Description:
(#44022 - ETHINGTON)
Research during this period focused on William ETHINGTON of Spotsylvania County, Virginia. Previous research concluded that William ETHINGTON was born circa 1720 in county Surrey, England, and was transported to Maryland as a felon in 1741. William married by about 1745, possibly to Fanny, and had five sons as follows (Family Group Record, 25 May 1992):
Two objectives were stated for research. The first objective was "to evaluate the evidence collected to date supporting the theses that one William Ethington (spelled variously) is the father of five sons . . . . The sons are William, James, John, Francis, and Joseph. Another individual in the area at that time, one Thomas Ethington, may be a sixth son in this family". The second objective was "to either strengthen or disprove the thesis...
[Page 2 of report is missing]
...on 1 November 1785. The first revision was made in 1705, with subsequent clarification concerning slaves in 1711. The law was slightly revised in 1748, but the entire revision of 1748 was repealed by the Crown in 1751 before it took effect. The third revision in 1785 did not take effect until 1 January 1787, over a year after William ATHERTON Junior appeared in court. Therefore the law of 1705 overned the distribution of the intestate estate of Francis ATHERTON.
The provisions of the law of 1705 are briefly as follows. The heir at law was understood to inherit all real property, with one-third reserved to the widow as her dower portion during the remainder of her lifetime. As for personal property, the intent of the law was to distribute it equitably. Basically, after all debts, funeral expenses, and justifiable settlement expenses were paid, the surplus was to be distributed among the widow and children. If there were neither widow nor children, the estate went "to the next of kin to the dead person, in equal degree". Thus, next of kin refers to people other than the widow or issue of the deceased.
Some of the different cases of distribution were as follows. If there were a widow and children, the widow received one-third and the children or their legal representatives (i.e. heirs) received equal shares of two-thirds. If there were no children, the widow received one-half of the estate, and the other half was distributed equally among the next of kin of equal degree. If there were no widow, the children inherited equal portions. If there were neither widow nor children, then the estate was to be divided between the nextof kin equally (Document 1).
It has been presumed, because of an article published in Blue Grass Roots, that Francis and William (Junior) ETHINGTON were brothers. Since there is no evidence that anyone other than William ATHERTON Junior inherited from the estate of Francis ATHERTON, there are certain conclusions that may be drawn.
William was named "legal heir and representative" but not heir at law. Therefore William was claiming his right to personalty but there apparently was no claim to realty. [The error in interpretation that entered at this point was based on the incorrect statement that the heir at law of a deceased man who had no children was his eldest brother. Since William Junior was "legal heir and representative" and not heir at law, the incorrect statement was irrelavent.] Since only William made such a claim to the court, the evidence is that William was the only legal heir of Francis. Francis may have had a widow, but widows were provided for separately from heirs under Virginia's laws.
Assume for the moment that William Junior was next of kin. As next of kin he was to share equally with all other next of kin. Since there is no evidence of sharing, he had neither surviving siblings nor surviving nieces and nephews. This contradicts the found and presumed record, so apparently is incorrect. Therefore the circumstantial evidence indicates that William Junior was not next of kin to Francis ATHERTON.
There is no evidence that the estate of Francis ATHERTON was in dispute, since the only mention of the estate was on 1 November 1785 when William ATHERTON Junior was identified as the legal heir and representative by the Spotsylvania County court. Had there been a dispute, some mention should have appeared in the county court records. Therefore the circumstantial and documentary evidence indicates that William Junior was in court to elaim his rightful inheritance and not because of a dispute over the estate of Francis ATHERTON.
Francis ATHERTON was specifically identified as having died during the Revolutionary War. The war was officially ended in 1783, so William ATHERTON Junior did not claim his inheritance until at least two years after Francis died. Therefore, the documentary and circumstantial evidence indicates that William Junior was prima facie under the age of twenty-one when Francis ATHERTON died, turned twenty-one on or before 1 November 1785, and was the sole heir and legal representative, and only surviving child of Francis.
If this conclusion is true, then supporting evidence should be found in the Spotsylvania County tax records. We would expect that William Junior would not appear in the tax records prior to 1785, and probably would make his first appearance in 1786.
