Susannah Williamson

Thomas married Susannah 'Susan' Carter 1 Jun 1696, Henrico Co., Virginia. Susannah (daughter of Giles1 Carter and Hannah Crew/Crews/Crewes) was born Abt 1674, Henrico Co., Virginia; died Yes, date unknown. [Group Sheet]

Notes:

http://oliverdreams.tripod.com/GilesCarter.html

Susannah Carter-2, born before 1676, and mentioned in James Crewes? will, the first wife of Daniel Price, Sr.-ii, the man to whom James Crewes left his best clothes. Daniel-ii was also the child mentioned in the will of John Rowan in the 1660?s.

Her second husband was Thomas Williamson. She was the mother of Daniel Price, Jr.-iii Daniel, Sr.-ii was the son of John Price-i mentioned in John Rowan?s will. His mother had married, as her third husband, the man who was James Crewes? business partner.




John Rowans Will is dated 1 May 1662. He leaves Orphans Daniel and John Price items. Everyone has assumed that these are the Children of Susanna Carter, d/o Giles and Hannah Crew. So they must have been born by 1662, unless Daniel Price who married Susanna Carter was the orphan. The dates are funky and do not work for Daniel Price's and Susanna Carter's children.

Name:
Daniel Price m. Susanna Carter Abt 1654 ? abt 01 Aug 1692 They married after 23 July 1676. She was the daughter of Giles Carter and Hannah Crew. Susanna m2nd Thomas Williamson. On 01 June 1696 William Sewell and 2 Theoderick Carter (Susanna's brother) offered themselves as security for the estate of the orphans of Daniel Price in the hands of Thomas Williamson (Henrico Co. Order Book 1694-1701, p. 110).

Notes:

http://www.nps.gov/nr/travel/jamesriver/gentry.htm
Under Berkley's administration, the first generation of what would be known as the Virginian aristocracy came into existence before the English Civil War ended. These included the founders of powerful dynasties such as John Carter, Richard Lee, Benjamin Harrison, the first Randolph and Thomas Stegg (or Stegge) who amassed the Byrd wealth. All of the colonizers who rose socially had connections, wealth and education. These advantages promoted them to the highest rungs of the colonial society. The families they founded ruled the Royal colony of Virginia for more than a century.
The Byrd, Beverley, Carter, Culpepper, Isham, Washington, Spencer, Randolph, Jefferson, Bland, Beverely, Bolling, Eppe and Hackett families intermarried, creating a web of overlapping kinships. They sat on the governing boards of the colony and promoted each others interests. Berkeley also fostered the rise of the General Assembly from a small body into a replica of the Parliament in England, and promoted a separation of power between provincial and county governments. He worked to create a royalist society, where an elite ruled over the great masses of yeoman farmers, free and enslaved African Americans, indentured servants and marginal farmers who leased their land. A brief look at some of the families who served in the Virginia House of Burgesses displays a continuity of the landed-gentry class in the governing class of the colony. In 1664 Lawrence Washington and William Randolph were elected members of the House of Burgesses. The 1736-1740 legislative session had representatives of the Randolph, Carter, Fitzhugh, Beverely and Berkeley families seated, and the 1776 Assembly had Carters, Randolphs and Lees as well as George Washington and Thomas Jefferson.
++++++++++++++++++
Wm. Burnett says "I think we are beginning (or, at least, are on the verge of beginning) to get some deeper insights into what was going on in 17th century Virginia as it relates to some particular families on which we have spent some of our time researching."

?My sense is that we should get a better understanding of what was going on on Turkey Island in Henrico County in the 17the century, before the Randolph family (another one of my ancestral lines, by the way, having the distinction of being the earliest known (to me) mother in my maternal line of mother?s mother?s mother?s etc.) began building its 18th century mega-mansion.

?Giles Carter, whose progeny (son Theodoric with many siblings) is undisputed, is considered by all researchers known to me to have been born in Gloucestershire England. Everything else is a matter of dispute with some very sophisticated arguments to advance each theory as to from whom he descended and who he married or to discredit other theories on those subjects.

