The John Mayo, father of Valentine by Charles Edward Mayo (Charlie)
First, it is important to understand some history and statistics of colonial Middlesex, County Va., as it pertains to our Mayo family. My (Charles Edward Mayo) knowledge of it's history comes from researching records such as the Christ Church Parish and reading several books about the area; the most informative being Davis, Virginia Lee Hutchenson, “Tidewater Virginia Families”; A Place in Time, by Darrett B. Rutman & Anita H. Rutman; and A Place in Time; Explitatus. The latter two books are the result of their 14 year study of Middlesex County, VA as ethologists in conjunction with the University of New Hampshire where she was a lecturer and biographer and her husband a professor of history. Our measure of confidence in claiming a particular person there as our direct ancestor is dependent on knowing everything we can about our person, by learning about their neighbors and the society in which they interacted. Therefore, I suggest these books be read cover to cover. A direct quote from the authors of A Time in Place; “..... we have assumed that associations between individuals are to some extent related to land form, distance and technology”.
My understanding is that one thing the Rutmans did was strip all the county records and computerize them. They attempted to plot land patents on a map and identify all the households, starting at the date of 1668. They looked at marriages and relationships against these deed locations. Where there interest was ethology; ours is primarily genealogy.
This peninsula, as I have learned, is about thirty five miles long and narrow enough that one particular plantation nearly extended from the Rappahannock river on the one side, to the Piankatank river on the other, nearly cutting the county and peninsula in half. In 1668 it contained eighty two households. Most lived in a one room, dirt floor dwelling about the size of a garage; four poles planted in the ground with clapboard siding. From the first land patented in the 1650's, ninety percent was gone by the early sixties. The county was somewhat isolated by the large body of water on each side, relatively unexplored land inland and the Chesapeake bay that it jutted out into. Christ Church Parish was established there about nine years before the county and serviced the other side of the wide Rappahannock river as well. Both sides were a part of Lancaster County in 1666. Due to the difficulties of the isolation caused by the river, the county of Middlesex was formed from Lancaster and by 1669 had it's own Christ Church Parish.
There were three churches; upper, middle and lower chapels and the minister would alternate between the three churches. They had a court that met once a month, but the church was charged with keeping a true record of births, marriages and deaths to be recorded at the middle chapel or mother church.. As for marriages and deaths, there were many. The authors state that nearly fifty percent of children lost one or both parents by age nine and sixty percent by age thirteen. Child mortality was atrocious. The court would make arrangements for the children with an older sibling, relative or indenture them to serve in bondage to other families. By law, indentured servants were provided a sort of corn meal soup and a piece of corn bread and of course a suit of clothing. They worked from day break to dark. The authors state that in 1668, there were 334 white servants and 65 blacks. Only nineteen percent of the total population were native born. If their father owned land, they would inherent it when they became of majority. If they had one parent, that parent would remarry, sometimes as many as five and six times. The step father would work the land, but the child always maintained ownership of the inheritance. As you can see, family units were made up of children from several different marriages on both sides. Often, marriages were between two unrelated or partially related people in the same household. The authors state that 36% of marriages were couples who lived within a half mile of each other and 95% were within five miles. They were, in fact, isolated within the county due to vast acres of land ownership and transportation being by foot. Only extreme necessity would allow them to ride the only work horse, if they had one. If Johnny wanted to see Mary, he had to walk a path through a virgin forest to his neighbor. To get to the upper chapel was a demanding march and often there were no services due to having but one minister for the three churches. The only outside communication, other than an occasional visit from the distant neighbor, took place at the church. It is said that an observer of the time described people arriving early at the church and lingering after services on outside benches to smoke and socialize; even boys and girls of ages six and seven smoked. The court ruled strictly and if you slandered or cracked someone on the head with a cane, or had a bastard child, you were fined so many pounds of tobacco or received so many lashes, well laid on by a black specialist. The only way to get a piece of land to work, if you didn't have it, was to marry someone who did. You had to survive!
These were the circumstances surrounding the life of our Valentine Mayo, previously our oldest known ancestor. Had his father lived longer, he would have been among the few large estate owners who wore the ruffled shirts and rode on saddles trimmed in silk. His father was John Mayo, apparently a man of means, who, with another, purchased twelve hundred acres in 1665. His portion was 300 acres and yet he patented more in 1668.
