Copyright © 2003-2008 T. Mark
See Permission Notice at end
Researchers of the Tynes family of Isle of Wight County, Virginia, are fortunate to have two fairly well-documented successions, one in each branch of that family, and both occurring at the turn of the nineteenth century. In one, Nathaniel Tynes died in 1803, intestate and possessed of a considerable estate; he had no surviving wife or children, no brothers or sisters, and no parents or grandparents, so his estate was divided equally among his blood aunts and uncles. In the other, Timothy Tynes died in 1802, also with no wife or children, but leaving a will that was immediately contested by his siblings and their heirs. Between them the two cases involved, in theory at least, every living descendant of the two Tynes branches of Isle of Wight County.
This report begins with a summary of the Tyneses of Isle of Wight County, then presents the documents related to each of the successions.
The earliest Tynes in Isle of Wight County is Timothy Tynes, who was born by 16861 and died by August 1752.2 He had a wife named Elizabeth and two surviving sons, Thomas and Robert,3 along with other children (apparently all daughters) not named in his will.4 Timothy’s birthplace and parents are unknown, but he was probably descended from the Tynes family of Bermuda.5
Thomas and Robert Tynes are the only second-generation Tyneses in the Isle of Wight County records, apart from brief appearances of their unmarried sisters Mary and Martha.6 It is therefore likely that all Tynes-surnamed individuals of the third generation derive from these two brothers. In fact, there is no strong evidence that any of Timothy’s daughters produced offspring who lived until 1800.7
Mary (never married).25
In 1803, Thomas Jr’s son Nathaniel died, leaving no will and no wife or children. Since he had no brothers or sisters, and both his parents (Thomas Jr and Elizabeth King) were dead, his estate was divided among his blood aunts and uncles, on both the Tynes and King sides, or their heirs. This distribution we shall deal with below, since it involves everyone mentioned in the above list.
Timothy (never married).30
Robert Jr (died in 1773 with no issue).31
Jean (married Charles Fulgham36).
Sarah (probably died young).37
Robert Tynes (senior) was a wealthy man, and he outlived all his children except Timothy. When he died, Timothy inherited nearly everything; and when Timothy himself died a bachelor, in 1802, his nieces and nephews naturally expected the wealth of their grandfather Robert to be distributed among them. This didn’t happen, and the story of the Timothy Tynes succession will be told below.
Nathaniel Tynes was born probably in the mid- to late 1770s in Isle of Wight County, Virginia, but grew up in Edgecombe County, North Carolina, where his parents moved in 1777.38 As an only child, he was lucky in wealth, inheriting estates both from his father’s Tynes side and, more substantially, from his mother’s King side.39
He was less lucky in his choice of parents. Thomas and Elizabeth Tynes were chastised in their church records for “living at Variance betwixt them selves.”40 In 1783, Thomas was compelled to sell to his father-in-law, Solomon King, all of his property41 — apparently as a dodge, to keep it out of the hands of creditors. Solomon King clearly did not trust in the ability of Thomas Tynes to support his family; in his 1794 will,42 Solomon left a large estate in Edgecombe County to be managed by his executors for the benefit of Thomas, Elizabeth, and Nathaniel. Thomas and Elizabeth were not to own the land. After their deaths, it would go to Nathaniel.43
It was this large estate that was subject to division after Nathaniel’s death. Since Nathaniel left no will, his property would normally have gone to his wife and children. He left none, so his brothers and sisters would have been next in line; but he was an only child. His parents were both dead, as were all four grandparents. His closest kin, therefore, were his blood aunts and uncles and his cousins.44
We know from the will of Nathaniel’s paternal grandfather Thomas Tynes that Nathaniel had three aunts and two uncles on the Tynes side: Sarah (Tynes) Atherton; Mary Tynes; the unknown aunt who married John Lawrence; West Tynes; and Benjamin Tynes. From the will of Nathaniel’s maternal grandfather Solomon King, we see that Nathaniel had four aunts on the King side: Mary Goodman; an unnamed Porter; Martha Sumner; and Abigail Vollentine.
