Chronology of Selected Woody Events in Early Virginia
(Includes an analysis of possible, but unproven, early Woody family connections &
a detailed list of all the LDS & Library of Virginia microfilms that we have researched)

Under Construction, but Traffic is Moving

            This lengthy page has been created to memorialize certain aspects of the research we have done concerning the genealogy and family history of the Woody family that resided in Colonial America and the early United States. Perhaps, in the future, someone with a genuine interest in this period of the Woody family history will find this page useful. We have made several important assumptions and posied several early Woody family connections. Some of the assumptions are based on strong evidence, while others are based on weak and circumstantial evidence. Sometimes all of the levels of evidence are combined to support an assumption. Sometimes the assumption is based on another assumption. In fact, we have tried to use three levels of confidence predictors: posit, assume and the acronym SWAG. Google it. We have also tried to provide an explanation of all evidence and reasons for the posits, assumptions and SWAGs. Beware!!! Some discussions may be very difficult to follow and may test the patience of many. Also, some discussions may contain conflicting of even contradictory information.

            The basis for this research is very simple: The yDNA of virtually of the tested descendants of the early Virginia Woodys proves that they all share a Common Ancestor (CA). This Common Ancestor could have lived in Virginia or England or, perhaps, elswhere; however, we still need more Woody DNA Project participants. The yDNA of these men will help prove or disprove some of our assumptions and may help clear up some very perplexing situations.
            We have compiled a chronology of selected events that pertain to the Woodys, etc. of Colonial Virginia and the early United States. This chronology is only a small subset of the know facts that we have discovered in our extensive research of a variety of documents that have significant factual basis. We have also used the fact based research of a few others, but we have always verified their research and sources. All of the events summarized below, along with many other supporting events, are detailed in the databases associated with Woody Family Roots and The Woody Family of Old Virginia web pages. A thoughtful, diligent person that is interested in this chronology and postulated family connections should explore these database entries, since they add significantly to the outline below. The Virginia county formation dates are included to emphasize the fact that all of Goochland, Hanover, New Kent and Norfolk and their derivatives were part of the original adjacent Shires of Henrico and Charles River. We emphasize the Virginia county creation chronology to highlight some particular events that are used to assist in creating a hypothetical lineage. The formation dates of some of the Virginia Episcopal Church Parishes are also included for the same reason. Hypothetical lineages have been proposed in the past, but we have never seen even one of these unsourced and completely unexplained lineages that includes anything much more than names and assumed and/or concocted dates.
            Many very early Virginia names can be found in the land grants for this period. These grants have been transcribed, abstracted and published by several people in a number of respected references. All of these grants were recorded in script and the verbiage, grammar, punctuation reflecting the standards of the time. What is more, these records are mere copies of the original documents and were scripted by bored clerical staff. The result of this situation is that the above mentioned transcriptions sometimes vary wildly. However, the original record images are online at the Library of Virginia collection of  Virginia Land Office Parents and Grants/Northern Neck Grants and Surveys.  Even though a recent "upgrade" to the library "Search" engine has made this resource hard to find and even harder to use, every serious early Virginia family historian should try to transcribe a few of these documents. A more detailed discussion of the grant abstract references and some instructive image examples are at The Woody Family of Old Virginia website. Unfortunately, some amateur transcribers include extra information on people that  have never been proven to exist in any record. Some of these non-existent people are even provided with exact birth and death dates. We will only use recorded names to suggest family connections. We will also explain our reasoning for all assumptions associated with these proposed connections.
            Virginia is surely one of the most challenging states to do research on people that lived and events that occurred before the Civil War. We have done considerable family history research in New York and the New England states. Here, large numbers of birth, death, marriage, estate and land records have been transcribed and imaged. Many of these are easily found online. It is very difficult to compare the difficulty of doing Colonial Virginia family history research with the same exercise in the northeast states, but it is several orders of magnitude more difficult. Virtually all the genealogically significant records of Richmond and surrounding counties were destroyed in the Civil War. The Woodys of Hanover and New Kent counties lived very close to Richmond. The important records, such as deeds, wills and marriages of Hanover, New Kent and other counties were moved to Richmond for safekeeping at the beginning of the war; however, a disastrous April 1865 fire destroyed the state courthouse and most of central Richmond. Virtually all the records stored in the courthouse were lost. Henrico County records also suffered significantly. Other Virginia counties suffered record losses in the Revolutionary War, the War of 1812, Civil War and numerous courthouse fires, but Hanover and New Kent seem to be the worst. Because of this absence of factual records to work with, we cannot overemphasize the potential importance of the slightest bit of evidence, no matter how seemingly insignificant when found. Because of these difficulties, the successful researcher will have scoured every possible resource for the few facts that are available. Besides the obvious transcribed and indexed online records, untranscribed and unindexed online images records should be researched for any tidbit of data. Untranscribed and unindexed microfilms must be ordered and very carefully observed one frame at a time. Since these type of records are almost always found in county records, the records of any and all places where an ancestor might have lived must be examined. No detail, no matter how small,  can the overlooked or dismissed. Then an attempt must be made to correlate these details. Sometimes correlation is successful, but mostly it isn't; however, the details must be keep because future research may reveal another detail that will correlate. Near the bottom of this page, we have listed the county records that we have researched. We have looked at almost all of the potentially useful indexed and internally indexed records of all these counties; however, there remains a few unindexed original image records that we have not examined and a few records that have not been researched from counties thought to be less important. Some of these record images are handwritten copies of other records made by bored clerks and some are very hard to decipher. But more clues probably remain to be found. We will not be attempting that chore, but someone may in the future.
            Up until the Revolutionary War, Virginia inheritance laws were based on the rules of primogeniture. Some of these rules are complicated, but the basic premise was that, excepting the widows dower, all of the real property of a person who had died intestate (without a will) passed automatically to that person's eldest son. If the eldest son was also deceased, the real property passed automatically to the eldest son of that person. So it is possible that if the eldest son was dead his siblings could not be inheritors. We have used this information to make an important assumptions about the ages of assumed and known brothers when one brother came into possession of seemingly inherited land or purchased new land that required significant funds to acquire. Also, in cases of unexplained large land acquisitions by relatively young males, we have assumed that these buyer's were the eldest sons of a father who had recently died. When the laws changes after the Revolution, the same situation probably meant that the buyer's father had recently died. In addition, primogeniture and cheaper land were the main reasons for younger sons to move westward. This situation can sometimes be combined with other evidence to make assumptions about relationships. 
              In 1634 the eight original Virginia counties were created: Accomack, Charles City, Charles River - now York, Elizabeth City - extinct, Henrico, James City, Warwick River - extinct and Warrosquyoake - extinct. Although the almost continual creation of new counties from the original eight has been virtually ignored by many researches, these historical facts are very important in understanding and correlating  the facts that we have and others have discovered concerning the Woodys of Colonial America and the early United States. This progression of county  and church parish creation is also important in creating posited family connections that is focused on this historical period of Virginia that is almost devoid of traditional lineage related facts.

