Thomas Meador Research Revisited

Date: About 1630
Location: Rappahannock, Essex, Virginia
Surnames/tags: Meador Meader Meather

In 1983, Victor P. Meador and Bernal M. Meador published Our Meador Families in Colonial America : As found in the records of Isle of Wight, Lancaster, (old) Rappahannock, Richmond, Essex and Caroline Counties, Virginia.^[1] In the decades since, many of the theories and opinions discussed in the book have come to be accepted by many as absolute, inarguable facts. Theories and opinions can, of course, always be revisited, debated, revised and even replaced. For simplicity, and as Victor P. Meador appears to have been the primary author and "voice" of the publication, the author(s) will hereafter be referred to simply as "VPM," and the title will be shortened to Our Meador Families. The book is copyrighted, but is available digitally from your local Family History Center. Only select quotes from the book will be used here for discussion and analysis.

The staggering amount of information that VPM published in this and his much more prolific three-volume "solo" set, Meador Families of Virginia : and points west,^[2] provides an invaluable starting point for anyone researching a Meador family in this country. The index alone to this later publication is 233 pages! VPM must be commended for the incredible contributions of his life's work, a herculean effort that certainly left no time to track down every single scrap of information on each of the tens of thousands of Meadors he researched. That part, he left for us...

In the case of Thomas Meador, VPM appears to have worked backward from the premise that the names Mead and Meador were essentially interchangeable 400 years ago, to build a case to support the theory that the orphaned son of Thomas Mead/Meade/Meads/Meades could have ended up with the surname Meader/Meather/Meador. In order to force a square Meador peg through a round Mead hole, critical corners were discarded:

1. Mead is a single-syllable word that rhymes with weed, while Meador is a two-syllable word that rhymes with weather or meadow.
2. VPM either ignored or overlooked Lambert Lambertson (with one minor exception).
3. The cornerstone of the theory is an intentionally ambiguously-worded grant to a dead man.
4. Ambrose Meador and his son, Thomas, were discussed but dismissed.

Contents 1 The Name 2 Lambert Lambertson 3 The Grant 4 Thomas, Son of Ambrose, Revisited 4.1 Younger, Orphan

The Name

VPM wrote: "There has been much discussion of the many variant spellings of our name... As an example, the name of Ambrose Meador is spelled variously as Meades, Meader, Meather, and Meathes." However, a close examination of every extant record reveals that it was always written with an "r" at the end. The only exceptions were when a superfluous "s" was added, as in Meaders or Meathers. VPM accurately pointed out that it can be difficult to distinguish between an "r" and an "s," but there are no instances of the surname of Ambrose or his sons that can clearly be declared to be Meades or Meathes. Similarly, but reversed, there is no extant record involving Thomas Mead or his orphan son that includes the letter "r" in the surname. The following chronological lists of every known extant record of the two Thomas Meads and Ambrose's son, Thomas, include links to images of the originals (or ancient copies of lost originals, if that's the best that exists today), for comparison:

Thomas Mead

• 1653-09-12, 700 acres from Wm. Underwood to Thomas Meads, Lancaster Book 1, page 111
• 1653-09-17, two cows from Tho. Meade to Miner Dooders, Lanc 1:221
• 1654-08-07, Bena. Harrison, runaway from Tho. Meads, Lanc 1:152
• 1654-09-07, 1000-acre grant to John Phillips & Thomas Meade, (Old) Rappahannock Book 2, page 1
• 1654/5-02-06, Tho. Mead in Ja. Wm'son's list of tithes, Lanc 1:178
• 1654/5-03-05, Will of Thomas Mead/s, probated 1655-06-06, Lanc 2:12
• 1655-08-06, Tho. Mead son of Tho. Mead dec'd in custody of Wm. Underwood, Lanc 1:209
• 1655-12-07, Thomas Meads estate to Mr. Underwood, guardian of Thomas Meades, Lanc 1:233
• 1655/6-01-06, payment to George Bryer from estate of Thomas Meades, Lanc 1:245
• 1656-06-06, difference involving Thos. Meads, Wm. Underwood & Geo. Bryer, Lanc 1:266
• 1656-09-03, Estate of Thomas Meads to Vinc. Stanford, Lanc 1:290
• 1656-11-05, difference involving Thos. Meads, Wm. Underwood & Geo. Bryer, Lanc 1:293
• 1658-12-__, Thomas Meades sells James Haire a 25-acre portion of his deceased father's land and signs with a unique mark, never seen before or again, Rapp 2:53