?Giles Carter may well have been a teenage indentured servant, with relatives, at least by marriage, of royal descendency. If so, his indenture occurred a few years, perhaps a decade, before a pair of Saunders (cited by Justin) came over to America.

?(There is a difference between the indentures of Giles Carter and the Saunders which I suspect we will find is important. Giles? indenture conformed to a policy of the Cromwell?s Commonwealth. The Saunders came over when Cromwell?s associates were being hanged for high treason.)

?Now let me share with you my (current) radical thought. The Carters, Saunders, Crumps, Crewes, Sewalls et al. were involved in dynastic strategies (maybe not a monolithic strategy, but several strategies that collectively looked out for the economic interests and sought to secure economically viable positions for the younger members of the ?clans?).

?That ?indentured service? or ?apprenticeship? positions were not lower class stable boys persuaded to trade years of labor for passage over to the new world, but devices by which the sovereign power granted subsidies (land for numbers of indentured servants transported from England to America).

?The Merchant-Venturers of Bristol, who had suffered under the English Civil War, considered the tobacco of Virginia a game-changing event. If that is so, why not exploit the sovereign?s deal to grant land in Virginia in exchange for passage of ?servants? to America.

?I am proposing that we re-examine the research on the 17th century immigration to Virginia in a new light. That we take with a grain of salt all 21st century explanations of what 17th century terms mean ? indentures, land for passage of servants, even dowries and bequests.

?Instead, we consider the 17th century settling of Virginia as the concerted exploitation of ?new lands? involving the sovereign power and a select number of families that have achieved power and influence over the centuries and are determined to exploit the situation to their advantage.

A corollary to the above argument of ?concerted action by mercantile families? suggests that we consider wills and property transactions not just from the standpoint of nuclear families as we are used to thinking in the 21st century, but as sometimes (often?) part of dynastic strategies.

Virginia County boundaries based on a 1770 map

The Illustration, below, of Virginia County boundaries, uses the following as a base map: A New and Accurate Map of Virginia Wherein most of the Counties are laid down from Actual Surveys. With A Concise Account of the Number of Inhabitants, the Trade, Soil, and Produce of that Province. By John Henry. Engraved by Thomas Jefferys Geographer to the King. London, Thos. Jefferys, 1770. Call Number: G3880 1770 .H4 Vault. Library of Congress, Geography and Map Division. County names are transcribed below the map and numbering has been added to show their location. Colorfill has been added to highlight County boundaries. Counties that were listed without boundaries defined are represented without colorfilled areas. The Muster Rolls of Pendleton Militia on 6 Sep 1794 in Captain William Janes' Company were: Michael Arbogast, Jacob Gum, Charles Halterman, and Henry Simmons ( Library of Congress )

1.Accomack County
2.Albemarle County
3.Amelia County
4.Amherst County
5.Augusta County
6.Bedford County
7.Brunswick County
8.Buckingham County
9.Caroline County
10.Charles City County
11.Charlotte County
12.Chesterfield County
13.Culpepper County
14.Cumberland County
15.Dinwidie County
16.Elizabeth City County
17.Essex County
18.Frederick County
19.Fairfax County
20.Fauquier County
21.Gloucester County
22.Goochland County
23.Halifax County
24.Hampshire County
25.Hanover County
26.Henrico County
27.Isle of Wight County
28.James City County
29.King and Queen County
30.King George County
31.King William County
32.Lancaster County
33.Loudon County
34.Louisa County
35.Mecklenburg County
36.Middlesex County
37.Nandsemond County
38.New Kent County
39.Norfolk County
40.Northampton County
41.Northumberland County
42.Orange County
43.Pittsylvania County
44.Prince Edward County
45.Prince George County
46.Prince William County
47.Princess Ann County
48.Richmond County
49.Southampton County
50.Spotsylvania County
51.Stafford County
52.Sussex County
53.Surry County
54.Warwick County
55.Westmoreland County
56.York County