Cavaliers and Pioneers" volume 1 1623-1666
page 512 Walter Grainger ... in freshes of Rappahannock River ... (south Side)... 26 September 1663 ... land granted to ... deserted ... transported 40 persons;
20 negros; ... John Mayhew... Patent book 5, page 365 (396)
Note: We know they had to work the land one year to receive the patent or deed. Head Rights for importing others to the area were certificates granting fifty acres for each person imported into the colony. Often, people used those born there but not recorded. It is observed that some were imported several times. Others say a member of the church vestry would even sell lists of individuals who would qualify. The twenty “Negros,” among the importation with John and thirty nine others, may indicate it was a cross ocean transportation. At that date, most of the servants shipped were the impoverished whites of England. There were very few black servants and during that time they came from the Caribbean. Not until the end of the century were the majority of African slaves sent to Middlesex County, Virginia. Along with them came a more virulent strain of malaria. They had no immunity to ours; nor we to theirs. The freshes of the Rappahannock is the fresh water above the tide of the salty ocean water.
It appears John Mayo hitched a ride on a ship from Bristol England, stopping to pick up slaves in the Caribbean, then sailing on to the Rappahannock river in Virginia. Once settled, he had enough funds to buy a large tract of land. There are only a few other possibilities for John Mayo' origin and arrival, he being born at the latest in 1637. A second possibility is through Tistram Mayo who married Margaret Wise on 1/29/1637 in Shaftsbury England (Marriage records of St. James Parish Church, Dorset, England), and died intestate in Norfolk, County Va in 1687; A third is by way of James Mayo who was among the living at West Hundred Island below Jamestown (The Complete Book of Imigrants 1607-1660 volume 1, pages 35-36, 16 Feb. 1624); The fourth possibility is through Edward Mayo on the Nansamund River in 1635. The cross ocean transportation is the better possibility of the four and a study of the list of the other thirty nine transported may be revealing. Further, the book A Place in Time, Middlesex County VA. mentions a north western part of the county containing 1200 acres that was divided up. This land, for some reason, was known as Jamaica land. Yet a fifth and most excellent possibility is that John mayo was imported by William Cockram of Surry County to be his mariner for four years. Large plantations at that time needed an able mariner to take their tobacco back to England and transport servants and supplies. Then, after serving as a mariner the four years, John would have very few problems capitalizing on his seamanship talents and making the partnerships to purchased his own land on Sunderland Creek. Robert Hill, one of John Mayo's partners in the twelve hundred acres land purchase, left his heirs a British made schooner with sails. Birds of a feather flock together.
Page 391 19 August 1658, John Mayo, mariner, bound to William Cockram,planter, to serve four years in Virginia. From Bristol Register, City of Bristol Record Office, the Council House, College Green, Bristol,BSI 5TR, England. References are to the manuscripts volumes entitled, 'Servants to Foreign Plantations', Ref. 04220
Also, the Bonner families were huge land owners just across the Rappahannock in Lancaster Co. and William Bonner recruited a John Mayo. I favor the Mariner apprentice possibility. Walter Grainger also claimed John as a head right. If truth be known, all shipments with John Mayo are probably the same John Mayo, first getting there, then going back and forth doing tobacco business for planters. Any passenger including the Mariner would be claimed as a Head Right to gain land or a Certificate which was like legal currancy then. The Mayo Family (Mayowe/Mayhew) of Loe and Fowey, in Cornwall, where the Mayo Family was originally seated, owned a vast shipping fleet, so, it is not surprising that John was an apprenticed mariner.
"The Complete Book of Emigrants 1661-1699" volume 2.