Thomas Meader

• 1653/4-01-31, debt of Lambert Lambertson against plantation shared with Tho. Meader, Lanc 1:136
• 1654-12-01, Thomas Meader, witness to Ambrose's deed to Thomas Robinson, Rapp 2:37-38
• 1655-12-07, Tho. Meather in Will'm Underwood's list of tithes, Lanc 1:234
• 1656-05-16, Thomas Meather complains about Lambertson debt, Lanc 2:110
• 1656-06-17, Tho. Meather petition re. Lambertson debt, Lanc 2:110-111
• 1656-09-03, Thomas Meather acknowledged in deed to Ambrose, Lanc 2:38
• 1656-11-05, Thomas Meather re. debt of Lambertson, Lanc 1:291
• 1656-11-05, Ambrose & Tho Meather together in Will Underwood's list of tithes, Lanc 1:302
• 1656-12-19, Ambrose & Thomas Meader listed sequentially in inventory of James Williamson's estate, Rapp 2:75-81
• 1657__-__, Thomas Meader sells Richard Tomlynson half of the tract (below) from Ambrose, Rapp 2:45
• 1658-08-30, Ambrose sells 300 acres to son, Thomas Meader, Rapp 2:45
• 1658-09-02, Ambrose names Thomas Meader his attorney, Rapp 2:45
• 1658-10-31, Thomas Meader sells Lambert Lambertson the other half of the tract from Ambrose, Rapp 2:52
• 1659-08-07, John Cooke(s) assigns patent rights to Thomas Meader(s), Rapp 2:68

Three separate records involving Ambrose Meador, as one of the appraisers of the estate of Thomas Mead, deceased, include the names of both men written at the same time by the same scribe in each instance, and provide the strongest case that can be made to conclude any debate about these two men having had the same surname:

• 1655-06-06, Ambrose Meader appointed appraiser of estate of Thomas Meads, Lanc 1:197
• 1655-07-14, Appraisal of estate of Thomas Meade by Ambrose Meather, Lanc 2:76-77
• 1655/6-01-06, Ambrose Meather ordered to divide estate of Thomas Meads, Lanc 1:247

Three other records involving a Thomas Meader were not included in the list above for Ambrose's son because it isn't clear that they could have been him. These were certainly not records of Thomas Mead, and it is possible one or more of them involved a different Thomas Meader, who might have been older than Ambrose's son:

• 1653/4-03-06, Tho: Meader Constable & Mr Ja: Wm:son to administer the oath, Lanc 1:141
• 1656/7-01-14, Thomas Meather & Rob't Griffon[?] appointed appraisers of the estate of Rob't Wiley, Lanc 1:309
• 1659/60-01-30, Thomas Meader witnessed a deed from Thomas Goodrich to Anthony Stevens for 400 acres on the north side of the Rappahannock River opposite "New Noimcoke," Rapp 2:168-169

Lambert Lambertson

The near total omission of Lambert Lambertson from Our Meador Families is surprising. The book appeared to have been based on exhaustive research that included every extant Mead or Meador record, but this omission shows that their research was less than exhaustive. Attempting to find every mention on every painfully scripted, and often fragmented, page is certainly no small task, but in a different context, the authors cited Beverley Fleet's Virginia Colonial Abstracts, which includes transcriptions of the records documenting Lambertson's partnership with Thomas Meador...

Thomas was clearly a bit older than VPM thought, as proven by the 31 Jan 1653/4 acknowledgement by Lambert Lambertson of his debt to James Williamson:

Know all men by these pr:sents y't I Lambert Lamberson of Rapahanock in ye County of Lancaster doe acknowledge my selfe to be indebted to Ja: W'mson ye sume of 4500 lbs of tobacco & caske to be p'd upon ye 8th daye of 8'ber next ensueinge ye date hearof at one intyre paym't upon ye plantacon of ye sd Lam Lamberson & Tho: Meader & for ye true p:formance whereof I doe acknowledge to have delivered to ye aboves'd Ja: W'mson three Cows & one yearling Calfe now in ye possession of ye sd Tho: Meader & also ye halfe of three servants alsoe in ye possession of ye aboves'd...^[3]

