no image
Privacy Level: Open (White)

Susannah Anne (Garnett) Foster (abt. 1620 - abt. 1690)

Susannah Anne (Susan) Foster formerly Garnett
Born about in Kecoughten (later Elizabeth City County), Colony of Virginiamap
Ancestors ancestors
Sister of [half] and [half]
Wife of — married [date unknown] [location unknown]
Wife of — married 1642 in Elizabeth City, Gloucester County, Colony of Virginiamap
Descendants descendants
Died about at about age 70 in Colony of Virginiamap [uncertain]
Profile last modified | Created 1 Jun 2011
This page has been accessed 4,080 times.
US Southern Colonies.
Susan (Garnett) Foster resided in the Southern Colonies in North America before 1776.
Join: US Southern Colonies Project
Discuss: southern_colonies

Contents

Biography

Susan Garnett was born c. 1620 (stated age was 3 years on 21 January 1624 during the "Muster").

Susan is listed with (assumably her parents) Thomas and Elizabeth Garnett in the "Lists of the Living and Dead in Virginia, Febr 16th, 1623" among the living as "Susan Garnett" (p 187)[1] Following his name are the names, Elizabeth Garnett and Susan Garnett.

Susan is again listed in the Muster taken the 21th of January 1624 at (p 255):

Elizabeth Cittie:
THOMAS GARNETT his MUSTER:
THOMAS GARNETT aged 40 in the Swan 1610
ELIZABETH GARNETT aged 26 in the Neptune 1618
SUSAN GARNETT aged 3 yeares borne in Virginia
AMBROSE GRYFFITH aged 33 in the Bona Nova 1619
JOYSE GRYFFITH aged 20 in the Jacob 1624[1]

Marriage

Susan is assumed to have married to Richard Foster (without evidence).[citation needed]

Assumed Child of Susan and Richard (without evidence):[citation needed]

Research Notes

Birth: Susan is assumed to have been born on 3 Aug 1619 at Kecoughten (later Elizabeth City Co.), Virginia Colony (no evidence, source is unreliable Family Data Collection - Individual).[citation needed]

Death: She is assumed to have died on 01 July 1690 Gloucester Co., Virginia Colony (no evidence, source is unreliable Family Data Collection - Individual).[citation needed] No death date or place are known.

Marriage: There was a deed (8 Jun 1709) in which a Thomas Garnett of St Anne's Parish, Essex Co., son of John Garnett, late of the parish of Kingston, Gloucester Co., conveyed 50 acres to John Foster in return for 3,500 pounds of tobacco.[2] This would seem to be a large amount of tobacco, but the price of tobacco was fluctuating so much in 1709 that possibly a pound of tobacco was worth only 1/4 of a penny. If this were true, then 3,500 pounds of tobacco might have been worth less than 21 shillings.[3][4][5] Possibly this deed is the source of the Susan Garnett and Foster marriage, but if this Susan was born in about 1620, then she was certainly not married in about 1709. In addition this could not have been the identical Thomas Garnett, and we do not know whether he was related to Susan's family.

Susannah was born in 1620. Susannah Garnett ... [6]

No more info is currently available for Susannah Garnett. Can you add to her biography?

Sources

  1. 1.0 1.1 Hotten, John Camden, (1874) The Original Lists of Persons of Quality .... London: Hotten, Archive.org accessed 4 October 2016 (Pages 187, 255).
  2. Chisolm, William Garnett, (Jan, 1934) "The Garnetts of Essex County and Their Homes." The Virginia Magazine of History and Biography. Virginia Historical Society, JSTOR.org (Vol. 42, No. 1, pp. 72-83, citing p 74).
  3. Salmon, Emily Jones and John Salmon. "Tobacco in Colonial Virginia." Encyclopedia Virginia. Virginia Foundation for the Humanities, 29 Jan. 2013. Retrieved 5 Feb. 2018
  4. "Tobacco Production, Trend Of Prices, And Exports." Access Genealogy. Retrieved 5 Feb. 2018.
  5. Matthias Böhne / Olaf Simons, "English Money." (2004) Retrieved 5 Feb. 2018.
  6. Entered by Nancy Foulks, Sep 17, 2011

See also:

  • King, Thurmon, (11 Jul 1999) Re: Susannah GARNETT Foster citing Doug.
  • Dabbs, J. (2009). Joseph Dabbs. One World Tree. Web.
  • Virginia, Compiled Census and Census Substitutes Index, 1607-1890: Ancestry.com
  • Find A Grave: Memorial #195819428 (no gravestone image, but contains bio with some sourcing)
  • Nancy Foulks, firsthand knowledge. See the Changes page for the details of edits by Nancy and others.




Is Susan your ancestor? Please don't go away!
 star icon Login to collaborate or comment, or
 star icon contact private message private message private message private message private message private message a profile manager, or
 star icon ask our community of genealogists a question.
Sponsored Search by Ancestry.com

DNA Connections
It may be possible to confirm family relationships with Susan by comparing test results with other carriers of her mitochondrial DNA. However, there are no known mtDNA test-takers in her direct maternal line. It is likely that these autosomal DNA test-takers will share some percentage of DNA with Susan:

Have you taken a DNA test? If so, login to add it. If not, see our friends at Ancestry DNA.



Comments: 13

Leave a message for others who see this profile.
There are no comments yet.
Login to post a comment.
Garnett-92 and Garnett-41 appear to represent the same person because: Same details and child.
posted by Paul Etheredge
I think the sisters could be the same person as in one daughter named Susannah "Anna" Garnett.
posted by Becky Simmons
Ooops....I see this has already been debated quite a bit...note to self- read the threads first! Apologies!!!!
posted by Becky Simmons
Just posting an update: US Southern Colonies has reviewed continued need for project protection and concluded that it's still needed due to unsourced claims about her spouse and children.
posted by Jillaine Smith
What is our evidence for Susan's marriage and children, please?

There was a deed (8 Jun 1709) in which a Thomas Garnett of St Anne's Parish, son of John Garnett, conveyed 50 acres to John Foster in return for 3,500 pounds of tobacco. Please see JSTOR for article, Vol 42, p 74 in Research Notes. Thank you!

posted by Cynthia (Billups) B
Garnett-390 and Garnett-41 are not ready to be merged because: Different Christian names and other details
posted by Maggie N.
Garnett-390 and Garnett-41 appear to represent the same person because: Parents already merged, unlikely they are sisters, so either merge them or undo merge of parents.
posted by William Foster Jr
Garnett-390 and Garnett-41 do not represent the same person because: By comparison I do not believe these to be the same person.
Garnett-390 and Garnett-41 appear to represent the same person because: Parents already merged.

Sent private message to Sandra requesting elaboration on her rejection. Are they sisters or does she feel the merge of the parents was in error?

posted by William Foster Jr

G  >  Garnett  |  F  >  Foster  >  Susannah Anne (Garnett) Foster

Categories: Virginia Colonists