  Last update = 20 Nov 2018 Comments? Corrections? Additions? Please write. |
Background:
Neal F. Mears, a genealogist from Chicago, was commissioned in 1959 to do the genealogy of Rhodam Yarrott McElroy, a descendant of Lawrence via his grandson Rhodam, on the occassion of his promotion to Rear Admiral. Mears deduced that Mary's maiden name was Howson, based on a 1736 land division that took place between Richard Howson and Lawrence Parrott (Mears, Neal F. 1959. Rhodam Yarrott McElroy genealogy. Chicago.) "The report of the division of the lands between Richard Howson and Lawrence Parrot was returned to the court by John Shapleigh, Wm Eustace & Matthew Zuill, Gent. appointed to divide the same and is ordered to be recorded" (Northumberland Co., Virginia, Order Book 3, 1729-1737, p 215) Woodie Brown Parrott gave an explanation of how Mears arrived at his conclusion, in a letter to Theodora M. Parrott, 14 Dec 1976: "On April 21, 1736, three court-appointed commissioners returned a report to the Northumberland County court of their division of a tract of land between Richard Howson and Lawrence Parrott. It is very likely that this represented a partition of realty among tenants in common; a joint interest as such is created by co-heirs to a given parcel of real estate. Under the old English common law, of course, a woman held no property in her own legal entity separate and apart from that of her husband, during the husband's lifetime, and any legacy to which she was might have been entitled was always vested in the husband's name. Thus if Mary was a Howson before marriage and co-heir with Richard Howson, it is not unusual that Mary would not have been named in the estate partitioning." Such a scenario means that Mary was the sister of Richard Howson, both being children of Capt John Howson (1679 - 1714) and his wife, Elizabeth Kenner (1672 - 1615). The 1736 partition date corresponds to the death of Leonard, brother of Richard Howson, and would explain why the land was not available for partition until 1736. Furthermore, Elizabeth's parents were Richard Kenner and Elizabeth Rodham, perhaps explaining why Mary's grandson-- and many of his descendants-- got named Rodham. The major issue arguing against Mary being a Howson is that she is not mentioned in either of presumed parent's wills, or for that matter, any other Howson document. Since no record has ever been found to document or verify the last name of Mary, any relationship to the Howsons remains unproven. If Mary was a Howson, why wasn't she mentioned in her father's will?Very little is known about Mary. She had a son, William, and a daughter, Mary Ann, who married 1) Richard Haynie (d ~1754) and 2) Elisha Betts (1720 - 1784). Richard and Mary Ann Parrott Haynie had their first daughter, Hannah, who supposedly was b in 1742 and married Joseph Ball (1737 - 11 Nov 1811). The 1742 birth date ensures Hannah was of marriable age in 1758 when she married Ball. In turn, Mary Ann herself would have to have been born ca 1726 in order to be old enough to have a daughter in 1742. Taking the argument further, Mary herself would have had to be born ca 1710 in order to be old enough to be married and have a daughter in 1726. If so, whe would have been approximately 4 years old when her father passed away. However, there is a mistake in the on-line genealogies that has been throwing all the time lines off. It turns out that there were 2 Hannah Haynies, and the two Hannahs have been confused with each other. The Hannah Haynie (28 Nov 1742 - 1765) who married Joseph Ball was actually the d/o William & Judith Waddy Haynie: 
Hannah Haynie (Daughter of Richard & Mary Ann Parrott Haynie) was more likely born in 1747, about a year before her sister Molly, who was born 1 Nov. 1748. The 1947 date assumes tha Hannah Haynie was born when Mary Ann Parrott Haynie was 16, and if Mary Ann Parrott was born when her mother Mary was 17, then Mary was born ca 1715. This is when Elizabeth Kenner Howson died (her will was probated on March 16, 1715). Her husband, Captain John Howson, had died a few months previously (his will was probated on Sept. 17, 1714). It now becomes possible to answer two other questions. 1) Why was there was such a long period between the birth of Hannah in '42 and that of second daughther, Molly, in '48? Answer: Because Hannah was really b in 1747. 