Examination of the tax records of Spotsylvania County included in family records reveal that a William ETHERTON was taxed for personal property in 1782, but did not pay for a white tithe. The next mention of William was in 1786, when William ETHERTON Junior paid taxes for one white male aged over twenty-one, three horses, and five cattle. In 1787, both William EATHERTON and William EATHERTON Junior paid taxes, proving that there were two Williams (FGR, 25 May 1992, Document 3). Therefore, the tax and court records of Spotsylvania County prove that William ETHINGTON Junior turned twenty-one during 1785, so the conclusion that he was the son and only surviving child of Francis ATHERTON is supported by the record.
The average Virginia man first married at about age twenty-four, and had his first child about a year later (Document 2). Thus, it is reasonable to conclude that Francis ETHINGTON was born circa 1739, married circa 1763, and had his son William ETHINGTON Junior in 1764. Therefore, if Francis was the son of William ETHINGTON, it is reasonable to conclude either that William was in Virginia prior to the transport of the felon William ETHINGTON in 1741, or that the felon brought along a family. There is no evidence that any felon was allowed to transport his or her family at government expense, and felons by their nature did not have the funds to transport their own families. Therefore, it is reasonable to conclude that the putative ancestor William ETHINGTON and the felon William ETHINGTON were not the same person.
This conclusion meets the second stated objective of research. The analysis demonstrates, however, that the thesis that William ETHINGTON fathered five or more sons is without a firm documentary foundation.
In order to determine which "sons" can be linked to William ETHINGTON, further analysis is required. Each pre-1794 reference to ETHINGTON in Spotsylvania County, Virginia found in family records was noted and compiled into a chronology. The chronology below is followed by in-depth analysis.
Chronology of ETHINGTON in Spotsylvania County
Analysis of the Chronology
The earliest found record of William ETHINGTON is dated 7 February 1743. On that date he petitioned the Spotsylvania County Court for payment for attending court as a witness for John PENN against George MUSICKS. Although there were no specific age requirements to petition the court in this manner, it is reasonably certain that ETHINGTON was of the age of consent (fourteen), and probably was an adult. He appeared again as a witness in 1747 for Nicholas RANDALL against Benjamin HOLLADAY.
By 1755 ETHINGTON was firmly settled on a home plantation, because he was required to provide his tithables for road work. He did not own his land, but only a small minority of the population of colonial Spotsylvania were landowners; most residents leased their lands. The leases generally were not recorded unless made for several lives. Since there is no record of an ETHINGTON lease for lives, the putative ancestor William ETHINGTON probably leased his land for his lifetime only.
In 1761 another ETHINGTON appeared in the records of Spotsylvania County. On 14 May Thomas ETHERINGTON witnessed two powers of attorney to James HUNTER of Fredericksburg. It has been suggested that Thomas may be a "sixth son" of William ETHINGTON.
The powers of attorney were made by Samuel WRAGG, Benjamin SMITH, and others of South Carolina. Samuel WRAGG was the son of Joseph WRAGG, merchant of Charleston. Joseph's daughter Ann married Benjamin SMITH and had a son Benjamin SMITH. Among the witnesses was John WRAGG, also a Charleston resident (Document 3). The witnesses to powers of attorney are witnesses for the person granting the powers, not for the person receiving the powers. Since those granting the powers and at least one witness were documented residents of Charleston, South Carolina, it is reasonable to conclude that Thomas ETHERINGTON also resided in Charleston when the powers of attorney were made, and that he probably signed them there. Therefore, the consideration that Thomas ETHERINGTON "may be a sixth son" is unsupported by the documentary and circumstantial evidence and is revoked.
The next ETHINGTON to appear in Spotsylvania's records is James EDERTON. He was named in the will of Joseph PETERSON in 1766 as the husband of PETERSON's daughter Lucy. The PETERSON's lived near William ETHINGTON on East North East Creek, so it is reasonable to conclude that James was a son of William ETHINGTON.
John ETHINGTON appears next. On 7 March 1769, Thomas STEWARD was appointed overseer of a road "in the room of John ETHERINGTON". Since ETHINGTON was overseer prior to being replaced, he must have been aged over twenty-one before 1769, and was certainly adult enough that the county justices were confident that he could perform his duties. The appointment implies that John was middle-aged, or circa thirty-five. He may have been younger if he was the eldest member of his family.