It is therefore to be expected that Nathaniel’s estate would be divided nine ways, and this is confirmed by the following entry, dated 3 January 1804, in the Edgecombe County Record of Estates.45 The subject was the division of Nathaniel’s nineteen slaves. The valuers found the slaves to be worth, in total, $4300, and apportioned them to the various heirs so that each one got $500 worth. Those whose slaves were evaluated at less than $500 would receive monetary compensation from the estate.
Pursuant to an order of Edgecomb County Court, at November Term 1803, appointing Lanier Ruffin, John Hudson, Thomas Guion [Gerion?] William Balfour, & Daniel Bullock, or any three of them, We the Subscribers do hereby report that we have divided the Estate that was shown us of Nathaniel Tines deceased
To Doct. Brunson, Kate & Isaac valued
West Tines, Dick & Peter
Mary Tines, Jenny & Davey (Rachel’s child)
Ben Tines, James & Beck
Celia Lawrence, Robbin & Arthur
John Goodman, Sam & Doug
Benjamin Porter, Rachel &
Joseph Valentine, Rhoda & Joe
John Wiggins, Celia Phillip &
The within statement is a just account of the valuation & division of the Negroes &c to the best of our knowledge. January 3, 1804.
Thos. Guion [or Gerion]
May Court 1804.
Exhibited in open court, & ordered to be recorded.
Test E Hall CC.
We can see that the evaluators have kindly listed the five Tynes distributees first, followed by the four King distributees. They are:
Dr. Brunson, in right of his wife Penelope (Atherton) Brunson, daughter of Nathaniel’s aunt Sarah (Tynes) Atherton.
West Tynes, uncle of Nathaniel.
Mary Tynes, spinster aunt of Nathaniel.
Benjamin Tynes, uncle of Nathaniel. He had died in 1799; perhaps the evaluators didn’t know this, or more likely, his name simply represents his heirs’ share.
Celia Lawrence, daughter of Nathaniel’s unnamed aunt who married John Lawrence. Curiously, Celia appears under her maiden name, even though she had been married to Elias Bowden for eighteen years.46 Celia’s sister, Holland (Lawrence) Hatchell, should also have been up for a share of this distribution. Again, Celia’s name may simply represent her mother’s share.47
John Goodman, husband of Nathaniel’s aunt Mary (King) Goodman.
Benjamin Porter, husband of Nathaniel’s unnamed King aunt.
Joseph “Valentine” (or Vollentine), husband of Nathaniel’s aunt Abigail (King) Vollentine.
John Wiggins, second husband of Nathaniel’s aunt Martha (King) (Sumner) Wiggins.
The division of Nathaniel’s lands must have taken place at about the same time as the division of his slaves, because portions of the land begin to be mentioned in the Edgecombe County deed books on 3 January 1804, the same day as the above division of slaves. A search of estate and other court records in Edgecombe County has failed to produce a record of the land division,48 but the disposition of the land in subsequent land transactions can be traced through the deed books.
The following extracts come from the Edgecombe County deed books.49 My comments are in parentheses.
On 3 January 1804, West Tynes of Southampton County, Virginia, sells to David Bullock of Edgecombe County, 41¼ acres for 82 pounds 10 shillings, “it being one Ninth part of the Land belonging to the Estate of Nathaniel Tynes it being my proportionable part.”50 (West was Nathaniel’s paternal uncle.)
On 5 January 1804, Mary Tynes of Franklin County, North Carolina, sells to David Bullock of Edgecombe County, 41 acres for 91 pounds, “it being one Ninth part of the Land Belonging to the Estate of Nathaniel Tynes it being her prortionable [sic] part.”51 (Mary was Nathaniel’s paternal aunt.)
On 4 March 1804, Elias Bowden and wife Celia of Franklin County, North Carolina, sell to David Bullock of Edgecombe County, 20½ acres for 45 pounds 10 shillings, “it being one Eighteenth part of the Land belonging to the Estate of Nathaniel Tynes.”52 (Celia, now listed correctly under her married name, clearly shared the one-ninth portion of her deceased mother with her sister Holland.)
