VA-HIST Archives

Discussion of research and writing about Virginia history

VA-HIST@LISTLVA.LIB.VA.US

Options: Use Forum View

Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
Sunshine49 <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Discussion of research and writing about Virginia history <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Wed, 14 Mar 2007 13:24:35 -0400
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (76 lines)
I'm not at all wondering about Thomas leaving a baby girl behind in  
England; it's just that I had never heard of him being married before  
he married in Virginia and sired Jane, who married a Bolling and  
began the Virginia line; let alone having left a child behind, who  
evidently grew to adulthood, married, and had children of her own. I  
had never heard of any Pochahontas line except the Virginia one. But  
it would seem there is also a British one.

As I understand it, the young Thomas (about 4 years old) was sickly,  
too, along with his mother (who, of course, died) and his father  
believed he would never survive the voyage back to Va. and so he was  
left under the care of Sir Lewis Stuckeley (who may have been a less  
than sterling figure); he was later taken and cared for by his uncle,  
Henry Rolfe, who was also a member of the Virginia Company. In 1622  
Henry petitioned the Virginia Company for money from the estate of  
his brother John, to pay for his expenses in raising Thomas. John  
Rolfe died in 1622, possibly a victim of the 1622 massacre, but there  
is no hard evidence for this that I know of. He's not named in the  
listing of settlers who died then, but maybe he was wounded and died  
later. Most sources seem to assume his death was due to the massacre.  
He had a daughter by his third wife (I think the girl's name was  
Elizabeth) who was last found in records at age 4. So who knows what  
happened to her? She would have survived the massacre, though.  
Thomas' great-uncle Opechcanough left him extensive lands in  
Virginia; when Thomas returned to Va. he met with the tribe, and  
evidently decided the native life was not for him. Supposedly the  
descendants of John Rolfe are the only people descended from any of  
those who were at the first general assembly at Jamestown in 1619.  
All the other lines died out.

check out http://www.rootsweb.com/~albutler/families/rolfe.htm for a  
very extensive look at the Rolfe family, here and in GB, and for the  
British side of the family, http://www.threlkeld.org.uk/ 
Pocahontas.htm  If you Google John Rolfe or Thomas Rolfe, you will  
have tons of information.

Nancy

-------
I was never lost, but I was bewildered once for three days.

--Daniel Boone



On Mar 14, 2007, at 11:55 AM, harriott lomax wrote:

> It would not have been unusual for a man to leave his child behind  
> at that time. Men were the ones taking care of the business of  
> family & state' That business very often took them away from home  
> for extended periods. If the wife died a female relative would step  
> in to take care of the children, she could be his sister her  
> sister, or a brothers wife.
>
> There are instances where the man would marry scandlously soon  
> after his wife died more than likely because he needed someone to  
> take care of the children. Records tell us that Henry Wetherburn, a  
> tavern keeper in Williamsburg married Ann Shields, daughter of a  
> tavern keeper with in a month after his wife died. Betsy Harrison,  
> a niece of Elizabeth (Harrison) Randolph, came to live with her  
> Uncle Peyton and Aunt Betty in Williamsburg soon after her mother  
> died, Her sister Ann was sent to live with her Aunt Ann (Harrison)  
> Randolph at Wilton near Richmond. So for Thomas to leave his child  
> behind, was doing what was necessary for a man of business.
>
> Harriott Lomax
> Retired CWF
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

ATOM RSS1 RSS2


LISTLVA.LIB.VA.US