Abbreviation Key

Albemarle - ALB
Amelia - AME
Amherst - AMH
Bedford - BED
Buckingham - BUK
Chesterfield - CHE
Cumberland - CUM
Fluvanna - FLU
Franklin - FRA
Goochland - GO
Halifax - HAL
Hanover - HAN
Henrico - HEN
Louisa - LOU
Lower Norfolk - LN
Lunenburg - LUN
New Kent - NK
Norfolk - NOR
Patrick - PAT
Powhatan - POW
Spartanburg Co., South Carolina - SPA
Descendant yDNA Match - DYM
Personal Property Tax - PPT
 

Sources for Chronology

Cumberland County Deed Book 5, 1771 - 1778 - CDB
Douglas Register - DR
Encyclopedia of American Quaker Genealogy: Henrico Monthly Meeting - HM
Franklin County Virginia Wills 1786-1812 - FW
Friends' Records, 1699-1834 FR
Goochland County Virginia Road Orders 1728-1744 GRO
Hanover County Virginia Court Records 1753-1755 - HVR
Hanover County Virginia Taxpayers 1782-1815 - HT
Henrico County Virginia Wills 1737-1781 HCW
Lincoln County Tennessee Wills 1810-1824 - LW
Louisa County Virginia Deed Books A & B 1742-1759 - LD
Lower Norfolk County Virginia Court Records; Book A,1637-1646 and Book B, 1646-1651/2 - LNC
Lower Norfolk and Norfolk County Wills 1637-1710 - LNW
Magazine of Virginia Genealogy - MVG
MapofUS.org - Virginia County Formation - VCF
Old Papers from Puccoon - OPP
Norfolk County Wills - 1710-1753 NW
Parishes of Virginia - PV
Pittsylvania County Census of 1785 - PC
Powhatan County Deed Book 1 1777-1792 - PDB
Reports of Cases Argued and Determined in the Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals - VSC
Spartanburg County, South Carolina 1810 Census - SC
Talley Family Bible - TFB
Thomas Jefferson Memorandum Books - TJB
The Southeastern Reporter - SR
The Woody Family Of Pittsylvania Co., Virginia and Logan Co., Kentucky - WF
Vestry Book of Fredericksville Parish 1744 -1787 - FP
Vestry Book of St. Paul's Parish 1706-1786 - VPA
Vestry Book & Register of St. Peter's Parish 1684-1786 - VPE
Virginia Land Grants - VLG
Virginia Quit Rent Records of 1704 - VQR
Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals Cases, Vol. 6 - VSC
Virginia Tithables from Burned Record Counties - VBR
 

