I am happy to see that we haven't forgotten about Amer VIA. By the way, Judy, what about Nohome: */"Nohome daugh. to Amar uriah deceased ye 26 d. of March, 1688"/*, from "St. Peter's Church of New Kent County, Virginia Parish Register 1680 to 1787", published by Colonial Dames in 1904? I know that you once posted a scanned page of other of Amor's children's baptisms, and I am now looking for "Nohome Uriah" to see exactly how her first name was written originally. It may offer a clue as to from whence Amor was transported. It just so happens that New Kent County at the time of his transportation by Webb and Rea, was a hotbed of political intrigue and activity associated with Bacon's Rebellion. I formatted your two postings and uploaded them here: http://genealogy.blogsome.com/ (under category: Via, Viar, Vier, Viah). Jlmaupin@aol.com wrote: > > After studying some of the early records pertaining to the Via's, > here are some of my comments: > Amer was transported in 1677. No notation is tiven to indicate that he was > a minor. The belief is that Amor was born in 1656 or before. > April 11, 1699 in St. Peter's Parish the baptism of Judith Via, daughter of > Amer Via was recorded. > August 3, 1701 in St. Peter's Parish the baptism of Margaret Via, daughter > of Amer Via was recorded. > February 27, 1703 in St. Peter's Parish the baptism of Mary Via, daughter of > Amer Via was recorded. > In 1704, Amer Vice paid a Quit Rent Roll tax on 50 acres of land in > New Kent County, Virginia. (This information came from a transcribed > book. I've seen the name on original records before that was written as > Via but transcribed as Vice when the "a" was not completely closed.) > Amor Via's land was processioned in New Kent County, St. Paul's Parish in > 1708/09. In 1711 Amor's land was processioned and in his place is the name > Marg: Via. It appears as though Amor died after March 1709/09 and before March > 1711/12. > In 1711/12 the processioning records gives the name as Marg: Via. This > record may refer to Amor's wife. It still bothers me that she is not listed > as "widow" as many of the other women are, but at this point I cannot > think of any other reasonable explanation as to who she may have been. > In 1716 the processioning records gives the name as Mary Via. The return > still lists the land as belonging to Amor Via. This seems to indicate that > the estate of Amor was still not settled. Edna ~~ <ednabarney.com> 'what is the use of a blog without pictures or conversations?' ~~Neddy in Bloggerland My Homepage ~~ http://neddynews.wordpress.com My Photos ~~ http://members.cox.net/neddy/ My Flickr ~~ http://www.flickr.com/photos/neddy/sets/