Page 84 30 September 1665, The following apprenticed in Bristol: ... John Mayo to William Bonner for five years in Virginia. “Bristol Register of Servants Sent to Foreign Plantations" by Peter Coldham
Cavaliers and Pioneers" volume 1 1623-1666
page 545 Richard Bredgar, Robt Hill and John Mayhew, 1200 acres Rappahannock County, 20 March 1665/6. Beginning at the Westward side of a white marsh at the head of a branch issuing out of Dragon Swamp and crossing Mattapony upper path, running West North West etc. 300 acres formerly belonging to Mr. Rich. Lawrence and Wm. Bauldine by pattent dated 13 June 1663 and by said Lawrence (the whole remaining in him after the death of Bauldine) assigned to said Mayhew; 900 acres granted to Mr.Rich. Lawrence, Evan Davies and Tho. Williamson 16 June 1663 and now by several assignments made over to said Bredgar and Hill. Patent book 5, page 472 (578)
William Baldwin (likely the William Bauldine above) left an orphan child whom the court gave medical care for a scalded head.
Ref.: Davis, Virginia Lee Hutchenson, "Tidewater Virginia Families",
1989, page 96
April 24, 1668, John Mayo patented land on the south side of the
Rappahannock River upon the main branch of Dragon Swamp. Beginning by the said Pocoson side, the land adjoined Tho. Pattison, Jmo. Chyn, Gno. Gibson, and Thomas Harwarr.
Foot Note by Hutchenson: (Paraphrased) “Thomas Pattison's land was on the headwaters of Sunderland Creek (Now Lagrange Creek)”. My note: The headwaters of this little creek drain from the vast Dragon Swamp and run across the peninsula to the Rappahannock river which forms the Northern side of the peninsula. (Dragon swamp, in large part, is also the source of the Piankatank river which forms the border on the south side of the peninsula). The peninsula extends out into the Chesapeake bay. This is the small narrow, isolated Middlesex County, VA. The location of the land mentioned in all the deeds pertaining to John Mayo is one and the same as the land described by Cavaliers and Pioneers above where his name is stated with the Mayhew varient of spelling.
Cavaliers and Pioneers", volume 2 1666-1695
page 52 Thomas Harwarr (Harwar) and Rich. Cox 922 acres, Rappahannock County south side the river, 7 December 1668, 867 acres adjacent John Chyn, Tho. Pattison and Rich. Bredgatt, Jno. Sharpe, Jno. Mayo and Lt. Col. Tho. Goodrich. Patent book 6, page 205.
Note: Cavaliers and Pioneers has John Mayo' name spelled correctly here. Arthur Nash, a former servant from York River area, rented land and hired servants to work it. Eventually he owned land on Sunderland Creek and in 1664 he and a partner, John Needles, purchased 400 acres from the Pattison who's property adjoined John Mayo.
page 89 Mr. Thomas Harwar and Nich. Cox 922 acres Rappahannock County South side said river 867 acres adjacent Jno. Chin., Thomas Pattyson, Rich.Bredgar, Jno. Sharp, Jno. Mayo, and Lt. Col. Tho. Goodrich transport
of 18 persons ... 17 November 1670. Patent book 6, page 342.
In the above time line of deeds, several things are important to note. First, it is evident that the John Mayhew who was assigned the 300 acres by Richard Lawrence on 20 March, 1665/6 is the same John Mayo whose land adjoins Richard Bredgar in all three deeds. It is misspelled in the earlier deed, but spelled as Mayo in all later deeds, including his neighbors deeds, all of which are not shown here. Secondly, the first deed clearly states that the land is at the Westward side of a white marsh (the white marsh is referred to in the April 24, 1668 Mayo deed as the Pocoson). This swamp could be the Micklebourough swamp in Valentine Mayo's deed a generation later. This would situate John Mayo's land with the Sunderland Creek to his left, Dragon Swamp to his rear, Pocoson (later Micklebouroughs swamp) to his right and the front facing down the creek that runs across the peninsula. Thirdly, all of the land is stated as being at the head of the creek that runs out of the main Dragon Swamp; John Mayo, being on the Pocoson or a white water swamp side of the creek's head, that gets it's flow from Dragon Swamp.
We see that Thomas and Robert Chowning purchased land beside John Mayo:
BIOGRAPHY: Came to America in a Spanish frigate in 1629 as an indentured servant of Capt Francis Eppes. During that period fifty acres was given for transporting an individual to the colonies; Capt Eppes rec 1,700 acres grant for self, 3 sons & 30 servants.
Thomas (Pattison) acquired a 200 acres Lancaster Co. Va. land on 6/2/1657; 580 acres Rappahanook Co. Va land (later Middlesex Co. Va) on 4/4/1658 with Robert Chowning.