            For the most part, family lineages are constructed  by starting with the present generation, the moving back in time one generation at a time. In the case of the New Kent/Hanover County Woodys, this approach works well until the records become very sparse in the late 18^th century and increasing rare before that time. So our approach has been to work the lineage both ways: from the present back and from the beginning forward.
            The early records provide very few exact vital, but we must use the available records to extract all of the details that we can find. Because even approximate birth dates for early Virginia residents can very difficult to ascertain, we have developed some guidelines that we use to basically guess at these dates. There very few extant Virginia records that we can use to derive approximate birth dates and these are mainly processioning, land ownership, death and tax records, plus a very few birth & marriage records. Virtually all the males that were involved in these of the events have been assumed to be over the age of twenty-one. We have also assumed that Vestry appointed Virginia processioners were respected, mature residents that often had to negotiate with wealthy and powerful land owners in an attempt to try and settle boundary disputes. We have assumed that any processioner was at least age thirty when first appointed and could have been considerably older. The same assumption applies to Vestry appointed Road Surveyors. We have nearly always discussed our birth date assumptions in the database entries associated with these early residents, but we emphasize that these assumed birth dates are a guess at the latest date that an individual was born and that this person could have been born decades earlier, but not much later. These assumed birth dates are extremely important when trying to sort out contemporaries, especially those with the same given name. We would be very happy to be able to estimate most birth dates to plus or minus ten years and ecstatic to arrive at an estimate of plus or minus five years. These birth date assumptions are extremely important in deriving family connections since an incorrect assumption of a decade or so can result in completely different assumed connections.
            There are very few facts concerning the early Woodys of New Kent. James was first recorded as an adjacent landowner in the 1684 land grant of John Baughan. Next, he is listed adjacent to John Baughan in the first St. Peter's Vestry Book processioning record in 1689. The next recorded processing was in the St. Paul's Vestry Book processioning of 1709 and he is listed in the same precinct with Simon Woody and Joseph Baughan. Additionally, the 1704 New Kent Quit Rent listings show James Woody with 130 acres, John Woody with 100 acres and Symon Woody with 50 acres. Those are all of the New Kent County and St. Peter's parish records that we have been able to verify. James was processioned in 1709, 1711, 1715 and 1719 St. Paul's Vestry processioning records with Simon. Nearby, John Woody was processioned in the same years and a seemingly younger James Woody was processioned with John in the years 1711, 1715 and 1719. From our research, we posit that John, James Jr. and Simon were the sons of James Sr., who we posit was born about 1752.  We have not discovered the slightest bit of evidence of concerning the birthplace of James Woody Sr. James Woody Sr. was processioned in in 1722 and was also was noted twice in the 1722 Quaker Monthly Meeting record. That was the last recorded event concerning James Sr. and we assume he died about 1727.
            Given this situation, we have made one assumption that may seem controversial to many; however, we have tried to justify this assumption with facts. The St. Peter's Vestry Register records the birth of two children with the surname of Woode. One is James, son of James and Elisheba Woode, who was baptized 16 Apr 1699. The other is Rebecka, daughter of Simon Woode, who was baptized 21 November 1703. The absence of a recorded mother could have meant that she was deceased.
            1. The indexer of the transcription of the Vestry Book listed Woode as a variation of Wood and this is true; however, the two syllable pronunciation of Woode is well documented as a step in the evolution of the English surname of Woody and its many variations. We have documented the details of this surname evolution in Woody Gleanings.
            2. We have examined the complete St. Paul's Vestry and Register Book index. There are many Wood surnames, but there are no other Woode surnames.
            3.We have also examined the complete index of the St. Paul's Vestry Book. Again, there are many Wood surnames, but  there are no Woode surnames.
            4. We have also examined the complete index of the 1704 New Kent Quit Rents. Again, there are many Wood surnames, but there are no Woode surnames.
            5. The 1734 Hanover will of Simon Woody names his wife Martha, his son Moore and his then living daughters as Rebecca, Mary, Martha and Judith.  The marriage dates of Mary, Martha & Judith seem to indicate that the daughters were named in birth order. Son Moore died the same year without children; however, he named his mother Martha and his four sisters Mary, Martha, Judith and Susannah in his will. The probate record of Moore's will names John Woody and Daniel Johnson as the bond providers for Martha Woody, the will executrix. Susannah appears to have been born after the death of her father, Simon. None of the daughters were married at the time. Since he did not name his sister Rebecca, we assume she had married or had died. If she married, she did not marry a Quaker as her sisters did. The Rebecca Woody named in Simon's will is a very good match with the the 1703 New Kent birth record for Rebecka Woode. It seems that she died or was married after the date of Simon's will and before the date of Moore's will.
            After this quite through search of all the existing records that we are aware of, we feel we are completely justified in making this surname assumption; however, it is an extremely important assumption that we have used in the construction of our posited family connections.
            Additionally, since we have accepted the Woode assumption outlined above for Simon Woody, we also accept the record that names James as a son of James and Elisheba Woode/Woody. This is also very important, since this assumption means that Simon and James were both capable of siring children. We know that Simon was the father of daughter Susannah born shortly after his death in 1734. This means that he sired children over at least about a 30 year range. This is perhaps a little unusual, but not impossible at all and it would probably mean that Rebecca was Simon's first child. This would mean that Simon was probably born about 1675 and that he is not the ancestor of any male Woody. Simon died in 1734 at about 60. These baptisms would also mean that James and Simon were not Quakers at the time of the events. A James Wooddy is first mentioned in a 1684 New Kent land grant. Based on this fact alone, we estimate his birth as about 1654. He could have been older, but not much younger. If 1654 is about right, he would have been born about 20 years before Simon.  So, James and Simon could have been father and son or brothers, or even had some other very close relationship. If James Wooddy, born about 1654, had a son James Woode, baptized in 1699, he would have been about 46 at the time. The last mention of a James Wooddy in the records is 1722 and a James Wooddy is not mentioned in the 1731/32 processioning records, so he seems to have died in that interval. We are estimating his death as about 1727 at about age 73; however, the very confusing 1715 and 1719 St. Paul's Vestry processioning records suggest that a second younger James Woody existed at that time and that the elder James could have died about 1720. We have discussed this aspect in detail below. James, Simon and John Woody are all named as land owners in the 1704 New Kent Quit Rent rolls. John was also appointed a processioner in 1709, so based on those two dates we have assumed a birth date of 1679. He could have been a little older, but not much younger. He seemed to have died after the 1744 processioning and the 1747 processioning order naming Samuel Wooddy as his replacement. So, he was about 66 or a little older when he died. John was a witness at Micajah Wooddy's Quaker marriage in 1739. The record infers that Micajah converted to Quakerism before he married and that he was of age at the time. He and his wife both lived until 1800, some we assume a birth age of about 1716 for Micajah. John also seems to have sons Samuel, born about 1717 and died about 1788 and John Jr., born about 1730 and died in 1786. If these dates are about right, John Sr. would have been about 51 when John Jr. was born. So, all of these facts, assumption and posits seem to fit; however, there dates mean that Simon and John could have been the sons of James or his younger brothers.
            In assessing family connections, there is other quite accurate information concerning Simon/Symon Woody and his family that is important and useful. Even though Simon and his son left no surviving male Woody descendants, the exact recorded dates concerning events pertaining to him and his family gives us some important benchmarks to work with. In addition to the record of of the birth of his daughter discussed above, Simon was recorded as a New Kent County landowner, along with James and John, in 1704. Simon Woody, along with James, were processioned in the St. Paul's Vestry until his death in 1734, however, neither was ever appointed as a processioner for the vestry. He was not mentioned once in the Quaker records; however, there are Quaker marriage records and dates for four of his five daughters. Because he was dead or very ill, Simon was not a witness at any of these marriages; however, Martha, his wife or widow attended three of these events. The recorded marriage dates of three of Simon's younger daughters infers that there was a substantial time interval between the younger daughter's assumed birth dates and the recorded birth date of daughter Rebecca. Also, Rebecca seems to have died or married about the same time as her father and her brother Moore. Since Simon's widow Martha seems to have been pregnant with daughter Susanna when Simon died, we postulate that Martha very likely not the mother of all of Simon's children, especially Rebecca and Moore. This leads us to believe that Simon was probably a little older than we had previously thought and he was probably the son of James of New Kent and the brother of James and John Woody. Based on these facts and assumption, we have posited Simon's birth date as about 1765. We now have incorporated these assumptions into our posited family connections.
