|Birth Name||Stovall, Bartholomew|
|Birth||1665-08-24 at Albury, co. Surrey, England 1a|
|Baptism||at age 18; Church of England, 1683-11-11 at Albury, co. Surrey, England 1b|
|Death||before 1722-05-01 at Henrico Co., VA 1b|
|Probate||1722-05-01 at Henrico Co., VA 1|
|Married||Wife||Burton, Ann [I1181]|
From The Family of Bartholomew Stovall
(Eight Generations of Stovalls in England and America)
BARTHOLOMEW1 STOVALL, born at Albury, co. Surrey, England 24 August 1665, died in Henrico County, Virginia prior to 1 May 1722, when his will was proved there, married there as first husband August 1693 (license 8 August 1693) ANN BURTON, born there about 1670, living there 6 August 1722 but dead by 2 October 1736 having married (2) as second wife John Saunders, daughter of Thomas and Susannah (Hatcher) Burton of Henrico County. Appendix 2 hereafter examines what is known about her ancestry. She and her husband Bartholomew Stovall are the ancestors of all white persons who bear the Stovall name in the United States, so far as is now known.
Bartholomew Stovall was baptized into the Church of England at Albury at age 18 on 11 November 1683, perhaps to facilitate his departure for Virginia. On 7 July 1684 "Bartholomew Stoell, aged about 21 years", son of George "Stowell" of "Alborough, Surrey" indentured himself to serve John Bright of London, merchant, or his assigns, for four years after his arrival in Virginia. He signed the indenture by mark.
There is some dispute concerning the year of birth of the immigrant Bartholomew Stovall because that birth is registered under three different years, always 24 6 month [August], in the Quaker records now lodged at the Public Record Office. One version from the Guildford Monthly Meeting has 1664, another 1665, while a third, from the Shere meeting, also has 1665, and a general register of Surrey births has 1663. Mr. Coldham has suggested that the last of these was probably the earliest to be made and, as it agrees with the age given on the apprenticeship indenture, it ought to be correct. But it seems that more weight should be given to the age ascribed at baptism to Bartholomew, and on that basis 1665 would be correct and it is so shown here.
That Bartholomew came in 1684 is clear enough, for on 1 April 1690 Richard Kennon petitioned the Henrico County Court for land grants by virtue of the importation of a number of persons, both white and black, and among them appears a "Bartholomew Stowell" imported in 1684. His marriage has already been noted; that his wife was the daughter of Thomas Burton, who had died intestate in 1686, is proved by an acknowledgment dated 1 December 1699 by Bartholomew that he had received from John Stewart, his wife's stepfather and guardian, all her interest in her father's estate.
The recorded land transactions of Bartholomew Stovall are not numerous and all relate to Henrico County land. On 1 August 1698 was recorded a purchase of 100 acres from Robert and Samuel Clarke. The recorded copy of this conveyance is wholly illegible but the index of the record book shows the page on which it would have appeared. In 1704 Bartholomew Stovall paid quit rent on this tract. On 1 March 1712/3 Bartholomew Stovall, planter, of Henrico Parish, leased the tract for five shillings a year to one John Wooldridge and the following day he released the reversion to Wooldridge for £25, the agreed value of the tract. Both instruments were signed by mark and no wife participated in the transaction. On 16 August 1715 Bartholomew Stovall procured a patent for 318 acres on Deep Creek, south of the James River in Henrico County. He held this land when he died, except for 130 acres at the mouth of Deep Creek which he gave on 4 May 1719 to Hagar Taber for her lifetime, with remainder to her sons John and William Taber. He had had the 318 acres surveyed by Richard Ligon as early as 25 February 1706/7.
We have no physical description of Bartholomew Stovall and know nothing of his personality; he held no offices and does not seem to have been engaged in litigation. The court records do help to flesh out what is known of him. On 12 July 1699 he had the age of his servant James Morris adjudged. On 2 October 1699, with John Learwood (who was the father of his future son-in-law), he made his excuses for failure to appear for service on a grand jury. when John Worsham sued William Taber for 850 pounds of pork and recovered judgment, Bartholomew Stovall, as the surety for Taber, was obliged at the next term of court to pay 425 pounds of pork to Worsham. He obtained an attachment against the estate of Taber which was dismissed the next term for non-appearance; Taber is known to have died by 26 October 1713 and death may have been responsible for the original default. On 16 December 1713 the court paid Bartholomew Stovall a bounty of 700 pounds of tobacco for three wolves killed. He received similar bounty payments on 7 November 1719 and 9 December 1720, this latter being the last mention we have of him as alive.