Thomas appeared in land disputes of 11/4/1668 & 4/24/1668
John Mayo had an adjacent property to Thomas' property, and in the next generation, George, son of Robert Chowning, married Martha Tuggle, daughter of Henry Tuggle who lived beside Valentine Mayo. This indicates that both neighboring fathers have passed land down to the next generation.
22.Martha7 Tuggle (Henry Tugwell6, Thomas Tugwell (Tuggle5 ), Benjamin Tugwell (Tuggle4, William I Tugwell ( Tuggle3, Henry Tugwell ( Tuggle2, Binjamin Tugwell ( Tuggle1) was born 1698, and died Unknown. She married George Chowning October 19, 1721, son of Robert Chowning and Ann. He was born 1688, and died 1744.
We also know that Valentine Mayo's property bordered Henry Tuggle:
Title Mayo, Valentine.Publication 25 April 1702. Other Format Available on microfilm. Virginia State Land Office. Patents 1-42, reels 1-41. Note Location: Middlesex County. Description: 39 acres begg. &c. corner tree of the land of Thomas Obrissell, decd. adjoining the land of John Stamper, decd, Henry Tugwell.
Valentine also owned other land there; 100 acres which was patented to him in 1704, in addition to his thirty nine acres received in 1702 for transporting William Watts.
We know that Elizabeth Mayo married ..tthew(Matthew) Patris (Peatros) there on 3/4/1678 and had twins baptized on 7/12 (xember)/1679 named JOHN and Elizabeth Patris. She also birthed Thomas on 8/5/1683. They lived in the Upper Chapel, whose church was built around 1667 on the North side of SUNDERLAND creek. This is the head of the same little creek where John Mayo patented land.
Note d/ of Hutchenson, Tidewater Families, states that a study was done whereby land deeds were plotted for the less than 1000 souls (82 households) for Middlesex and a comparison was done by marriages to see what the proximity was for marriage couples. The findings were that, in a five year span at the end of the 17th century, 36% of married couples lived within a half mile of each other and 95% were within 5 miles of each other.
Keep in mind that the peninsula is very narrow and only thirty five miles long with one main trail (Tidewater Trail) running through the center.
Essex County orders 1692-1693
page 370 Edward Williams 70 acres Middlesex County imported 2 persons: John Eateman, Hump. Mayo 20 October 1691. Patent book 8, page 196
Note: Humphrey is probably one of the youngest Mayo children, as someone is just claiming a Head Right for him, probably when he reached age 21. It is Interesting that Tristram Mayo (named for Bishop Tristram of the St. James Parish Church in Dorset England) who married Margaret Wise 1637 in Shaftsbury, England had a brother named Humphrey. The VA Genealogist, states that Tristram Mayo died intestate in the Tidewater area of Virginia in 1687 (Norfolk). Both the names Tristram and Humphrey are unusual names for the time. There is a Thrustan Mayo (may be a variant misspelling of Tristram ) who patented land in VA in 1673, but it is far removed from our Middlesex Mayo family. However, he could be related.
Charles, son of Johnathan and Sarah Mayo Brooks was born 8/12/1680 Christ Church Parish records
Note: Charles was another unusual name then, probably due to King Charles I being beheaded and his de facto son, Charles II, being proclaimed king by Scotland and Ireland, only to be defeated at the battle of Worcester by Oliver Cromwell in 1651. Oliver was another name not seen often. I am told there was a Charles Mayo in Old Lancaster County, but I haven't seen him in the records. At any rate, her son Johnathan Jr. was described by Valentine Mayo and Anne his wife as “OUR beloved couzen” Sarah is Valentine's sister, mother or cousin. Cousin in those days simply meant relative.
John Mayo died March 5, 1723 Pg. 181 Christ Church Parish, Middlesex
Note: The death date is to late to be John Sr. He is probably one of the youngest Mayos there and doesn't appear to have had any descendants. Ruth Mayo was likely the wife of John Mayo and not a Mayo by birth and no children with her second husband William Owen was found.
