13.08.2013 Views

History and genealogy of Peter Montague, of Nansemond and ...

History and genealogy of Peter Montague, of Nansemond and ...

History and genealogy of Peter Montague, of Nansemond and ...

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

BRANCH OF HIS SON WILLIAM. 401<br />

f his son Thomas. The few remaining records <strong>of</strong> Christ church do<br />

ot mention him, except to record his death, as follows :<br />

" Mr. Wil-<br />

kin <strong>Montague</strong>, Sr., died the 7 th <strong>and</strong> was buried the 10th <strong>of</strong> Dec,<br />

713." His will has been found, dated Oct. 1, 17 13, proved June 1,<br />

714 <strong>and</strong> a copy in full is given below. In his will he describes him-<br />

elf as "<strong>of</strong> Middlesex." All these records agree, that he resided in<br />

liddlesex Co. from the year 1699 to his death 17 13.<br />

At the date <strong>of</strong><br />

700, he was about 65 years <strong>of</strong> age, his children were grown, married<br />

nd settled, his wife appears to have been deceased, <strong>and</strong> he was<br />

ssiding on his plantation, on or near <strong>Montague</strong> Isl<strong>and</strong>, in Middlesex.<br />

low the l<strong>and</strong> on the Rappahannock was divided between these two<br />

ons <strong>of</strong> the emigrant, there is no way to determine, except that <strong>Peter</strong><br />

ad the first choice ; but all records agree that both <strong>Peter</strong> <strong>and</strong> Wil-<br />

son had moved from Lancaster, before the year 1700 <strong>and</strong> were living<br />

1 Middlesex, on or near <strong>Montague</strong> isl<strong>and</strong>, which isl<strong>and</strong> they owned.<br />

'Uch is the tradition, <strong>and</strong> the records corroborate it. No record has<br />

een found which states that they had sold the homestead in Lancas-<br />

*r where their father died, all mention <strong>of</strong> them however ceases on the<br />

ecords <strong>of</strong> Lancaster in 1668 <strong>and</strong> it seems safe to say that they had<br />

old it. [The name <strong>of</strong> <strong>Montague</strong> ceases in L. records in 1668 <strong>and</strong> is<br />

ot again mentioned until the Hannah Ball marriage in 1727. The<br />

arliest mention <strong>of</strong> the name in Middlesex, is in the year 1682 which<br />

eems to settle that between 1668 <strong>and</strong> 1682, these two brothers had<br />

emoved to the south side <strong>of</strong> the Rappahannock river.]<br />

This William <strong>Montague</strong> lived more than ten years after the death<br />

if his brother <strong>Peter</strong>. <strong>Peter</strong> left no will, but it is probable that in the<br />

ettlement <strong>of</strong> the estate, some <strong>of</strong> the isl<strong>and</strong> l<strong>and</strong> came to William, or<br />

erhaps it was his by the original division under the will <strong>of</strong> his father.<br />

?his l<strong>and</strong> he must have given to his eldest son William, during his<br />

In life time, as he leaves him none in his will. Certain it is that<br />

lis eldest son William owned 500 acres <strong>of</strong> the isl<strong>and</strong> or near it in<br />

733 [see the will <strong>of</strong> William <strong>Montague</strong> 3170]. He had evidently<br />

•rovided for his eldest son William before the making <strong>of</strong> the will, as<br />

he will itself is in favor <strong>of</strong> the youngest son Thomas. The wording<br />

I the will <strong>of</strong> <strong>Peter</strong> No. 1, renders it certain that William was not<br />

narried at that time [1659]. No record has been found <strong>of</strong> the date<br />

>f his marriage or name <strong>of</strong> his wife, who died before him as she is<br />

lot mentioned in his will.

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!