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