William Owen married Ruth Mayo Novem' y' 12, 1724 Page 164; Ruth died 11/6/1742; page 194 Christ Church Parish, Middlesex
John Mayo Sr. and Jr. surely died early and, unfortunately for senior, earlier than the more strict record keeping of the mother church in the middle parish. John Mayo Sr., being on Sunderland Creek in the remote Upper Parish at an early date, may not have been recorded, as the Upper Parish did not feel they were well represented by the mother church. Many earlier entries were not sent to the mother church in the middle parish from the upper parish church. However, he left his trail of descendants with Elizabeth, Sarah, Valentine, John, Humphrey and possibly a Charles. In 1687, Valentine was summoned before the court to testify as to John Brooks' mental health when his will was written on his death bed. Valentine, maybe a ten year old lad, testified that he saw him in good health (mentally). Valentine didn’t necessarily have to be of age to witness. Sarah Mayo was the wife of John Brooks.
By 1702, the land where John Mayo patented at the head of Sunderland creek was next to if not occupied by the families of Bourk, Micklebourough, Tuggle, Obrissel and Valentine Mayo. Did Valentine's mother remarry to John Bourk Sr., such that Valentine came into his share of John Mayo's land in 1704 when he was granted a patent of 100 acres, stating it was off John Bourk land? Valentine’s land was bordered on all four sides by Micklebouroughs Swamp, John Bourk (deceased), John Stamper (deceased), Thomas O'brissel (deceased) and Henry Tuggle.
It is almost certain that John Mayo Sr. already had children when he purchased the land in 1665. Elizabeth Mayo married in 1678 and Sarah in about 1679, as she birthed Charles Brooks in 1680. Elizabeth and Sarah would have been born no earlier than 1658 and 1659 respectively. John Jr. and Humphrey however are not showing descendants. John Jr. died in 1723, and Ruth remarried in 1724 to William Owen, leaving no issue recorded in Middlesex County. Humphrey, is just getting claimed as a Head Right in 1691, so he may have became of majority then. Valentine would have to be nearly as old as Sarah and Elizabeth to be a direct son of John Mayo Sr., making him around fifty when he married Anne on November 14, 1710 and about fifty six when he died on October 5, 1716, after the births of his children; James on December 11, 1711; Elizabeth about 1713 and Sarah on March 11, 1714/15 (died 11/3/1716). Of course, he could have been fifty when married, but it is doubtful, given the lifespan then. However it may have taken awhile for him to achieve the wherewithal to support a family. He certainly had his hands full raising all the little Brooks, Bourk and other children left to him from Sarah's two marriages, John Bourk Jr's three marriages and four children of his own, not counting step children (son-in-laws) from his sister’s first two marriages. Alternatively, it could be that we are missing a male child of John Mayo Sr., brother to Elizabeth and Sarah, who fathered Valentine, John Jr. and Humphrey. Could this be Charles Mayo and first husband of Sarah? Or could it be John Mayo Jr. who died in 1723? Could this be why Ruth Mayo remarried, but was past child bearing age? Notwithstanding many scenarios, we would be remiss to deny John Mayo Sr. as the patriarch of the family. Until that older layer of records are found that confirm our suspicions, we can only show reasonable and circumstantial evidence that points to a logical conclusion. To do so, we need to look at the neighbors and land surrounding Valentine Mayo' land of 100 acres, which he was granted in 1704. Keep in mind that all the land was gone by the late 1600's. It will be helpful to list the heads of House for Valentine Mayo' neighbors along with some of their known children.
Edmund Micklebourough Sr. died 8/27/1690. There are others, but one possible daughter, Sarah, married the minister Bartholomew Yates on 9/14/1704. His son Edmond Jr. and his wife Jane are recorded in the Christ Church Parish records as having the following children and their ages: Edmond (III). Born on 12/22/1696; Robert born on 10/24/1698; John born on 12/15/1701/2; Henry baptized on 1704/3; Tobias baptized on 6/17/1708 and Jane born on 4/8/1712. There is no Ann shown in his Will. Tobias was named after his uncle Tobias, a store keeper and tobacco planter. Uncle Tobias' inventory lists among other items, a silver tipped cane and three gold rings. Uncle Tobias married Grace Nicholson on 9/17/1691, however he had a prior wife as Elizabeth was baptized to another mother on 2/14/1685/6.