A pattern begins to emerge at this point. William ETHINGTON first appeared as an adult in the records of Spotsylvania County in 1743. Two decades later a second group of ETHINGTON's made their first appearances as adults: James in 1766 as the husband of Lucy PETERSON; and John in 1769 as a road overseer. Additionally, two ETHINGTON children were born during the same period: John the Revolutionary War veteran in 1751/52; and William Junior, son of Francis, in 1764. Thus, at least three ETHINGTONs--John, James, and Francis--became adults during the 1760s. This provides evidence of a second generation of ETHINGTONs in Spotsylvania County. The third generation began appearing during the 1780s, with William Junior and John the Revolutionary War veteran coming of age.
Also significant is the direct evidence nf two ETHINGTON farnilies. John the Revolutionary War veteran was born 1751/52 according to his own testimony in 1820. He cannot be identical with John the overseer of 1769 because the veteran was aged only about seventeen at that time. One of the Johns probably was the son of William ETHINGTON; the other may have been a sibling, grandson, or unrelated. It mav also be significant that John the overseer lived near Fredericksburg rather than on the north side of East North East Creek.
On 14 December 1769 William EDINTON advertised a horse "taken up" in Spotsylvania County. It has been assumed that he was identical with William the putative immigrant and ancestor. However, the last appearance of William the putative immigrant in the found record of Spotsylvania was in 1747. Thus, there is a gap of two decades between records of men named William, and it is possible that there were two adult men of that name in the county.
William appeared again as a witness to a deed dated 24 November 1774. In the deed, George and Margaret PETERSON sold land to Clayton COLEMAN. Once again, this record demonstrates the distinct possibility that there were two adult William ETHINGTON's.
William the putative immigrant certainly was the first generation ETHINGTON in Spotsylvania, as demonstrated by his records as an adult in 1743 and 1747. Joseph PETERSON was of the same generation as William, and died in 1766. Joseph's daughter Lucy married William's son James, establishing that William ETHINGTON and Joseph PETERSON were approximately the same age. It is not unreasonable to conclude that Joseph and William may have died within a few years of each other. This tentative conclusion is supported by the absence of the name William ETHINGTON in the records of Spotsylvania between 1747 and 1769.
Further evidence that tends to support this conclusion is found in a demographic study of Middlesex County,1650-1750 (Document 2). According to this study, the average man died at the achieved age of forty-nine. William Junior, son of Francis ETHINGTON, was born in 1764. Assuming that he was the first child of Francis, and using data from the cited study, it is reasonable to conclude that Francis was born circa 1739. Assume also that Francis was the first child of William the immigrant, apply the same statistics, and it appears that William may have been born circa 1714. Add a fifty-year life span to William's assumed birth circa 1714, and it is apparent that William the putative immigrant may have died circa 1764--before the renewal of William ETHINGTON records in 1769. Therefore, the tentative conclusion that there were two adult William ETHINGTON's finds some support.
While the evidence is far from conclusive, it appears that family records have mingled three generations of ETHINGTON records into one family. At this point in the analysis, it appears that the correct definition of the ETHINGTON family is as follows. William (I) the putative immigrant was born before 1720, and possibly as early as 1700. His children included James (II), who married before 1766, probably Franeis (II), and possibly John (II) and William (II). The third generation is represented at this point by William (III), snn of Francis (previously William Junior).
The ancestor Joseph ETHINGTON first appears in 1775 when he was listed as a delinquent taxpayer. He was again a delinquent in 1776 when James PETERSON paid Joseph's tax bill. These tax records prove conclusively that Joseph was born before 1760, because he must have been aged at least sixteen to be a taxpayer in 1775. James PETERSON was a son of Joseph PETERSON, and brother of Lucy (PETERSON) ETHINGTON. In 1776 James also paid the taxes due from the estate of James ETHINGTON. It has been assumed that Joseph was a son of William (I) ETHINGTON. There is no documentary evidence that theirs was a father-son relationship, although there is documentary and circumstantial evidence that supports the conclusion that William (I) was an ancestor of Joseph.
In 1782, Joseph was mentioned in a road order involving the East North East Creek neighborhood. On 16 August it was ordered that Joseph's children be bound out. Therefore Joseph was already married, probably widowed, and father of two or more children prior to 1782. Assume for the moment that the youngest child was recently born, and that Joseph had only one other child. Using documented statistics as a guide (Document 2), it is reasonable to conclude that Joseph married by circa 1778, so was born by circa 1754.