            Many of the life events of  Micajah Woody and his family are detailed in the extensive Henrico Friends (Quakers) Monthly Meeting records which start in 1699. Because Quakers were not aligned with the Anglican Church and therefore ineligible as processioners, Micajah was never appointed to this position. Because a James Woody was recorded as a witness to the marriage of an unrelated couple and as a Meeting House donor in 1722, many have assumed that Micajah was the son of this James. However, the fact is that non-Quakers were welcome to attend Quaker marriages, the fact that James was not a known relative of any of the other marriage participants and the fact that he was not recorded as a Quaker before or after 1722 in Quaker records leads us to assume that he was not a Quaker. Also, most of these researchers have named Martha as this James' wife. There is no record to substantiate this claim and we assume that the widow of Simon was mistakenly thought to be the widow of James. In any event, the 4 Nov 1739 marriage of Micajah Wooddy and Cecilia Johnson was recorded in the Quaker Monthly Meeting records, so we are assuming his birth data as about 1718. John and Judith Wooddy were also recorded as witnesses and we assume that they were the parents of Micajah. Micajah and Cecilia were recorded as the parents of nine children and they both lived to about 1800. His death date reinforces our birth date assumption which also reinforces our assumption that Micajah was not the son of James Sr. Considering all the evidence and assumptions,  Micajah seems to have been born much too late to be the son of James Sr. His wedding record seems to indicate that he most likely became a Quaker as the result of his marriage to Cecelia. On the other hand, James was never recorded as a processioner, but he could have been physically unable to perform this task. Both Micajah and John Jr. made wills which we have discovered. Neither of these wills have been published in any online record of wills and/or probates. Micajah, Samuel and John Jr. Woody seemed to have lived closely together in Hanover for at least fifty years. Micajah was almost surely a "lapsed" Quaker when he died. Most of his children were married "out of unity" (married to non-Quakers) and Micajah was a slave owner. On the subject of processioners, it is interesting to note that the Woodys were appointed to this position far more than men with any other surname. Interestingly, Micajah was a witness to the will of John Jr. and Micajah acquired the real estate of Samuel after Samuel's death.
            As noted above,  John Sr. Woody is recorded with James and Symon Woody in the 1704 New Kent Quit Rent rolls. We have assumed that this John Woody Sr. is the same person who provided bond for Martha Woody, the executrix of the 1734 probate of the will of Moore Woody and the same person that was a witness to the 1739 marriage of Micajah Woody. John Sr. is not mentioned in other Quaker records, so he almost surely not a Quaker. Simon's wife, Martha, is also mentioned in the marriages of three of her daughters which occurred around the time of Simon's death, so we assume that their father, Simon, was apparently too ill to attend. St. Paul's processioning records indicate this John Sr. Woody died between 1744-1747. These facts seem to indicate that John Sr. and Simon Woody were brothers.
            We tried to compare the names found in the Hanover land grant transactions with those found in The Vestry Book of St. Paul's Parish, Hanover County, Virginia; however, the processioning records of the important period between 1719/20 and 1731/32 were not preserved. We then looked for these names in earlier years of the record and found some very interesting name correlations in the vestry processioning records. We also found some puzzling and confusing records. In the 1708/9 record, Simon and James Wooddy were in the Precinct 29 and John Wooddy was the processioner of the Precinct 33. Edward Trotman was also in Precinct 19. In the processioning of 1711/12, Simon and James Wooddy was processioned in Precinct 15. John was the processioner of Precinct 19 and Edward Troutman was again present, along with a James Wooddy. We do not know if the James in Precinct 15 was the same person as the James in Precinct 19, however, since the precincts are separated by three other precincts, they may have not been adjacent. In any event, processioning was about land owners, even if the owners were not the property residents. Occasionally, a representative of an owner was mentioned in the records. This usually occurred when that person accompanied the processioners as they walked the property boundaries. That representative could have been a relative, friend, overseer, renter, etc; however, the return made it clear as to the land owner. Therefore, a James Woody owned land in precincts 15 and 19 and since neither a Jr. or Sr. suffix was designated, we assume that the same James Woody owned both properties in 1711/12.
            The next two processionings seem to be the most important and the most confusing. We have looked at many processioning record, including those related to many non-Woodys and have made several observations. Most, but not all, of the processioning records used numbered precincts in the orders that assigned processioners and these processioners mostly, but not always, used these numbers in their returns. We know of no way to determine the exact significance of the precinct numbering arrangement; however, it seems the lowest numbered were in the most populated areas and included the many of the most influential people. In addition, the precincts seemed to be numbered in order and, although these precincts were sometimes reordered from time to time, adjacently numbered precincts seemed to indicate adjacent locations. Similarly, we have never found a discussion of the details that processioners were supposed to record or how they were supposed to record these details; however, it seems that when two men with the same name were processioned, the creators of the orders and/or the returns almost always attempted to differentiate them in some manner, usually with the suffix Sr. and Jr. A women's name usually included a prefix denoting that she was a widow. Inheritors (perhaps minors?) of land were usually designated as orphans of the deceased owner. If a supposed owners name was included in the order, but that person no longer owned land in the precinct (had died, sold or removed), usually their name was just omitted from the return and a new name was recorded; however, occasionally some other details were included.
            In 1715/16, the order for Precinct 15  named James and Simon again, but Simon was recorded twice on the return and James was not recorded. We wondered if Simon had somehow acquired James' land; however, we have have looked at many other processioning results and we do not recall seeing a similar situation. Originally, we assumed this entry was a processioners error or a vestry clerk's error or a transcription error; however, the next quadrennial processioning made us wonder even more about this odd situation.
            So, the 1719/20 record has another event that was more than unusual since it is almost unexplainable to us. James and Simon were was again recorded in the order for Precinct 15, but only Simon was listed in the return. Confusingly, a James Wood and two other men listed in the order along with the phase "no land". In addition, two other men listed in the order are listed in the return as having "no land" and, to further complicate things, only one other name was added to the return. To us, "no land" clearly indicates that three of the men named in the order no longer owned land in the precinct; however, three names were replaced with one, so are unable to go beyond that obvious conclusion. We have never seen the "no land" term used before or after in the processioning records. so it is unclear to us exactly what had happened. We have attempted to track the other two men listed with "no land"; however, the next recorded processioning was in 1727/28 and it did not include numbered precincts and many of the Vestry residents seem to have gone unrecorded.  The next nearly intact and useful processioning record was in 1731/32; however, it provides very little correlation with the 1719/20 processioning record. Also, since a James Wooddy was listed on the order, we have assumed that he was the same person as the James Wood listed on the return and, if so, this person was probably alive; however. we are not completely convinced of the latter. Finally, as in several previous processionings, John Wooddy processioned Precinct 19 which included Edward Trotman and a James Wooddy.
            Combining the analyses of the two events, we think it is possible that the 1715/16 process may have meant that Simon had acquired the property that James had previously owned; however, the entry could have just been an error on someone's part. If James had died, he should not have been included on the 1719/20 processioning order; however, we have noticed that type of error was not an uncommon occurrence in other non-Woody processionings. Since it is obvious that he was included four years later with the "no land" phrase, we assume that he was still alive although we are still not completed satisfied with that conclusion. If James Wooddy had died, their would have been no need to append the Jr. suffix to the name of James Wooddy found in Precinct 19 John Wooddy. These seemingly confusing processionings make us wonder even more and we think that another James Wooddy may have been involved in these events and, if so, he was very likely James Wooddy Jr., the son of the assumed progenitor.
            The 1723/24 processioning records are completely missing and the 1727/28 records deviate completely from the form of the other years. In 1727/28, the precincts were not numbered. Instead, several large groups of people were processioned; however, many of the people from previous years are omitted. To us, it appears that only the most densely populated areas were processioned and the outlying precincts were not or the records were lost. In the 1731/32 record, the precincts are mostly numbered and seem complete. John Wooddy processioned Precinct 16 and Simon Wooddy was processioned in an unnumbered precinct near the Chickahominy Swamp. In 1747, the vestry ordered that processing be done by the previous processioners, except several of these were replaced by new people. In particular, Samuel Wooddy replaced John Wooddy; however, none of the processing details have survived, neither the orders or the returns.
             The seemingly younger James Woody was processioned with John Woody in the three processionings of 1711, 1715 and 1719.  Seemingly younger because he was not processioned in 1709. This James has been ignored and/or overlooked by most of the originators of other Woody lineages. This James would have been a landowner, a homeowner and probably married with a family. The 1711 processioning date indicates he would have been born before 1690. How much earlier we do not know, but a James, son of James Woode and Elisheba was recorded as baptized 16 April 1699 in the St Peter's Vestry Register. When we discovered this record, we remembered our previous research on the origination and evolution of the Woody surname. So we think that this James Woode was the same person as the James Woody, processioned in 1711 and we are assuming a birth date of about about 1681. Perhaps he could have been John's son, but we think it is far more likely that he was James Jr., son of James Sr. of New Kent. We also think he was the husband of Elisheba and the father of James III. James Jr. seems to be was last recorded 1719 St Paul's Vestry processioning record, since he is not present in the next surviving record of 1731. We previously had assumed that he died in the 1719-1731 interval. He may have died in that interval, but he may have moved from the St. Paul's Vestry jurisdiction to Louisa County with his son, James III (baptized 1699). We think that James III is the person found in Louisa County from 1743 until 1752. In this time frame, James III had several important interactions with a John Brooks. The evidence provided by some of Thomas Jefferson's legal suit memoranda shows that James III died about 1769 leaving a son James IV, a daughter Elizabeth and another daughter Mary, the wife John Brooks of Amelia County. A John Brooks and wife Elizabeth, now residents of Lunenburg, are recorded in a Louisa deed transaction in 1758. If Jefferson's informant had mistakenly reversed the names of the daughters of James III, this could mean that John Brooks may have married Elizabeth, the daughter of James Woody III.  We have found no other evidence concerning this possibility. All of these related records lead us to assume that that the James Woody III found in 1743 Louisa was the same person as the James recorded in the previous Hanover processioning records and that James III was somehow closely related to the David Woody (aka David Books) of Person County, North Carolina. Because of the close connection of David Brooks Woody with James, John and Thomas Woody of Pittsylvania County, we have assumed that these three men were also the sons of James III of Hanover and Louisa and that David Brooks Woody was also closely related, probably the son of a daughter of James III. If correct, then James IV is same person as the well documented James Woody of Pittsylvania,