It is a misfortune that the will of Bartholomew Stovall has survived only in fragmentary form; even the date that it was made, 14 January 1718/9, must be reconstructed by reference to a later family deed. It was proved 1 May 1722 in Henrico County Court by the widow, with Stephen Hughes and Robert Hughes her sureties. A facsimile and a good transcription have already appeared in print but the importance of the document justifies its repetition at this point.
In the name of God amen. I Bartholomu Stovall of ye County and parish of... bodily helth but of Sound and perfect mind & memory, praise be given to almighty God... ordain this my present Last will and testament in manner and form following that is to say f[irst] and principally I Commend my Soule into ye hands of almighty God hoping through ye merits Death and passion of my Saviour Jesus Christ to have full and free pardon and forgiveness of all my Sins and to inherit Everlasting Life, and my Body I Commit to ye earth to be decently Buried at the discretion of my Executrix hereinafter named, and as touching the Disposition of all Such temporale Estate as it hath pleased almighty God to bestow upon me I give and Dispose those as followeth, first I will that my Debtes and funerall charges be paid and Discharged Item I give and bequeath to my son George Stovall at ye upper end of my Land I now live on beging at Tabers Corner fifty pole down ye river thence a south ...to ye back Line be ye Same more or Less to have and to hold ye same to him and his heires for ever Item I give and bequeath to my Son William Stovall begining at Georges Corner seventy pole Down ye river of ye James tract of Land after ye decease of my wife to have and to hold to him and his heires for Ever I likewise Will that he ye sd William Stovall have Liberty to seat... any of e woodland Ground in ye time of my wifes Life provided he come not within her fenced Ground, Item I give and bequeath unto my son Thomas Stovall of ye foresaid tract of Land Eighty Eight poles down ye river from William's Corner to have and to hold to him and his heires forever Item I give and bequeath to my daughter hannah Stovall all ye remainder of my tract of land aforesd be ye same more or Less to have and to hold ye same to her and her heires forever and my will is ye Dividing Lines go a south Corse. Item I will and desire my Executrix hereinafter named ...acres of land and to pay for ye Surveia and patent In ye named... Stovall to be Equally Divided between them. Item I give to... old on ye day of marr... give ...e on ye day [of] marriage... my ... on ye day of marriag... to my... years olde on ye day of marriage all ye rest and residue of my personall Estate Goods and.. . and bequeath to my Loving wife Anne whom I appoint full and Sole Ex... Last will and testament, to which I Set my hand and Seal this 14th day of January...
From the text of the will we glean that the testator had divided his existing land among four children (George, William, Thomas and Hannah) and directed his executrix to purchase a patent for land for at least two more children, bearing the name of Stovall, and to divide this land between them. The fact that a patent for 200 acres was issued on 28 September 1732 to Bartholomew and John Stovall would indicate that this direction was carried out. The references to gifts at marriage show that four children were not yet of age but no conclusion can be drawn from them as to the order or sex of the children.
Ann (Burton) Stovall had married John Saunders by 6 August 1722, when her sureties petitioned the Court to compel the latter to give security for the protection of the estate, and Saunders was directed to appear in court for that purpose. On 5 October 1725 the Orphans Court made an order directing Saunders to appear in connection with the affairs of the orphans of Bartholomew Stovall, an indication that at least two of the children were still under age. The will of John Saunders, made in Goochland County on 2 October 1736, does not mention his wife, so she will be dead by that date.
The relationship of Bartholomew Stovall to William and Hagar Taber and to their children has produced much discussion and speculation. While Hagar did make a will, its text, recorded in the same volume that held the copy of Bartholomew's own will, has perished, and her husband had died intestate at a comparatively early age. The life interest in 130 acres of land that Bartholomew had given to Hagar several months after he made his will certainly indicates some interest on his part in her family, since her sons were to enjoy the remainder. Some have concluded that Hagar was Bartholomew's daughter by an earlier and unrecorded marriage. Others have thought that she may have been his mistress. Her nearly unique Christian name and the lack of information concerning her parentage and early life have only deepened the air of mystery which has always surrounded her.