This shows that Thomas was of age at least by 1653, and possibly earlier, as it is unclear how long he had shared responsibility with Lambertson for the plantation by the time this debt was incurred. A series of transactions involving the plantation land span the years from 1650-1656, but were all recorded consecutively on 7 Aug 1656. The first was the reaffirmed grant of the 372-acre tract on a branch of Morrattico Creek to David Fox, who deeded it to Richard Hutton & Lambert Lambertson in 1652. Hutton deeded his moiety to Lambertson on 1653-08-26, and Lambertson ultimately deeded it all to Alexander Portus sometime before 6 Mar 1655/6, when the undated deed was recognized in court.^[4] Lambertson was present to witness James Williamson's 1000-acre deed to Ambrose Meather/Meader on 1 Dec 1655,^[5] but then appointed John Sherlocke his attorney and "privately absented himselfe out of this County of Lanc'r & disposed of ye greatest part of his Estate" by May of 1656, according to the complaint of Thomas Meather, who had been left saddled with the debt to James Williamson.^[6][7]

It might be significant that Thomas Meader was never involved in any of the land transactions for the plantation, yet he was named by Lambertson as co-owner of the plantation in court shortly after Richard Hutton sold his Moiety to Lambertson. A marriage to a daughter of Lambertson might explain this, but so might a devious move by Lambertson to take advantage of the young man and "split town" with Thomas' name on the debt slip... The latter scenario seems unlikely, given Thomas' deed to Lambertson for half of the land he received from his father a couple years later.^[8] If there was bad blood, it seems to have been quickly resolved.

An examination of tithe lists during this period shows that Ambrose with four tithes, and "Mr. Lambert" with 12 tithes were in different lists in 1653.^[9][10] Thomas could have been included in either one, but Lamertson's claim that Thomas was co-owner of his plantation came just three months later... It seems certain that Thomas would have been one of the five tithes in the "Famyly of Mr. Lambert" on 6 Feb 1654, but the use of the word "famylyes" when referring to tithes per household might not be as significant as it seems.^[11] On 7 Dec 1655, shortly before Lambertson sold the plantation and "absented the county," Thomas Meather was in the same list with two tihes, but separate from Mr. Lambertson with five tithes.^[12] Then on 5 Nov 1656, Ambrose reappeared by name, listed together with Thomas and both men charged collectively for five tithes.^[13] No Mr. Lambert or Lambertson appears in any list this time. He had absented...

The Grant

A major point of confusion is the 9 Apr 1664 grant of 450 acres on Hoskins Creek.^[14] Although VPM provided images of several significant documents in the book, he did not do so for this one, the single-most critical document to his argument. This is a very interesting omission, especially given that he withheld two incredibly important details in his partial transcription:

1. The word "Orphan" was not originally included in the language written by the Governor or his representative. The word was added some time later, interlined above Thomas Meader's name.
2. The space where the words "Thomas Meader Deceased" appear was apparently left blank when first written, as indicated by parentheses. It appears that the Governor, or whoever wrote on his behalf, had been informed that the previous rights holder had died, but he was unsure of his name, so he intentionally left the space blank until more information came in.

An accurate representation of this intentionally ambigously-worded grant must include either an image of the page, the explanation just provided, or possibly even a transcription that attempts to capture the intentionally incomplete original language, followed by a discussion of the confusing details:

"To all to whom these presents shall come, Greetings; now know ye that I, the said Sir William Berkeley, Knight, Governor of Virginia, give and grant unto Thomas Meader, four hundred and fifty acres of land in Lancaster County on the South side of the head of Hoskins Creek, beginning at a poplar standing by the side of a Beaver Dam near the Indian Path and running South by West two hundred and fifty poles, thence parallel to the Dam West by North four hundred and fifty poles [part of the description left out here] to the Dam to the first mentioned tree. The said land being first granted to Thomas Browning by patent dated the thirtieth of November, one thousand six hundred and fifty seven, and by him assigned to John Cooke, and by him assigned to ( ________________ ) and by his will given to the said Thomas Meader. To have and to hold [etc.] Dated the ninth of April, one thousand, six hundred and sixty four."

This representation still leaves us with unanswerable questions, but it opens the possible explanations to areas that VPM had already dismissed by this point in the book. The Governor was obviously a busy man who could not have been intimately familiar with all of the people involved in the colonial land transactions he oversaw. From the text above, it is clear that he had an account of the history of this tract, including that the "current" rights-holder was Thomas Meader. It is also quite clear that he knew someone had recently died, and that the rights were now to be left to an heir. It isn't at all clear, however, how a man could have known the name of the heir (a child) without knowing the name of his deceased father.

It is again interesting that VPM didn't bother to cite the original transactions involving this tract that were referenced in the grant. Thomas Browning's original patent and his transfer to John Cooke were recorded together on the same fragmented page in 1659.^[15] About three months later on 7 Aug 1659, John Cooke(s) "[did] assigne over unto Thomas Meader(s) or his assignes all my right & title of this pattent..."^[16] This last omission is inexcusable, whether intentional or not, as it proves that Thomas Mead, who had been dead for four years, could not possibly have been the recipient of the patent rights from John Cooke. This record alone shatters the cornerstone and destroys the "Mead = Meador" premise, but there's more...