There are two unrelated John Bourks. (At least stated as unrelated by Burk researchers, but they could be related). One John Bourk was an indentured servant. He was the John Bourk married to a Jane and had issue, a son John, on 8/16/1678. Our John, who likely started off indentured, was married to a Mary. The authors of A Place in Time state that both John and Mary Bourk carried their parent and grandparent's first name. John Bourk died between 1657 and 1660 (calculated) as Mary married second, on or before 1660, Thomas Tuggle Sr., having at the time one child, John Burk Jr. (Bourk) age eleven at the year 1668. John Bourk Jr. would have been born after 1656-7. Thomas Tuggle Sr. and Mary had a daughter named Mary in 1661; Thomas Jr. in 1664; Anne in 1666 and Henry, who was yet unborn in 1668. Thomas Sr. died late in the year of 1684, having been preceded in death by his wife Mary. William Steward, a 14 year old indentured servant to Thomas Sr. in 1668 was free by 1684, but died in the year 1668. The servant population was stated to be 45% of the population of 912 people in the year 1668. Thomas Tuggle Sr. started in Virginia as a servant and became a freeholder after he purchased 100 acres in 1662. He patented another 110 acres close to him in 1669 and rented it to another servant for 500 pounds of tobacco and 3 bushels of corn per year , plus every fourth hog produced out of the stock Thomas initially provided. This allowed Thomas the funds to improve his original 100 acres. When Thomas left his Will in 1684, he gave his 110 acres and charge of the family to his son Thomas Jr. and the 100 acres to his minor son Henry Tuggle. His step son John Bourk Jr. was allowed to work a certain tract of tobacco land, but only until Henry came of age (majority). John Bourk Jr. could live with the family, if they could get along, otherwise, he could build a 15 foot dwelling on his tobacco plot and live alone. John Bourk Jr. had married before the Will and had an infant son. This was likely John Bourk III with wife Mary Recorded on 4/2/1684 in the Christ Church Parish records.
So, with the exception of Thomas Obrissell and John Stamper, whom I have yet to study, the other neighbors adjoining Valentine Mayo' land in 1702 are John Bourk Jr.. and Henry Tuggle, the then minor in 1684, as well as the owners of Micklebourough' Swamp. All of these families lived at the head of Sunderland Creek and probably on or near the original land patented by John Mayo in 1665 and 1668.
By now, the reader is asking what the rationale is for this bit of history. Well, I am “fixen” to tell you. First, it establishes the location of the land. Then, given the fact that land was worked by a stepfather but held by the courts for the minor descendant in the absence of a will, we can make some extrapolations. John Bourk Jr. obviously did not inherit land from his father, because his stepfather Thomas Tuggle Sr. allowed him to work and build a temporary dwelling on a piece of land only until Henry Tuggle became of age. Therefore, his father John Bourk Sr. did not have land to give, rather he was only holding and working land from his marriage to a previously married woman, who by law would have a Dower of one third of her former husbands land as long as she lived. The entire amount of her land at death, or two thirds of it before her death, enured to the minor children, when they came of age. This was the Colonial law of Virginia. John Bourk Jr. was of majority; married with an infant son, yet was dependent on his stepfather for his land to work and live. John did eventually find some non-patented land where boundaries did not come together cleanly (supposedly) and made a deal to sell part of it to pay for the rest and, in so doing, obtained land.
Valentine Mayo came of age and patented 39 acres for transporting William Watts in 1702 and in 1704 he was granted the patent of 100 acres off land off John Bourk (John Bourk Sr.). Land that John worked, but probably was heir-ship land held for minor Mayo children. This could explain how Valentine obtained land off John Bourk, deceased, that was completely surrounded by other land. This would also cause one to consider whether one of the John Bourk Sr. wives was the former wife of John Mayo Sr. It may take a visit to the Archives that hold the Old Rappahannock and Lancaster records in order to prove or disprove this logical conclusion.