One of the fruits of a reading from beginning to end of the unindexed Henrico County Court minutes for the period 1719-23 is a conclusion that Hagar Taber could not have been a daughter of Bartholomew Stovall. The key is the age of her older son John Taber. We know that he offered his mother's will for probate on 7 October 1723. This means that he must have been of age and able to qualify as executor of the will; to serve as an executor, though not necessarily to be named as such, the designee had to be of full legal age. (His younger brother William was still a minor, since John was summoned to the Orphans Court on 5 October 1725 in his capacity as executor, indicating that he was still responsible for his younger brother's share of their mother's estate.) It follows that John must have been born to William and Hagar Taber no later than the autumn of 1702. Moreover, John Taber was paid by the County Court for wolves' heads on 9 December 1720 and 18 November 1721, and these payments appear to have been made only to adults (although the actual killing might be done by minor children, servants or slaves). This pushes back the birth date of John Taber to at least the end of 1699, and probably earlier, and the marriage date of Hagar to William Taber to 1698. In order to be a daughter of Bartholomew Stovall, Hagar Taber would have to have been conceived in England and married at fourteen or fifteen years of age, which is close to a ridiculous assumption in the absence of any supporting evidence whatever.
Two further points support the same conclusion. First, marriage was not permitted to an apprentice during the period of his indenture, four years in Bartholomew's case. Second, the fact that the deed gave only a life interest to Hagar but the remainder to her sons, shows that his concern was less for her than for them. Whatever the connection between Bartholomew Stovall and the Tabers may have been, and there is no hint in the records of any liaison or illegitimacy, it must have gone back to the lifetime of William Tabor. There are many possibilities. William may have been a servant to Bartholomew at some point, or of his kin through a relationship not yet clear from such English records as we have, or Bartholomew may have been a godparent to the children and under obligation to aid them when they were left fatherless. We simply do not know. Finally, the involvement of George Stovall, Bartholomew's son and heir, in the sale of the Taber land after Hagar had died and both sons had come of age, is explained by the fact that the gift of the land without consideration would have adversely affected George's right of primogeniture. George's participation in the transaction requires no theory of blood relationship to explain it.
For these reasons, which appear to be wholly adequate, Hagar Taber and her descendants do not appear to require the attention of historians of the Stovall family, and she is not shown here as a daughter of Bartholomew Stovall.
It has also been claimed that Margaret, wife of Luke Wiles, was a daughter of Bartholomew Stovall because in a deed George Stovall calls Luke his "brother-in-law". This will be further discussed when we come to George2 and his family. For the moment it is sufficient to say that Margaret Wiles could not have been Bartholomew's daughter because both George2 and Bartholomew2 Stovall served as jurors in an action in which Luke Wiles was a plaintiff. Then, as now, so close a family relationship to a party would have disqualified both brothers as jurors.
Of those known to be children of Bartholomew Stovall the immigrant, only the age of Bartholomew2 is fixed by any document. Other ages are approximated by reference to the activities of the child after coming of age, George clearly being the eldest. The order of the youngest three children is particularly a matter for speculation or further evidence.
NOTES FOR CHAPTER 2
 PRO RG6/1145 (Births, Guildford Meeting). See also "Digest of Births for the Quarterly Meeting of Sussex and Surrey" (Ms.), Library Of the Religious Society of Friends, Friends House, London.
 Henrico Co. Misc. Court Records, p. 543, large fragments of the original will, proved Henrico Co. Court Minutes, 1719-23, p. 95.
 Henrico Co. Colonial Records 5:435 (the date is not 6 August, as is sometimes seen).
 Henrico Co. Court Minutes 1719-23, p. 195. It should be noted that "Sanders" and "Saunders" are interchangeable variants of this surname.
 Goochland Co. Wills & Deeds 2:270, proved 15 Feb. 1736/7.
 Albury PR (unpaged), the age being specifically noted.
 Restrictions, often ignored, had been imposed as early as 1633 in an attempt to insure that emigrants to the American colonies were in conformity to the Church of England. See the summary in Carl Bridenbaugh, Vexed and Troubled Englishmen, 1590-1642 (New York, 1968), pp. 468-69, of such restrictions in the time of Charles I. In Virginia the Quakers were made particularly unwelcome; by a statute enacted on 13 March 1659/60 any shipmaster who gave a Quaker transportation was fined one hundred pounds for each offense, while the offending Quaker was to be imprisoned until he left the colony, and a third attempt to enter was punishable as a felony. William W. Hening, The Statutes at Large... (13 vols., Richmond, 1809-23, repr. Charlottesville, Va., 1969), 1:532-33. It is hardly discreditable that a young orphan with his way to make in the world should decide to conform, at least outwardly, with the Established Church. The large majority of the descendants of Bartholomew Stovall adhered to the Methodist or Baptist faith prevalent in the southern United States.