             So, we think we have a fairly accurate estimate of the life spans of James Jr. (c1681-c1735) and Simon (c1765-1734). John seems a little more difficult. His earliest recorded dates are his appearances on the 1704 Quit Rent roll and his appointment as a processioner in 1709. He seemed to have died about 1746, so we are estimating (c1679--c1744).  We have assumed that John and Simon and James Jr. were all the sons of James of New Kent; however, there are a few other Woodys that have not been accounted for.
            One of the tantalizing and perplexing records is the 18 Feb 1722 Hanover County 400 acre land grant for Henry Woody of Hanover County. It is a clear and readable record for the most part. The exact location is not mentioned, only that it was on the south side of the South Anna River. Adjacent landowners were Edward Trotman, John Glen and Capt. Thomas Massie. This record is reinforced by the 24 Mar 1725, 300 acre grant in Hanover County to John McQuerry of New Kent County. The location of this grant was even less exact than Henry's grant; however, Turkey Creek is mentioned. Turkey Creek is on the south side of the South Anna River in western Hanover near the now Louisa County border. Goochland county was a short distance south. The adjoining property owners were Peter King, John McQuerry, William Bourne, Johnson and Capt. Massie. This is the first and only mention of a Henry Woody in Hanover County. This property moved from St. Paul's Parish to St. Martin's Parish when it was created in 1726 and this fact probably explains why Henry was never processioned in St. Paul's Parish. This Henry was surely born before 1700 and it is quite likely that this was the Henry Woody of Hanover that purchased land on in the branches of Tuckahoe Creek in Henrico County in 1745 and died there in 1766. This Henry left a will, but only the probate proceeding has survived. He named a William Woody as his executor. His sons seemed to have been Augustine (Austin), Henry and William. Based on the evidence and assumptions, we have estimated Henry's birth date as about 1692; however, it is very difficult for us to posit his father. Because Henry's family names and life events were similar to those of John of Goochland, they may have been brothers. John of Goochland seems to have been born abut 1700.
            On 28 Sep 1732, a John Woody from Hanover county was granted 400 acres in Hanover county. The location is described as on both sides of Peter's Creek, by Little Creek on the low grounds of  Poor Creek. Adjoining land owners were John Smething, Capt. Clark and Gilbert Gibson. This grant is confirmed by the 5 Jun 1736 Hanover grant on the north side of the South Anna to John Smething which names adjoining landowners as John Woody, Nicholas Meriwether, Robert Netherland, Francis Smething, John Bunch and Capt. Clark. Also, the 28 Jun 1733, 400 acre grant to Gilbert Gibson on Peter's Creek mentions John Woodey as an adjacent land owner. We are not sure of the location of John's grant. The only location that remotely resembles the grants description is now in western Louisa County. Other records show that Peter's Creek was renamed Millington Creek and Poor Creek is now Poore Creek. It would be difficult to find a location more distant from the hub of Hanover; however, this location is confirmed by later records related to the estate settlement of the adjacent landowner, Gilbert Gibson. We do not have even a guess as to the identify of this John Woody, but he may have never lived on the property.
            Samuel, Micajah and John Woody seems to have lived closely together in Hanover for about fifty years. Samuel and Micajah seem to have been born about the same time and both seem to have been quite a bit older than John. All were recorded in a rare 1763 tithable list. John had 80 acres. Samuel had 120 acres, Micajah had 200 acres and Martha Woody, the widow of Simon, had 170 acres. We cannot find any correlation between these acreages and those recorded for James, John and Symon in 1704 New Kent.
            In 1747, the St. Paul's Vestry appointed Samuel Wooddy to replaced John Wooddy as a processioner: however, the processioning returns have been lost. In 1751, Samuel Wooddy and John Howard processioned Precinct 16. Micajah Wooddy was also in is precinct.  In 1755, Samuel and John White processioned Precinct 16 and Micajah was with them again. In 1759 Samuel and John White processioned the same precinct with Micajah.  The 1763 processioning records are a little confusing, as it appears that the processionings were recorded twice. In any event, Samuel and John Boatwright processioned Precinct 16 along with Micajah. In addition, John Wooddy was processioned for the first time. In Precinct 18, Martha Wooddy, the widow of Simon, was processioned for the last time. in 1767, Samuel Woody and John Boatwright again processioned Precinct 16, along with Micajah. With respect to the Woodys/Wooddys, the 1771 processioning of Precinct duplicated the 1767 Precinct 16 event. In 1775, processioning orders were recorded and John was assigned as a processioner for the first time. He and Samuel Woody were charged with processioning Precinct 9; however, no returns were recorded. The 1779 processioning orders were rather odd and it appears that the Vestry tried a different approach with the processioning orders. The orders put John, Micajah and Samuel in Precinct 8; however, Nathan Talley and Isaac were assigned as processioners. John and Samuel Woody were assigned processioners of Precinct 9.  Perhaps this was a Vestry reporting error. In any event, no returns were forthcoming from either precinct. The close association of the British Colonial government and the Anglican Church ended after the Revolution and the last Hanover processioning order occurred in 1783. Most of the returns were apparently ignored and/or not recorded; however, the Precinct 8 and Precinct 9  returns were recorded. In Precinct 8, John Woody and Thomas Hooper processioned Precinct 8, which included and Samuel and Micajah Woody. In Precinct 9, an apparently younger Samuel Woody was recorded. This was surely the son of Samuel Woody Sr.
              Samuel Woody died intestate (no will) about 1788 owning the 120 acres of land he had owned in 1763. In 1782 Hanover, Samuel was recorded with seven tithes. Since his apparent wife, Elizabeth, seems to have been living at time, we speculate five of the other tithes may have been some of his children and grandchildren. The Talley Family Bible is the source of the only exact vital event that we have found for the children of Samuel and Elizabeth Woody. Their daughter, Ann Woody was born on 13 Jan 1755 and married to Elisha Talley, the son of Micajah Talley, on 29 May 1783. This Bible has been imaged and transcribed. Using the all of the available information, we have posited a birth date of 1717 for Samuel Woody. We conclude that Samuel Jr. was born about 1753 and died about 1811. Two of his very likely sons were Samuel W. Woody (1778-1856) and Henry Talley Woody (c 1779-1812) The death of Samuel Sr. was almost surely the reason that Henry Talley Woody made the trip from Georgia to Chesterfield Co., Virginia were he died in 1812. Also, we we speculate that the John Woody who died 10 Feb 1856 in Jefferson County, Kentucky may have been another son of Samuel Jr. John's death record shows his age as 56 and his birth place as Hanover County, Virginia; however, we have not found any other evidence to confirm this speculation. Because he died without a will and before official census records existed, we cannot be sure of any of other children of Samuel Woody Sr.; however, two never again mentioned Woodys are named in the 1782-1815 Hanover County personal property tax records. These are Hartwell Woody noted in the 1789-1794 records and Obadiah Woody, noted in 1784-1793 records. Both would have been at least age 21 when first enumerated. This enumeration suggests that Hartwell was born about 1767 and Obadiah was born about 1762. Both probably lived long enough to have children.
            Micajah and his wife Cecilia have been discussed above. Their children were Lurana, Mary, Agatha, Constantina, Ursula, Sarah, Cecilia, William and Massie. These children, some of their marriages and their tribulations are recorded in the Quaker Monthly Meeting Records. Micajah Woody died testate in 1774 owning 120 acres that he had recently acquired from the Samuel Woody estate. Cecilia Woody, the widow of Micajah, died about a year later owning 169.5 acres; however, a few years earlier, she had owned 190 acres. Micajah also left a will in Hanover dated 23 September 1771. Although the original will is not extant, the details were recorded in an 1801 court case first heard before the Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia. Their son, William, seems to have been recorded in the 1820 Hanover census which enumerated him with an assumed family of a wife, two daughters and a son. He died in 1826 when his estate was taxed. We know nothing more about his family except.
                John Woody died testate in 1886 owning the 80 acres he had owned in 1763. This property was later conveyed to his widow, Ruth. His 16 Sep 1784 Hanover will names his wife Ruth and children Elizabeth, William, John, Ruth, Frederick, David, James, Anna, Elisha and Nancy. From our research these children seem to be named in birth order. Our benchmark for their ages comes from an 1812 Virginia militia report than named John Woody as age 52. From this date and other data, we have posited the birth dates of the other children. For John Sr., we have posited a birth date of about 1730. This birth date produces about a 14 year interval between John's birth and the births of Micajah and Samuel; however, the birth date seems to be confirmed by the roughly 16 year interval between their appearances in the Hanover processioning records. Because of his close association with Micajah and Samuel, we have also posited that John Jr. was also a son of John Sr. however, the interval described directly above seems rather substantial to us. On the other hand, if our posited birth date for John Sr. is fairly correct, he would have been about 51 when John Jr. was born. Since this event seem plausible, we have concluded that the preponderance of evidence indicates that John Jr. was the son of John Sr.
            Based on the available evidence, both recorded and circumstantial, we have concluded that James Woody was the father of Simon, John of Goochland and Henry of Hanover and Louisa. This assumption if primarily based on the mention of James in a 1684 land grant and his 1689 St. Peter's Parish processioning record. John Sr. and Simon were not recorded as land owners until their 1704 New Kent County Quit Rent records. Both James and Simon seem to be the fathers of children born shortly before 1700. Simon died in 1734 leaving one son, Moore and daughters Rebecca, Mary, Martha, Judith and Susannah. Moore Woody who died the same year leaving no surviving children. John Sr. seemed to have died about 1744 leaving sons, John Jr., James Jr., Henry, Samuel and Micajah. Henry died in 1766 and left sons, Henry Jr. William and Augustine, who all moved to the area around Lynchburg in the Blue Ridge Mountains. James Jr. died about 1769 and left sons, John, Thomas and James III of Pittsylvania County and daughters Elizabeth and Mary. James Jr. seems to also be closely connected to David Brooks Woody of Person County, North Carolina, most likely by a daughter.
           