The book, A Place in Time, says John Bourk Jr. had seven children out of three wives. Five of them can be mentioned here, but the others are unknown. John Jr. and Mary Bourk had John on 4/2/1684; Thomas was born ?; Henry was born ? John Bourk's wife, Mary, died 1/18/1686. Lettice, daughter of John Jr. and obviously a second wife Mary was born 9/24/1693. These can not be from the “unrelated” John Bourk who is having children simultaneous by a Jane, nor their son John who is to young. After Mary's death in 1686, as well as the death of Sarah Mayo Brooks' husband, John Brooks, in 1686, Sarah married John Bourk Jr., as two children were baptized on 5/22/1690 named MAYO and SARAH; baptized, not born! I am sure these are the fifth and sixth children counted by the author. However, were they biological twins born to John Bourk and Sarah, or were they minor Mayo children Sarah took with her, when she married John Brooks and only now baptized when she married John Bourk Jr. ? We know her first child, Charles, with John Brooks was born on 1680, so could Mayo and Sarah actually be Valentine Mayo and Sarah Mayo and somehow transcribed or recorded incorrectly from the upper chapel to the lower, or perhaps by modern day transcription of the record because it was difficult to read? Could Sarah have been a second, young wife of John Mayo? Would this not make Valentine around ten years old in 1690 and twenty two when he patented his first 39 acres; thirty two when he married Anne Jordon on 11/14/1710 (page 82) and thirty eight when he died on 10/5/1716 (page 86)? Do not all the Mayo genealogies claim he was about thirty eight when he died? Was Valentine not present at John Brooks' death bed, when John died, and summoned by the court to testify as to John's mental state at the time the Will was written? Keep in mind that they lived in a remote part of the upper chapel with the Dragon Swamp at their backs, Micklebouroughs swamp on the other side and only a few distant neighbors. Do not desperate times call for desperate measures, therefore suspect by the court? Either of the tree possibilities is for the discretion of the reader; Sarah a young second wife of John Mayo Sr., John Bourk Sr. a stepfather, or Valentine being a son of an earlier deceased offspring of John Mayo who's wife was Sarah. At any conclusion, John Mayo was surely the patriarch of the Mayo children in Middlesex County.
As for the other children in the household, there are John Brooks and Sarah's issue during their six years of marriage, John Bourks seven children with three wives before he died in 1699 (A Place in Time) and any step children from wives who were previously married. All of these children would now be Valentine Mayo' responsibility to shoulder, as heir apparent to these orphans, plus his own children by Anne.
Was the seventh child, Henry Bourk, issue of Anne and John Bourk Jr. (now II), a stepson of James Jordon? This writer suspects that Anne may not have married a Bourk, rather, she could be“Anne Bourk, the illegitimate daughter of Tho. Thompson by Jane Bourk, baptized on 6/4/1682.” (Christ Church Parish records, page 13). Then she married as Ann Bourk to James Jordan on 2/23/1704. This would also have to assume her son Henry Burk was illegitimate. Jane, the mother, also had another illegitimate child, Walter, by Walter Lewis baptized on 4/6/1684. Jane was the widow of the “unrelated” John Bourk who, together, had a son, John Bourk, on 8/16/1678. Neither is there a record of Ann Mickelborough marrying a Bourk in the Christ Church Parish records nor an Ann Micklebourough being born. Edmund Mickelborough names a daughter Ann and her daughter Elizabeth in his 1690 will. Then 20 years later this Ann supposedly married Valentine Mayo and named another child Elizabeth plus went on to have James, John and Sarah. Keep in mind the average life expectancy was 37 and menapose had to start somewhere. Somewhere in the past, Mayo genealogy carved the stone that Anne Micklenourough married John Bourk Jr., secondly, James Jorden and thirdly, Valentine Mayo. This assumption was because a minor Henry Bourk was later mentioned in the Will of James Jordan as a stepson.