These records also clearly show that the Governor's office should have had the name of Thomas Meader associated with this tract for about five years before the incomplete grant was recorded that did include his name, but was intentionally missing the name of someone who had recently died. There are no other transactions recorded for this tract between 1659 and 1664, nor should there be. What appears to be missing is the will of Thomas Meader, which was apparently either never recorded, or the page(s) it was recorded on have been lost. It seems most likely that it was only the name of Thomas Meader's orphan son that was unknown by the Governor's office when the incomplete grant was drafted, but the blank space was in the wrong place. It is possible that Thomas had a son named Thomas who died not long after his father, but it is just as likely, if not more-so, that the orphan's name was actually John Meader.

Thomas, Son of Ambrose, Revisited

As established above, Thomas was probably born about 1630, and certainly before 1633, the year of birth established by VPM for his brother, John. In his early adulthood, during the years 1653-1655, Thomas appears to have been included in Lambert Lambertson's tithes, not appearing by name in any list until 7 Dec 1655,^[17] around the time Lambertson sold the plantation tract to Alexander Portus.^[18] However, it was not suggested that Thomas might have been married to a daughter of Lambertson because of the tithe lists. Rather, it was the otherwise unexplained claim by Lambertson in January of 1653/4 that Thomas Meador was the co-owner of his plantation,^[19] while Thomas Meador's name does not appear in any of the transactions for the land from 1652-1656, a period that spans the entire duration of Lambertson's ownership.^[20] Thomas was certainly more than an overseer, but how he might have been considered a co-owner is debatable...

Thomas continued to appear in records for a few years before beginning to make land transactions in 1657, when he sold half of the 300-acre tract from his father before Ambrose had even deeded it to him.^[21] His penultimate appearance in the record books was the 31 Oct 1658 deed to Lambert Lambertson for the other half of the tract from Ambrose.^[22] It is possible that he was already working the as-yet ungranted tract of land on Hoskins Creek, for which he would soon acquire the rights from John Cooke, and that his father-in-law helped him out by taking Ambrose's land off his hands and providing funds to purchase and establish a new plantation. Whatever the case, the 7 Aug 1659 rights transfer from Cooke was Thomas' final appearance in the record books.^[23] He was certainly dead by 13 Apr 1662, when his widow, Sarah, appeared in the records to secure the "maintenance" and education of her three (living) young children by Thomas Meader "the Younger:" John, Susanna & Mary.^[24]

VPM established Sarah's second marriage to Henry Awbrey well, but made another error when attempting to explain how she and Henry might have come to be in a position to deed a tract of land to Francis Gower that had once belonged to Thomas Meader. This was the same 300-acre tract just discussed that Thomas got from his father, then quickly sold to Richard Tomlynson & Lambert Lambertson. Lambertson was still "absent," so by his attorney John Sherlock, immediately flipped his 150-acre portion to Robert Sisson.^[25] Sisson in turn sold 75 acres to John DeYoung about a year later and the other 75 acres to Jenkin Hall within two years.^[26][27] VPM could find no sales of these tracts to Henry Awbrey, but still posited "that the property was reassembled by Henry Awbrey into a single tract, for which no records remain." ^[28] But VPM was looking in the wrong place... It wasn't Henry Awbrey who had reassembled the 300-acre tract to sell to Francis Gower; it was Gower himself:

• Richard Tomlynson sold his half to Gower on Christmas Eve 1661.^[29]
• John & Eliz'a DeYoung sold their 75-acre portion to Gower on 9 Apr 1664.^[30]
• Thomas Colly sold Gower the 75-acre portion he had acquired from Jenkins Hall on 10 Jan 1666.^[31]

So since Gower had clearly already acquired the entire 300-acre tract years before Henry & Sarah Awbrey's deed, the only reasonable conclusion is that Henry & Sarah had found some fault in one or more of the early transactions involving her first husband and had had found resolution of the issue in way that required restitution from the current owner. The language in the deed makes it clear that these earlier transactions were of much greater importance in the matter than the more recent sales leading up to Gower's ownership:^[32]