 The indenture is among the Middlesex Quarter Sessions records now at the Guildhall, London (No. A-628) and was originally published by Cregoe D. P. Nicholson in The Genealogists' Magazine12:379 (1957). It and some other records relating to the immigrant were initially summarized by Cameron Allen, "The English Origin of Bartholomew Stovall of Henrico County, Virginia", The American Genealogist 38:215-19 (1962). The vessel on which he was to travel was the Booth, Capt. Peter Pagan, master.
 Compare PRO RG6/1112 , RG6/1145 , RG6/1186 , and RG6/1604 .
 Henrico Co. Colonial Records 2:326-27. There is no other "Stowell" in seventeenth century Virginia and there can be no doubt that Bartholomew Stovall is the man imported.
 Id. 3:245.
 Id. 3:203.
 Id. 6:98.
 Annie Laurie Wright Smith, comp., The Quit Rents of Virginia (Baltimore, 1957); see also Virginia Magazine... 28:215 (1920).
 Henrico Co. Colonial Records 8:199, rec. 2 March 1712/3.
 Id. 8:201, recorded same day. The lease and release was originally designed to avoid enrollment (publicity) and the necessity of actual entry upon the land. Devised as late as 1621, it was in general use by the end of the century in England, Theodore F. T. Plucknett, A Concise History of the Common Law (5th ed., London, Boston, 1956), p. 616, and also in the American colonies, though its original purpose had long since been lost or forgotten.
 The absence of Ann (Burton) Stovall's renunciation of dower might, but does not always, mean that she was no longer alive. In this case such a deduction would be wholly false. It is always necessary to take into consideration the whole body of the evidence before arriving at this or any other genealogical conclusion.
 Va. Patents 10:245.
 Henrico Co. Misc. Court Records, p. 452. This series is made up of original documents, in various stages of preservation, pasted into books and paginated. Its existence helps fill the gaps left by the loss of some of the regular record books; we owe what we have of the will of Bartholomew Stovall to this same series.
 Henrico Co. Colonial Records 7:97.
 Id. 3:229.
 Id. 3:241.
 Henrico Co. Court Orders 1710-14, p. 210, 2 Feb. 1712/3, p. 219, 3 March 1712/3.
 Id., p. 225, 3 March 1712/3.
 Id., p. 229, 6 April 1713.
 Id., p. 258.
 Id., p. 267.
 Henrico Co. Court Minutes 1719-23, pp. 56, 362.
 Goochland Co. Wills & Deeds 2:80, William Stovall to Allen Howard, 14 March 1734/5.
 Carmae Massey Smith, The Stovall Family in America (Houston, Tx., 1979), p. 29.
 G. Spencer Beasley, Moving On: The Stovalls (Colorado Springs, Colo., 1981), pp. 8-9, with credit to Col. William A. Myers.
 Va. Patents 14:464. The patent does not identify Bartholomew and John as brothers, nor does it give the source of payment for the land, but no other explanation for the event is possible.
 Henrico Co. Colonial Records 4:54. John Saunders may have been appointed guardian for the children of Bartholomew Stovall under age at a time when the surviving County Court minutes and order books do not apply, or the order of the Orphans Court may have been an attempt to regularize the situation. We do not know what, if any, action the Court took, or even if Ann (Burton) (Stovall) Saunders was still alive. It seems apparent that the two children covered by the order [not named] were John and Thomas Stovall.
 He was aged 27 on 4 Feb. 1697/8, Henrico Co. Colonial Records 6:77, and thus aged just over 40 when he died.
 Beasley, supra note 31, p. 11.
 Henrico Co. Court Minutes 1719-23, p. 294. His sureties were Stephen Hughes and Ashford Hughes (who also witnessed the will of Bartholomew Stovall).
 Henrico Co. Colonial Records 4:55.
 Henrico Co. Court Minutes 1719-23, pp. 56, 144. On 5 Nov. 1723 he received 200 pounds of tobacco for two heads. Id., p. 311.
 Goochland Co. Wills & Deeds 1:461, 463, 2:8 (1733-34).
 Henrico Co. Wills & Deeds 1725-37, p. 75, recorded 5 Dec. 1726.
 Wiles v. Hughes, Goochland Co. Court Orders 2:26, Sept. term, 1730.