Another pattern emerges from the mists of scattered records at this point. A complete lack of documentation indicates that, with two exceptions, the ETHINGTONs were not landowners. In spite of that, William (I) and Joseph ETHINGTON were listed in road orders involving the East North East Creek neighborhood. The only ETHINGTON who owned land in that area was James ETHINGTON, who, through his wife Lucy, inherited seventy-two acres from his father-in-law Joseph PETERSON.
Joseph ETHINGTON had made his first "adult" appearance as a delinquent taxpayer in 1775. Virginia law and custom dictated that only heads-of-household were responsible for taxes, so Joseph was a head-of-household in 1775. He resided on or near the land owned by James ETHINGTON, who was deceased before 1776. Additionally, Joseph ETHINGTON bore the same given name as Lucy (PETERSON) ETHINGTON's father, Joseph PETERSON. Circumstantial evidence therefore suggests that the ancestor Joseph ETHINGTON properly belongs to the third generation of ETHINGTONs, and was the son of James (II) and Lucy (PETERSON) ETHINGTON. Since Joseph apparently was born during the 1750s, as was John the Revolutionary War veteran, John apparently belongs to the third generation as well, and may be Joseph's brother.
Thus, the revised generations at this point in analysis are as follows:
I. William ETHINGTON
II. James, married Lucy PETERSON
Francis
John (the overseer of 1769)
William (the witness of 1774 and taxpayer of 1782)
III. William, son of Francis
Joseph, son of James
John (born 1751/52), possibly son of James or John
In 1782, William ETHERTON was listed as a taxpayer, but did not owe the poll tax. The exemption frorn poll taxes usually was not automatic, but generally required application to the court. A presumption of advanced age is not reasonable because that was only one of many reasons for exemption. Thus, the conclusion that the 1782 taxpayer was identical with the putative immigrant William ETHINGTON is unsupported by the documentary evidence. Although William the 1782 taxpayer has been tentatively assigned to the second generation, support for any determination of his correct generation is extremely weak.
Two anomolous records appear during the 1780s. On 8 November 1786, Fanny ETHERTON was granted an allowance for attending court for three days. Then, on 5 February 1787, Lewis PINES Junior made his will and named his sister Molly ETHERTON. It has been presumed that Fanny may have been the wife of William (I) ETHINGTON, the putative immigrant, and that Molly was the wife of Joseph ETHINGTON. However, there is no documentary support, and little circumstantial support for that determination.
Molly, whose given name probably was Mary or Martha, certainly was the wife of a Mr. ETHINGTON. Four ETHINGTON lived in Spotsylvania County in 1787: William, William Junior, Joseph, and John. John apparently was the Revolutionary War veteran whose wife certainly was Susan SUCKLY. One of the two Williams probably married Susan's sister Catherine. Therefore, Molly may have been the wite of Joseph, one of the Williams, or the widow of Francis. Further evidence will be required before she can be firmly identified as the wife of the ancestor Joseph ETHINGTON.
Fanny appeared only as a witness, so she may have been the wife or widow of a Mr. ETHINGTON, or she may have been an unmarried ETHINGTON daughter. As with Molly (PINES) ETHINGTON, further evidence will be required to determine her status.
Thus, the first objective of research has been met, although neither completely nor with full satisfaction. The evidence is that William (I) ETHINGTON, who may have been the immigrant, had sons James, Francis, and possibly John and William. Furthermore, circumstantial evidence suggests that the ancestor Joseph was the son of James and Lucy (PETERSON) ETHINGTON, and grandson of William (I) ETHINGTON.
Due to the constraints imposed by time, it was not possible to expand this analysis to include Culpeper County references. Had these references and later records of the family been included, more firm determinations could have been made.
A detailed analysis of all extant ETHINGTON records found in Virginia, conducted to the depth of this report, should allow further refinements of the family structure. This analysis-in-detail should be completed before any further attempts are made to locate the ancestor William (I) ETHINGTON in England. Indeed, the determination that William (I) was the immigrant must be held in doubt at this time, because the reexamination and reanalysis of records conducted during this session have demonstrated that William was older by one or more decades than previously thought, that he probably died before 1770, and that his family was smaller and older than previously believed. In short, there is no direct evidence that William (I) ETHINGTON was the immigrant, and he is insufficiently well-known to allow positive identification in England.
Type: Research Report
Date: 1992-09-03
Pages that use this source: