications of processioning in the Introduction. Perhaps another reason that Amor was not on tax roll in 1689 is that his 50 acres that he is shown with on the 1704 Quit Rent Roll had not been recorded, especially if he had had to work off an indenture. Fifty acres was the amount he would have been awarded by the crown under law after end of indenture. That 50 acres certainly is a red flag that he was indentured, although it is not proof, of course. My descent is from Robert to Littleberry to Josiah to Carter to Andrew Jackson to Walter Turner to Roy Daniel to myself. My great grandfather, Andrew Jackson Via, sold his inherited land that had been a part of Robert's original holdings in 1884, and came to central Texas. We laugh and say that we have moved only twice in 200 years. Because the land passed to my line, and the land can be traced in Hanover in the processioning records before the revolution, then in land tax records (they were not destroyed along with so much of Hanover records) commencing in 1782, it was fairly easy to track my ascent to Amor. My knowledge of the Via lines after they left Hanover is slight. I have seen the big Maupin charts, the wills in Albemarle in the 18th century; I know of some of William's children, whom Amor's daughter, Judith, maried, but I have done no original research of those Vias after they scattered. I have a good working knowledge of all of those when they were in New Kent/Hanover if they left records, and records were not destroyed. I know the names of sons of Robert who inherited his land, but I have no certain knowledge of his daughters. I have found no extant records. If one commences research in a "burned record county," it is a slow, painful, frustrating task, but there is always more that is extant than what one is led to believe, and it can be found if one is determined enough. It is certainly a challenge. If anyone has any documentation that Amor was born in France (assumed by many, I think) and in what year, I would appreciate very much being privy to source of such data. Also if there is any documentation that Amor was ever shown with name "William" preceding Amor, I would appreciate knowing source of that one also. I have been seriously researching the line in Virginia and in many parts of Europe for about 30 years but have found no documentation of Amor in Europe at all. I have wondered if he were hatched crossing the Atlantic. Janelle Via McKown

In a message dated 12/2/2002 4:49:32 AM Pacific Standard Time, [email protected] writes: > Anyway, has anyone traced and verified the line of Robert Via, > William's brothe? > Sue, If you're referring to Robert that stayed in Hanover County I know some work has been done on his line. As to verifying I'm not sure how well it's documented. Hanover's a burned record county. Some records so exist however. Judy

In a message dated 12/2/2002 6:10:01 PM Pacific Standard Time, [email protected] writes: > I think the assumption has been that Marg. Via was his wife or daughter? > If the 50 acres listed under Marg. really belonged to Amer, she wouldn't be > listed even if he HAD died in those 3 days. . . it would have been Amer's > estate or something similar - she would not have inherited the land in 3 > days, whether she was wife or dau. > Julie, Thank you for your response. As usual my brain and typing fingers didn't stay in tune with each other. The first date should have read 14 March 1708/09. George Turner and Amor Viah were made overseers but the return says "The lands of James Blackwell Senr, Geo Turner, Benja Buckley the Widdow Thompson, Gabriel Heath, John Barnet, and Amor Viah being made one precinct, of which the said Geo Turner, and Amor Viah, were appointed Overseers". Sorry about typing the wrong date for Amor. Judy

14 Mar 1711/12...Amor Viah and George Turner - overseers. 17 Mar 1711/12 ..order to procession the land which included the land of Marg Via. Judy, To me the above 2 records means Amer was alive and most likely the land processioned 3 days later was not his land. On the 14th he is listed as on overseer (on someone else's quarter) otherwise, he would have been listed as owner of that land, not overseer. I think the assumption has been that Marg. Via was his wife or daughter? If the 50 acres listed under Marg. really belonged to Amer, she wouldn't be listed even if he HAD died in those 3 days. . . it would have been Amer's estate or something similar - she would not have inherited the land in 3 days, whether she was wife or dau. It is not uncommon for an immigrant to have to work 20 - 30 years before saving enough money to buy land. Julie Julia Shiflett Crosswell Fort Worth, TX Shifflett Family Genealogy Website: http://www.shifletfamily.org

In a message dated 12/1/2002 10:12:32 PM Pacific Standard Time, [email protected] writes: > 14 Mar 1711/12...Amor Viah and George Turner - overseers. Obviously Amer > was > still alive at this time. The above date should read 14 March 1708/09. Judy

----- Original Message ----- From: <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Sunday, December 01, 2002 11:10 PM Subject: Re: [VIA-L] interesting tidbits > In a message dated 12/1/2002 6:36:56 PM Pacific Standard Time, > [email protected] writes: > > > > Isn't it probably the case, that he owned > > no land until he had that 50 acres in 1704? > > > > Edna, > I think the 1704 quit rent roll is the only quit rent roll to survive. So we > don't know when he started paying on this land nor do we know how long he > paid. I found this on RootsWeb's Guide to tracing family trees. > Interesting... > > Quit-rent taxes were a yearly amount of money paid by landowners, generally > at a rate per each 100 acres of land, and usually started several years after > the owner had settled on the property. Quit rents were abolished at the start > of the Revolutionary War. > > Assuming the above statement to be correct then Amer had his land for some > time before he paid on it in 1704. But according to "Men of Matadequin" he > was not a landholder in 1689. That's 12 years after he was transported so it > makes me think he was somewhere other than New Kent County. Or he may have been working off an endenture, then working to earn money to get started. Sue > > For anyone interest in learning more about taxes, etc here's the Rootsweb > link: > <A HREF="http://www.rootsweb.com/~rwguide/lesson11.htm">RootsWeb's Guide to Tracing Family Trees No. 11</A> > > Judy > > > > > > >

