In this Vestry book the processioning of land records indicate there were two William Via's in the early 1700's and one William Via in the mid to late 1700's in Hanover Co., Virginia
The first William shows up in these records in 1731. This is possibly the son of Amer Via. His lands are processioned in 1731, 1735, 1739 and 1743. There is a gap in these records from 1744 until they resume again in 1751. For the most part his neighbors pretty much remain the same from 1731 to 1743. This is the William that signed as a witness to the will of Thomas Glass (the Glass family a neighbor of William's).
The 2nd William shows up in Sept 1739. His lands are processioned in 1739 and 1743. He too then disappears from these land records. William had a close association with the Rowland Horsley family. (Rowland Horsley was a witness to his will written in 1783.)
The 3rd William shows up in 1767 and appears to belong to the Robert
Via line as he is in the same precinct as Robert Via, Gideon Via and Josias
Via. His lands are processioned in 1767, 1771 and 1779.
Thanks for the words of encouragement regarding new "theories".
Like most others I too thought the William Via (son of the immigrant),
his son William and William Via who married Mary Craig fit and it seemed
to make sense. Although it has always bothered me greatly that Amer
was in America by 1677. The first record of a child of
the death of Nohome (or No name) in 1688.
There were most likely children born between 1677 and 1688...so who were they? Then we have from 1688 until 1699 when Judith was baptized. Another 11 year period. Again it is most likely there were children born during this time frame. The William theory (the son of Amer dying much earlier than we thought and born much earlier than we thought) just makes sense to me. That would
account for the parentage of several Via's we have not been previously able to place such as David Via who married Frances Stringer and John Via who married Mary Powhatan. I think a careful examination of the land records for St. Paul's Parish and hopefully land records in Louisa Co may shed further light on this theory.
Judy - I have pondered this quite a bit and I still believe the above William Vias are the father and son who are mentioned in the 1783 will of William Via.
From the will, we know the son was dead by 1783. From the above record, it appears the son died 1779-1780. I cannot explain the 1779 record "to William Via for keeping his mother for 1 year". I am assuming that his father was not entitled to support for that year, although that seems unusual. Perhaps it is a clerk's mistake (or transcription mistake). Have you examined the original record? Perhaps it should have been "William Via receiving support for his mother and father, or William Via receiving support for his father, or William Via receiving support for his wife". Anyway from this record, it appears that William's mother died about this time, as also did William Jr. From then on William Via received support for himself - his wife and adult son having died about 1779. There was no longer any support given after 1782, William Via, Sr died in 1783 according to probate records, therefore these would have been the same William Via.
What has puzzled me is the lack of the use of the suffix "Jr or Sr" to the William Via until 1782, the last entry for William Via. I have supposed that the clerk felt no need to designate Jr or Sr, as each record refers to William Via's Father, so there was no doubt as to which William Via was meant. Finally in 1782, William Via "SR" is used at the exact time that William Via, the Revolutionary Soldier, would have come of age, as he was born in 1761. This is the one we now believe to be a son of Micajah Sr. This also indicates that the grandson, William Via, (son of William Via II), mentioned in the 1783 will would have still been a minor.
In 1760 William Via's deeds do not
use the Sr designation, therefore William Via, his son, was still a minor.
In 1769, is the first time I have found
a mention of William Via Jr which indicates that the son was of age, born
before 1749. There is also the 1773 deed
of William Via, Jr and Sr which indicates the son was still living.
Within the next 10 years the son William Via II had
Hope this helps your sorting it out. Thanks so much for the St. Paul's parish records you sent. It does sort out the William Vias. The first Willaim Via of the 1731 to 1743 processioning records, seems to reside on the same land that previously had been processioned under Amer Via. That is a pretty good indication that he was the son of Amer Via - what do you think?
Do you think that he [William of Hanover] would be connected to the
Margaret Via who left a will in Henrico
County in 1794/5? We don't know who her father was, do we?
I think most probably that he is the same William Via who was living on
Amer's land? A man could own two tracts of property at the same time,
couldn't he? Both of these William Vias disappear from the processioning
records after 1743. William Via was said to have gone to Albemarle
in 1740's. I suspect he went there about 1745.
I just wanted, for the sake of discussion, propose a slightly different interpretation of the data contained in the Fredericksville Parish Vestry Book, as it relates to the early Albemarle Williams. If we assume that every time in theFredericksville Parish Vestry from 1772-1782 when it says William Via itis the same person, we get a different interpretation of the generations.
From 1772-1777 there is a William Via who is receiving help for his aged parents.
In Feb 1779, he is receiving support only for his mother. This to me means his father has died. This is the outlying piece of evidence that made me want to rethink this whole thing.
Then beginning in Sep 1780 until 1782 he receives support for himself (because both of his parents are dead that he has been taking care of, and by now he is getting old and needs support for himself.) There is no record in 1783 because he has died.
Assuming that "William Via" in the vestry is not William, Jr. but William I, then that would indicate that we had missed a generation between Amer and William I.