            We have researched the New Kent and Hanover County Woody/Wooddy families and their descendants for over three decades. Since I am a direct descendant of John Woody of Goochland and virtually all the yDNA tested Woodys with roots in old Virginia seem to have a Common Ancestor, we have vigorously attempted to connect John of Goochland to the New Kent/Hanover Woodys/Wooddys. Regretfully, we must say that we have only found one bit of surviving evidence on which to base a Common Ancestor assumption and this evidence poses significant challenges. This bit of evidence is the 1701 land grant of John Pleasants. A John Woody is very clearly named as a headright associated with this grant. Since he was the only Woody claimed as a headright in this grant and since we do not recognize any of the other person's names except for the grant owner, we think it is reasonable to assume that this John was not an infant when he arrived. We also think it reasonable to assume that he was at least sixteen and probably older. If he was between sixteen and twenty-one he would have been born about 1683 or before. It is very possible that this John Woody was the John Woody of Goochland. It is equally possible that John Woody of Goochland was a son of one of the Hanover/ New Kent Woodys. We see no way to even guess at which of the possibilities is correct.           

            The first solid evidence of John of Goochland is his appearance as a surveyor in a 1738 Goochland road order. Numerous mentions of John and his assumed sons Henry, Thomas and William are made in Goochland and Albemarle until at least 1767 and perhaps 1776. The only other real evidence concerning John pertains to his son Henry. Because Henry seemed to have received the bulk of John's estate, we have assumed that he was the oldest son and since Henry had a son born in 1758 and was married to Susannah in 1761, we have assumed his birth date as about 1736. Henry died in 1811, so this birth date assumption seems reasonable. If these assumptions are reasonably correct, the headright John, if born about 1683, would have been much older than average when he married and would have lived much longer than most of his contemporary Virginians; however, this hypothesis does not seem completely unreasonable. The other choice is a little more complicated. James of New Kent was first recorded in a land grant in 1684 and was processioned in 1689. The next mention of James is with Simon and John Woody in the 1704 New Kent Quit Rent records. So it seems reasonable to posit that that Simon and John might have been the sons of James, however, it also seems reasonable to posit that one or both could have been the younger brothers of James. Simon died at a seemingly young age and his only son Moore died childless not long after; however, John was latter processioned many times in Hanover and died about 1747. Processioning records seem to indicate that John left sons Samuel and John in Hanover. So, John of New Kent and Hanover would not seem to be the father of John of Goochland; however, if John of New Kent and Hanover was not the son, but the brother of James of New Kent, then the father of John of Goochland could have been James. If so, the complications of the unlikely dates associated with the headright John, discussed above, disappear. Since we have almost no evidence concerning the birth dates of any of these men and since some of my assumptions are based on other assumptions, naming the father of John of Goochland has been and is an impossible for me. If John of Goochland was the headright John,  then his family connection lived in England or, more broadly, the British Isles. That is, the Common Ancestor of John Woody of Goochland and the early New Kent/Hanover Woodys would have most likely lived in England and in that case, John of Goochland would have been a likely a nephew or close relative of James of New Kent. Seventeenth century records of England show that the Woody, Woodey, Woodie Wooddy, Woodey, Wooddie, Wode, etc. surname was significantly more common at that time than it is today. Since we can not find a solid connection to the Hanover/New Kent Woodys, I lean towards the headright possibility, but not far enough to posit that possibility.
            Without doubt, there are other possible assumptions that will yield different conclusions; however of now, we are assuming that the father of John Woody of Goochland could have been either James of New Kent or the 1701 headright John Woody. Because there are similarities about the life events of the two men, we have also posit that Henry Woody of Hanover and Louisa may have been a brother of John of Goochland, if both men were sons of James of New Kent.