...Know yee that I Henry Awbrey & Sarah my Wife for a valluable consideration to us paid doe graunt & make over for us & o'r heires all o'r Right tytle Claime & Interest of three hundred acres of land lying in the County of Rapp'a on the North side of the said River of Rapp'a unto Francis Gowre his heirs Exec's Adm's & assignes for ever w'ch Land was formerly the Land of Thomas Medor of Mr. James Williamson as by a Deed of Sale under the hand & seale of the said Williamson mor plainely appearth scituate Lying & adjoyning unto & upon the Land of Thomas Robinson w'ch Land the said Robinson likewise purchased of the above said Ambrose Medor being parte of one thousand acres of land bought of the said Williamson To Have & to Hold the said three hundred acres of Land unto him the said Francis Gowre w'ch the said Gowre is now seated upon & possest withall unto him & his heires for Ever with all Right & Priviledges thereunto belonging... In Witness whereof wee the p'ties abovesaid have hereunto sett o'r hands & seales this fifteenth of Aprill one thousand six hundred & seaventy

Signed Sealed & DD

Henry Awbrey

Sarah [her mark] Awbrey

in the presents of

John Awbrey

Tho: [his mark] Jenkins

Jno [his mark] Evans

Younger, Orphan

As listed in the name section above, there are three extant records that could account for the use of the "Younger" reference in Sarah's deed to their children. The 6 Mar 1653/4 swearing in of a constable named Thomas Meader doesn't seem to fit with the young son of Ambrose.^[33] It is certainly possible that this constable was barely over 21 years of age, but it is documented that Ambrose's son was busy running a plantation at this time. The other two records simply involve people who had no other documented relationships or dealings with the family of Ambrose Meador:

• 1656/7-01-14, "Upon the peticon of Joan Wiley the relict of Rob't Wyley Administ'r according to Act of Assembly is granted unto the s'd Joane she putting in security according to Act Thomas Meather & Rob't Griffon[?] appointed appraizers, & to be sworne by the next... Jenkyn Hall security" ^[34]
• 1659/60-01-30, deed from Col. Thomas Goodrich to Anthony Stevens for 400 acres on the north side of the Rappahannock River opposite "New Noimcoke." Ann Goodrich, wife of Col. Thomas, appointed Walter Grainger her attorney on 24 Feb 1660. Both actions were witnessed by Thomas Vaughan & Thomas Meader.^[35]

As noted in the grant section above, one explanation for "Thomas Meador, Orphan" that could be shoehorned in would be another young son of Thomas & Sarah named Thomas, who was alive when the Governor's office was in the early stages of granting the 450-acre tract on Hoskins Creek, but who died shortly after his father and before the 1662 deeds by his mother to her surviving children and before the Governor's office finally completed the grant. A simpler explanation is that there was never a son named Thomas involved with the grant. The Governor's office simply didn't know that the orphan's name was John. This would be the same John that VPM documented as (3) John Meador, son of Thomas Meador "the Younger," and very clearly established as the inheritor of this tract.^[36]

References:

1. ↑ Our Meador Families in Colonial America, Meador, Victor P. & Meador, Bernal M., 1983, 186 pages
2. ↑ Meador families of Virginia : and points west, Meador, Victor P., 1989, 3 volumes
3. ↑ Lancaster Deed & Will Book 1, page 136 [Lanc 1:136]
4. ↑ Lanc 1:250-251
5. ↑ Lanc 1:280-281
6. ↑ Power of Attorney to Sherlocke, Lanc 1:109
7. ↑ Thomas Meather complaint, Lanc 1:110
8. ↑ (Old) Rappahannock Book 2, page 52 [Rapp 2:52]
9. ↑ Lanc 1:91
10. ↑ Lanc 1:92
11. ↑ Lanc 1:178
12. ↑ Lanc 1:234
13. ↑ Lanc2: 302
14. ↑ Land Office Patents No. 5, p. 196
15. ↑ Rapp 2:55
16. ↑ Rapp 2:68
17. ↑ Lanc 1:234
18. ↑ Lanc 1:250-251
19. ↑ Lanc 1:136
20. ↑ Lanc 1:250-251
21. ↑ Rapp 2:45
22. ↑ Rapp 2:52
23. ↑ Rapp 2:68
24. ↑ Rapp 2:247-248
25. ↑ Rapp 2:52
26. ↑ Rapp 2:101-102
27. ↑ Rapp 2:155-156
28. ↑ Our Meador Families, page 38
29. ↑ Rapp 2:228-229
30. ↑ Rapp 2:410
31. ↑ Rapp 3:196-198
32. ↑ Rapp 4:298-299
33. ↑ Lanc 1:141
34. ↑ Lanc 1:309
35. ↑ Rapp 2:168-169
36. ↑ Our Meador Families, pages 51-61