Birth:
The interior of Saint John the Baptist Church in Cirencester, Gloucestershire, England

Name:
This from another researcher, Peyton Carter, 1 Apr 2003. I have received confirmation from the records office in Gloucestershire, England, of the baptismal record of Giles Carter, who immigrated to Henrico County, Virginia. Here is the actual reply I received:

"A member of staff checked the baptism register for the parish of Cirenchester (P86) for the year 1635 and I can confirm that the baptism of Gyles, son of Theodor [Theodore] Cartor is recorded. The spelling of names was not standardized until fairly recently and so the slight difference in spelling of both the christian and surnames is not significant."

Giles1 married Hannah Crew/Crews/Crewes. Hannah (daughter of Captain James Crew/Crews/Crewes and Consort of James Crew/Crews) was born Est 1655, Turkey Island, Henrico Co., Virginia; died 1702, Varina, Henrico, Virginia . [Group Sheet]

Notes:

Name:
Hannah Crew has been accepted as the wife of Giles Carter by the Colonial Dames of the 17th Century. She is said to be the daughter of James Crewe [notorious for his participation in 'Bacon's Rebellion'. James Crewe was hanged for his participation.

Notes:

HENRICO COUNTY DEEDS 1677-1705 There is due to Giles Carter, 800 acres for inportation of these persons: ......John Green......1 Jun 1687.

Notes:

http://www.gutenberg.org/files/36410/36410-h/36410-h.htm

As early as 1624 the Virginia Assembly had declared that the Governor (for all he was his Majesty's representative) could not levy taxes against the will of the Burgesses, which, since the Burgesses were supposed to represent the people, was as much as to say against the will of the people. Governor Berkeley's Burgesses, [21]however, did not represent the people. The Assembly chosen in 1862, and composed almost entirely of sympathizers with the Governor, was so much to the old man's mind that, saying that "men were more valuable in any calling, in proportion to their experience," he refused to permit a new election, and the consequence was that in the thirteen years before our story opens, during which this Assembly sat under Sir William's influence, he had brought it up to his hand, as it were, and it had ceased to represent anything but its own and the Governor's interests.

With such a legislature to support him, Sir William could bid defiance to the restrictions upon the Governor's power to lay taxes, and the poor "tithable polls" (all males above sixteen years of age) were called upon to pay the expenses of any measures which were deemed proper in carrying on the government; for the unrighteous taxes were imposed always per capita?never upon property, though by act passed in 1670 only landholders could vote.

[22]It was by this system of poll-tax that the ample salaries of the Burgesses were paid and also that the sundry perquisites attached to the office of a Burgess were provided?such as the maintenance of a manservant and two horses apiece, and fees for clerks to serve committees, and liquors for the committees to drink their own and each other's good health. Doubtless many stately compliments were exchanged when the Burgesses, in an outburst of generosity, were pleased to present the Governor and others of high degree with "great gifts," but the grace and charm of the act were not perceptible to the eyes of the people who, enjoying neither the gifts nor the applause of presenting them, were taxed to pay the piper.

The "poorer sort" complained that they were "in the hardest condition?who having nothing but their labor to maintain themselves, wives and children, pay as deeply to the public as he that hath 20,000 acres." Their complaints were just, but not likely to find a hearing, for the spirit of the age demanded that, in order that the [23]wealthy might keep up the appearance of wealth and maintain the dignity of their position, those who had no wealth to be retained and no dignity to be maintained must keep the wolf from the door as best they might while the fruits of their daily toil were "engrossed" by their so-called representatives. In the mean time, these representatives, their pockets thus swelled, found public life too comfortable to feel any desire to return to agricultural pursuits, or to be content with the uncertain income afforded by the capricious crop.

James married Consort of James Crew/Crews. was born Abt 1640, Prob. Virginia Colony. [Group Sheet]

Notes:

Name:
It is generally accepted that the consort of James Crews was an Indian Maiden. She has probably died when he was hanged as his Will did not include provision for her. It is reported that her name was Moriah Bland.