             The Woody yDNA Project has also resulted in the discovery of related Woodys found in late 1700 and early 1800 records of states other than Virginia. Probably the most intriguing is the Henry Woody family found in the 1790 records of Spartanburg County, South Carolina. Henry died about 1805; however, we have successfully traced the descendants of his assumed son Nicholas. Henry was probably born about 1745 and was probably related to John Woody of adjacent Laurens County; however, none of the living male Woody descendants of John has been yDNA tested.
            There are other interesting early related Woodys found in non-Virginia states. Some have been discovered by the Woody yDNA Project. In the very early 1800s, some of the Virginia Woodys have been shown to be proven long distance mail contractors. This occupation could partially account for the discovery of early Woodys in other distant states.

            Below is a list of LDS FamilySearch and Library of Virginia microfilms that we have viewed. FamilySearch no longer rents films, but most of the films can now be viewed online at FamilySearch.com or at FamilySearch Affiliate Libraries. The FamilySearch website lists these libraries; however, it is our experience that not all of the listed libraries provide this online service. Call before going. The Library of Virginia still provides free microfilm loans through their interlibrary lending service; however, these films are only loaned to other libraries Although the library website provides lists of the considerable Virginia county government microfilm holdings, the details of the details of the interlibrary film loan service are not easily found; however, in the past it has been available to any participating library in the United States.  In our experience, it is best to telephone the library and ask to talk to the interlibrary loan coordinator. Discuss the details with the coordinator and get his/her direct telephone number and/or extension. Since your interlibrary film order must be placed by your local library, it is best to discuss your request with a responsible local library staff member and give that person the telephone number of the  Library of Virginia interlibrary loan coordinator. Most local libraries have a policy of interlibrary loan participation; however, your local library staff may not be thrilled about learning a new interlibrary loan service process and especially a somewhat unusual request such as this. Be respectfully insistent, persistent and patient. Follow-up. Once your library staff has learned the process, later orders should be much easier. You will probably be required to pay for the return postage. The Library of Virginia has virtually all of the Virginia governmental films that are in the FamilySearch archive.   

PPT = Personal Property Tax Lists. LT = Land Tax (Real Property Tax) Lists.