2) Why did Mary Parrott leave a gun to Mary (Molly) Haynie in her will, if Hannah was the older child? Mary was the second eldest. Answer: Hannah must have died between the time her father died in 1753 and the time Mary wrote her will in 1755, so Mary was the eldest heir still alive. Hannah never lived long enough to marry, thus explaining why neither she nor her issue are mentioned in her mother's will. Given this revised timeline, a new scenario becomes possible: Mary was the d/o of John & Elizabeth Kenner Howson. John died before Mary was born, and Elizabeth died in childbirth. That is why there are no records of her birth, and why she was not mentioned in her father's will. Her brother, Leonard Howson, died in 1736. Later that year, the Howson-Parrott land partition takes place. Thus, the land being partitioned was Leonard's, not Richard's. Having a more defined birth date for Mary Howsen makes it possible to get a better estimate for the births of her husband Lawrence, and her son, William. Below is the time line as presented in most on-line genealogies, and the revised timeline: 
Mary's eldest grandson was born in 1754, and was already of age when William Sr., Mary's son, wrote his will in 1778. If William married at age 21, and if his son was born a year later, William's latest possible birth date is 1732. That is one year after his sister, Mary Ann was born. She in turn was born 1 year after her parent's marriage. Thus, William could only have been born in 1732. Using a similar line of reasoning, Lawrence's birthdate must have been ca 1709. Finally, the 1718 published birth date for Hannah Haynie, William's wife, is probably off. Otherwise, her youngest son would have been born when she was 52 years old. If she married at 16 and had her first son a year later, Hannah could have been born as late as 1737. Who were the Howsons?Note that the land divided between Richard Howson and Lawrence Parrott most likely belonged originally to Capt Leonard Howson (1644 - 1689), grandfather of Richard & Leonard: 11 Aug 1745 Deed of Lease. Matthew Quille gent & Elizabeth his wife of St. Stephens Parish, Northumbrland Co for 5 sl leased to Maurice Gibbons.......first pt/o the tr of land formerly belonging to Capt Leonard Howson who his will dated 17 Apr ---- bequeathed the same to be divided between his eldest son William & his youngest son John & the sd Wm by his will dated 15 Jan 1700 his part thereof bequeathed to his only dau Eliz who dying without issue or transferring the same the sd land descended by right of inheritance to Anna Stepto a dau to Leonard Howsin second son of the the afsd Capt Leonard Howson & is of Wm Howsin & Jno Howzen made pursuant to an order of court by Jno Taylor, Thos Taylor, Richd Lattimer, Thos Downing & George Cooper surveyor, the second part adj to this & bounded by a br of Fishing Cr & Lawrence Parrot, this being pt of a tr of land divided by the will of Jno Howson gent to his son Richard Howson ....for the term of one year paying the rent of one ear of Indian corn at the feast of the Nativity of our blessed Lord & Savior Jesus Christ if demanded......Wit: Spencer Corbell, Francis Timerlake, William Murphy (Northumberland County, VA Deeds, Wills, Inventories, Etc. 1737-1743) The original source of Captn Leonard's properties needs to be further investigated. Captain Leonard Howson had a brother, Robert Howson Jr. After Robert Jr. died, his widow married Robert Hewitt (1651 - 1689). In his will, Robert Hewitt made provisions for his Howson step daughters to receive income from land he owned in Yorkshire, England, should his own biological children not survive. This is the part where things start to get interesting, and require far more research. Robert Hewitt himself was the son of Richard Hewitt (1625 - 1673) and Elizabeth Perrott (d 1656), a member of the Yorkshire Perrott family. Thus, Robert Hewitt is the link that connects the Gloucester/Northumberland Parrotts to the Yorkshire Perrotts. Whether this connection is real or just coincidence remains a matter of pure speculation until additional research gets done. Should the connection ever get proved to be real, perhaps there were old family lands in Northumberland county that prompted Lawrence to move there from his native Gloucester county. | |
Return to top 
. All information on pages within the http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~parrott/ domain is copyrighted. Information is available to use and share freely, but please abide by the terms and conditions.
Mary, wife of