With all the hardships and near impossibility of a person climbing the social ladder from servitude to freeholder of land in those times, it is telling that Valentine Mayo' inventory shows him as being in the middle class. He hit the road running, when he came of age in 1702 and in his remaining twelve years of life obtained many items of comfort. This is in deep contrast to inventories seen from other freeholders; showing only scant eating utensils, a pot, frying pan, fireplace tool and no bed . He may have taken up store keeping, as a side trade to tobacco after Tobias Micklebourough died, or maybe he was a tailor, which is doubtful. It would take much of his many yards of various material to cloth all those children. He had fields to tend and tobacco is a year round job, preparing seed beds, topping, suckering new growth, plucking tobacco worms, cutting and grading, drying and packing in casts and then preparing the ground for the next crop. He did have 1,557 pounds of tobacco in his inventory, which was about a years crop for 100 acres and that was currency then. That along with 20 cattle, 15 sheep and a horse would keep him more than busy. He did have a lot of foster children to help in the labor and was actually paid, according to records, to keep a few others. It is all to clear as to the meaning of another writers comment, that Valentine Mayo seemed to have a birth family. He could have ridden on silk lined saddles had John Mayo Sr. lived longer, as he would have been among the few larger plantations. Elizabeth mayo honored her father, when she had twins baptized on 7/12/1679, by naming them JOHN and Elizabeth. Valentine' son James Mayo honored his father by naming his first born Valentine. He named his second son JOHN and his third James. His second son John died, so he named his fourth son JOHN. He needed a living son named John Mayo. His next son was Robert for Martha’s father. Both John and Valentine Mayo died young, yet the line survived, where many did not. By doing so, they set a goodly future for their son James and the rest of us. We and our generations to come will honor them and forever hold them both in the highest esteem.
11/2/2018 edit and update:
I have since discovered from the unpublished notes of Dr. Rutman who studied Middlesex colonial families had John Mayo married to Elizabeth. We know that John apprenticed to William Cochran of Surry County as a Mariner (sailer) in 1659. Surry is just down the coast from Middlesex County. John named a son Valentine. John Valentine’s Will from there mentions a daughter Elizabeth. “Will of John Valentine May 8, 1652, friends John Marshall and William Lewis to be exrs. My land to my eldest son James Valentine if he lives to be 21. If he dies before that then to eldest dau., Ann Valentine, then to my second dau. Elizabeth, then to my youngest dau., Margaret Valentine. Until they shall enjoy it then my wife Elizabeth shall use it. Teste, Will Westwray, Nicholas Nethercoat”.
John Mayo’s wife Elizabeth or her daughter Elizabeth the younger, later married Mathew Patris a neighbor. It is troubling that Elizabeth named her twins John and Elizabeth if she was John’s wife. Possibilities are: They honored John Mayo who probably died in debtors prison; She was pregnant when they married which the dates do not support; or Elizabeth was a daughter of John Mayo and Mother Elizabeth and she honored her parents which I favor. Another observation is there seems to be no close ties with the other Mayos after Elizabeth married Mathew Patris. In fact, young Valentine seems to be in the household of Sarah Mayo Brooks in 1686-7. So, could Elizabeth Mayo have been a second wife of John Mayo and a stepmother of Valentine? Or Maybe as oldest sister she is caring for him.
Mayos were no different than others in matters of naming. Dr. Rutman’s statistics of Middlesex biographies show that 90% of first and second born were named for parents and grandparents including females. Valentine honored his father and mother by naming children John and Elizabeth. Sorry, no Mary after a supposed mother Mary Valentine, daughter of a James Valentine. also the Mayo DNA project proved there is no connection to those Isle of Wight Mayos. The rest of children’s names were for siblings, uncles etc. Only 14% had “unique” names. We didn’t get to see John’s will as he was ordered arrested by the governor of the Colony for unpaid debts to an English Merchant. He likely died in prison; the average lifespan being 37 as it were. Or he lost all his land to pay the debt, except for Dower rights to his wife that could be Valentine’s future 100 acres. But we can see that the Mayo’s I researched in 2004 in Shaftsbury and Cann England of Dorset county are represented in the naming of John’s children eg. Sarah, John and Humphrey. Also Tristram, likely an uncle who died in the Tidewater area of Va in 1687 is probably the one who married Margaret Wise in Shaftsbury in 1637. Therefore, my theory beyond John Mayo is that Shaftsbury, Dorset England is the home base and at the St James church there. They go back to Richard Mayo. These Mayos are traceable back to the 1300’s and need to be tied back to Mayeux (Mayo) the Cornishman who came with The Norman conquest of 1066. The Wiltshire visitation brings him up very close to Richard of Shaftsbury in Dorset. I hope some Mayo researcher will finish this work. This research was done by Charles Edward Mayo, II (Charlie). Feel free to copy it but please give me credit for my email@example.com
. Don’t click on it. You have to key it in for it to work.