another place I was just reading says Rolfe had been ill and had  
drawn up a will in 1621, so maybe his death the following year had  
nothing to do with the massacre. Or it did, in a roundabout way.  
Wounded? Subjected to harsher living conditions than normal after the  
disruptions of the massacre, which were more than an unwell man could  
deal with?

Nancy

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

--Daniel Boone



On Mar 14, 2007, at 1:24 PM, Sunshine49 wrote:

> 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
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>