Virginia
Court Orders 1657-1680; Deeds 1666-1682 LDS 850107

Albemarle
PPT 1782-1799 LDS 2024443
PPT 1800-1813 LDS 2024444
PPT 1814-1822 LDS 2024445
PPT 1823-1830 LDS 2024446
PPT 1830-1835 LDS 2024447
PPT 1836-1841 LDS 2024448

Amelia
Deed Index Grantors W-Z 1734-1953 R72

Amherst
PPT 1782-1803 LDS 2024457
PPT 1804-1823 LDS 2024458
Order Books 1766-1769 LDS 188542
Order Books 1778-1782 LDS 1888543
Order Books 1784-1787 LDS 1888544

Augusta
Tithables 1777-1778 LDS 30312
PPT 1782-1795 LDS 2024461
Deed Index Grantor L-R 1745-1930 LDS 30336
Deed Index Grantor S-Z 1745-1930 LDS 30337
Deed Index Grantee H-M 1745-1930 LDS 30339
Miscellaneous Deeds 1805 1873 LDS 30686
Conveyances Grantee Index U-Z 1754-1929 LDS 1941016

Bedford
PPT 1782-1805 LDS 2024472
PPT 1806-1816 LDS 2024473
Deed Index Grantor U-Z 1754-1930 LV R21
Deed Index Grantee U-Z 1754-1930 LV R24
Order Index A-C 1754-1904 LV R50
Order Index U-Z 1754-1904 LV R54
Conveyances Index Grantor T-Z 1754-1921 LDS 1941021

Buckingham
PPT 1782-1810 LDS 29290
PPT 1811-1826 LDS 29291
PPT 1827-1841 LDS 29292
Court Records LDS 1805-1873 30686
Surveyors Book 1762-1814 LV R30

Chesterfield
Tithables 1747-1821 LDS 1929611
PPT 1786-1811 LDS 2024511
PPT 1812-1826 LDS 2024512
LT 1791-1822 LV R74
LT 1823-1834 LV R75
LT 1835-1850 LV R76
Will Index 1749-1947 LDS 30870
Will Books 8-9 1813-1823 LDS 30875
Will Books 10-11 1823-1830 LDS 30876
Deed Index Grantee K-Z 1749-1913 LDS 30886
Deeds Index Grantor K-Z  1749-1913 LDS 30884
Deed Book 17 1805-1801 LV R7
Deed Book 22 1814-1819 LV R9
Deed Book 24 1819-1823 LV R10
Deed Book 26 1823-1827 LV R11
Deed Book 34 1841-1842 LV R15

Charlotte
Deed Index Book 1 1765-1831 LV R15

Cumberland
Order Book 1764-1767 LV R24
Order Book 1772-1774 LV R25
Order Book 1774-1778 LV R26
Deed Index Grantor L-Z 1749-1918 LV R15
Deed Index Grantee L-Z 1749-1918 LV R16
Deed Book 5 1771-1778 LV R3

Essex
Deeds & Wills Index G-Z 1721-1798 LDS 1929915
Guardian Bonds Books 1-5 1731-1829 LDS 1929895
Blackburn Family Records LDS 858784

Franklin
PPT 1786-1803 LDS 2024540
PPT 1804-1821 LDS 2024541
PPT 1822-1841 LDS 2024542
Marriage Bonds 1793-1798 LDS 1977986

Frederick
Deeds Index 1892-1876 LDS 31366
Marriage Bonds Book 10 1811-1815 LV R109

Fluvanna
PPT 1787-1826 LDS 2024538

Goochland
Order Book 12 1771-1778 LV R25

Henry
PPT 178201830 LDS 2024587

Halifax
Deaths 1853-1890 LV R13
Deaths 1890-1896 LV R15

Hanover
PPT 1782-1803 LV R159
PPT 1804-1824 LV R 160
PPT 1825-1840 LV R161
PPT 1841-1851 LV R162
LT 1802-1817 LV R138
LT 1818-1829 LV R139
LT 1830-1838A LV R140
LT 1838B-1847A LV R141
Court Records 1733-1735 LV R2
Deaths 1853-1896 LV R1
Old Wills 1785-1893 LV R1

Henrico
Order Book 1763-1767 LV R68
Deaths 1853-1884 LV R14
Deaths 1884-1896  LV R51
Births 1853-1895 LV R44

King William
PPT 1787-1832 LV R198
LT 1782-1811 LV R164
LT 1812-1850 LV R 165

Lancaster
Records 1652-1655 LDS 908180
Record Book 2 1654-1666 LDS 850103
Wills 1653-1800 LDS 6049394

Loudoun
Deeds Index1757-1812  LDS 849507
Chancery Suit Index LDS 1307610

Louisa
Deed Index Grantor Book 1 1742-1825 LV R18

Lunenburg
Deed Index Grantors S-Z 1746-1900 LV R16

Mecklenburg
PPT 1806-1828 LDS 1854009
Deed Index Grantors S-Z 1765-1933 LV R20
Order Books 1-2 1801-181 LDS 1870851
Wills Index 1765-1918 LDS 32517
Will Books 7-9 1810-1824 LDS 32520

Nelson
PPT 1809-1845 LDS 1870172

Orange
Deeds Index 1734-1800 LDS 33009

Pittsylvania
PPT 1813-1823 LV 273
PPT 1824-1833 LV 274
LT 1782-1802 LV R241
LT 1803-1811 LV R242
LT 1812-1820 LV R243
Deed Index Grantee S-Z 1767-1889 LV R30
Deed Index Grantor S-Z 1767-1889 LV R28

Powhatan
LT 1782-1820 LV R249
LT 1821-1850 LV R250
Deed Index Grantee P-Z 1777-1947 LV R12
Deed Index Grantor P-Z 1777-1947 LV R11
Deed Book 1 1777-1792 LV R1

Prince Edward
Deed Index Grantors L-Z 1754-1916 LV R13

Richmond City
PPT 1787-1799 LV R363
PPT 1799-1834 LV R364
PPT 1835-1850 LV R365

Spotsylvania
Deed Index Books 1-2 Grantor 1727-1922 LDS 34066
Deed Books A-B 1722-1734 LDS 34068
Deed Books C-D 1734-1751 LDS 34069

To be continued

Created Sep 13, 2018
Updated Feb 1, 2022

Please use your Back Button to return to previous page