----- Original Message ----- From: <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, December 02, 2002 1:11 AM Subject: Re: [VIA-L] interesting tidbits > In a message dated 12/1/2002 6:59:58 PM Pacific Standard Time, > [email protected] writes: > > > > And the last known record of > > Amer being alive was 1716 when his land was processioned. > > Edna, > After reading what was in "Men of Matadequin" regarding heirs, etc. the > Parish records for Amer appear to me to mean: > > 14 Mar 1711/12...Amor Viah and George Turner - overseers. Obviously Amer was > still alive at this time. > > 17 Mar 1711/12 ..order to procession the land which included the land of Marg > Via. > To me this means Amer was deceased. > > 3 April 1716..order to procession the land which included Mary Via. The > return says that processioning was done and referred to the land of Amor Via. > This seems to indicate that the youngest child was not of age, so the estate > was not distributed yet and remained the land of "Amor Via." > > There were no processioning records for the Amer precinct for 1719 and none > for his lands until 1731 when William shows up in the same precinct Amer had > lived in. So this could mean the youngest child came of age between 1719 and > 1730. Then when the processioning records started in 1731 William was there. > > Now I wonder if this could reflect who the eldest was William or Robert? Interesting. I guess it depends on whether the laws of primature (I think I didn't spell that right.) were being used. I know I may have asked this before, and if I have, please forgive me, since currently I'm definitely not at my best, both mentally and physically. Lots of meds. Anyway, has anyone traced and verified the line of Robert Via, William's brothe? Sue, muddling around with the bad headache and mood swings due to prednisone dosages > > Judy >

In a message dated 12/1/2002 6:59:58 PM Pacific Standard Time, [email protected] writes: > And the last known record of > Amer being alive was 1716 when his land was processioned. Edna, After reading what was in "Men of Matadequin" regarding heirs, etc. the Parish records for Amer appear to me to mean: 14 Mar 1711/12...Amor Viah and George Turner - overseers. Obviously Amer was still alive at this time. 17 Mar 1711/12 ..order to procession the land which included the land of Marg Via. To me this means Amer was deceased. 3 April 1716..order to procession the land which included Mary Via. The return says that processioning was done and referred to the land of Amor Via. This seems to indicate that the youngest child was not of age, so the estate was not distributed yet and remained the land of "Amor Via." There were no processioning records for the Amer precinct for 1719 and none for his lands until 1731 when William shows up in the same precinct Amer had lived in. So this could mean the youngest child came of age between 1719 and 1730. Then when the processioning records started in 1731 William was there. Now I wonder if this could reflect who the eldest was William or Robert? Judy

In a message dated 12/1/2002 6:36:56 PM Pacific Standard Time, [email protected] writes: > Isn't it probably the case, that he owned > no land until he had that 50 acres in 1704? > Edna, I think the 1704 quit rent roll is the only quit rent roll to survive. So we don't know when he started paying on this land nor do we know how long he paid. I found this on RootsWeb's Guide to tracing family trees. Interesting... Quit-rent taxes were a yearly amount of money paid by landowners, generally at a rate per each 100 acres of land, and usually started several years after the owner had settled on the property. Quit rents were abolished at the start of the Revolutionary War. Assuming the above statement to be correct then Amer had his land for some time before he paid on it in 1704. But according to "Men of Matadequin" he was not a landholder in 1689. That's 12 years after he was transported so it makes me think he was somewhere other than New Kent County. For anyone interest in learning more about taxes, etc here's the Rootsweb link: <A HREF="http://www.rootsweb.com/~rwguide/lesson11.htm">RootsWeb's Guide to Tracing Family Trees No. 11</A> Judy

In a message dated 12/1/2002 1:34:32 AM Eastern Standard Time, [email protected] writes: > I have often wondered why William Via did not show up in the processioning > records of St. Paul's Parish until 1731. Maybe the above info regarding > land > not being distributed until the youngest child came of age had some bearing > > on this issue. This would also account for the entries we often see in > things like personal property or land tax records that for years say > "estate > of". This would tend to indicate then that there were children not of age. > This is a new take I had never thought of. By this reckoning, Amer's youngest child would have been born about 1713. And the last known record of Amer being alive was 1716 when his land was processioned. But I think now, that this reckoning may not be accurate, because I think that between 1716 and 1732, that there were NO processionings at all. So there would not be any records for us to know whether they were around or not? I think that is true, isn't it? I don't think they were lost - or were they. I cannot remember. Perhaps they just were not done. <A HREF="http://members.aol.com/neddybarney/">Edna Barney</A>

In a message dated 12/1/2002 1:34:32 AM Eastern Standard Time, [email protected] writes: > A 1689 list of landholders in New Kent Count shows no Via's. Steph Moon, > Nic > Gentry, Rouland Horsley, Robt Lancaster, James Blackwell, Robt Thomson, Edw > > Burnett, Jno Talle are listed in this list...no Via's. (SO WHERE WAS AMER > VIA IN 1689???) Judy - isn't it the case that Amer Via does not show up as a landholder until 1704? The earlier records of him in New Kent County are from the parish records of his children's baptisms. Isn't it probably the case, that he owned no land until he had that 50 acres in 1704? <A HREF="http://www.ednabarney.com/">~~Edna</A>

I came across a website and thought it may be of intrested to some of you. The information is abstracted from a PBS TV Series called "The Ground Beneath Our Feet, New Deal Virginia". It discusses the modernization of our homeland in VA and the formation of the Shenandoah National Park. The "Newspaper" section of the website contains copies of actual newspaper clippings that discusses its progression and one mentions Robert Via. The website is http://www.vahistory.org/index1.html Jeff Via