On 28 November 1804, Jos. Vollentine and Abigail Vollentine his wife of Gates County, North Carolina, sell to David Bullock of Edgecombe County, 41¼ acres for 82 pounds 10 shillings, “it being one ninth part of the Lands belonging to the Estate of Nath. Tynes it being our proportionable part.”53 (Abigail was Nathaniel’s maternal aunt.)
On 4 March 1805, Ashael Brunson and his wife Penelope Brunson of Halifax County, North Carolina sell to David Bullock of Edgecombe County, 41¼ acres for 82 pounds 10 shillings, “it being one ninth part of the land belonging to the Estate of Nathl Tynes it being our proportionable part of sd. land.”54
On 12 March 1806, John Goodman of “Roan” (Rowan) County, North Carolina, with his attorney, Mary Goodman, sells to Isham Holoman of Edgecombe County, for $167, “my proportionate part of the Land belonging to the Late Nathaniel Tines.”55 (No acreage or percentage share was given, but it must have been one-ninth part, Mary Goodman being Nathaniel’s maternal aunt.)
On 8 June 1807, Martha Wiggins of Nansemond County, Virginia, sells to David Bullock of Edgecombe County, 41¼ acres for $165, “part of a Tract of Land as Solomon King give to Nathaniel Tines in his Will, it being my part of said Lands.”56 (Martha was Nathaniel’s maternal aunt, so again, the share was one-ninth, as the acreage of 41¼ proves.)
On 18 February 1809, Andrew Rawls and “Abagil” (Abigail) his wife of the upper parish of Nansemond County, Virginia, sell to Isham Holoman of Edgecombe County, for $85, “one Eighteenth part of a certain tract or parcel of Land [...] Conveid by Solomon King of Gates County to Nathaniel Tines of Edgcomb County the said Tines being considered ded in Law.”57 (This is probably Abigail Porter, daughter of Nathaniel’s unnamed maternal aunt who married a Porter. Abigail and Elisha Porter are mentioned as underage grandchildren in the will of Solomon King. Each would have received half of their deceased mother’s one-ninth share. Abigail Porter must have married Andrew Rawls.)
On 30 October 1809, Elisha Porter of Nansemond County, Virginia, sells to Isham Holoman of Edgecombe County, for $85, “one eighteenth part of the Land [...] conveyed by Soloman King of Gates County to Nathaniel Tines of Edgecombe County the said Tiines being considered ded in the Law.”58 (This is the other half of the one-ninth share that went to the heirs of Nathaniel’s deceased maternal aunt who married a Porter.)
On 10 February 1812, Polly Tynes of Isle of Wight County, Virginia, sells to David Bullock of Edgcombe County, 8 acres for 16 pounds, “it being her part of the ninth part of the Lands belonging to the Estate of Nathaniel Tynes decd.”59 (This is Mary, or Polly, daughter of Nathaniel’s paternal uncle Benjamin Tynes, who mentioned Polly in his 1799 will. Her eight-acre portion, although this is not stated explicitly in the deed, is approximately one-fifth of the full one-ninth share, or 41¼ acres, that her uncle West Tynes received. This is appropriate, since Benjamin Tynes named five children in his will; these children would have divided the late Benjamin’s one-ninth share five ways. Note that the Polly Tynes in this transaction cannot be Nathaniel’s spinster aunt Mary Tynes, since the aunt received a full one-ninth share of the estate, whereas our present Polly had only “part of the ninth part.”)
On 20 December 1812, David Tynes of Isle of Wight County, Virginia, sells to David Bullock of Edgecombe County, 8 acres for 16 pounds, “it being his part of the lands belonging to the Estate of Nathaniel Tynes, [...] it being his part of the ninth part of the aforesaid lands.”60 (David is the son of Nathaniel’s paternal uncle Benjamin Tynes, and received the same one-forty-fifth portion as did his sister Polly.)
On 28 April 1813, Burwell Edwards and his wife Nancy S. Edwards of Isle of Wight County, Virginia, sell to David Bullock of Edgecombe County, 8 acres for 16 pounds, “it being their part of the lands belonging to the Estate of Nathaniel Tynes [...] it being their part of the ninth part of the aforesaid land.”61 (Nancy must be the daughter of Nathaniel’s paternal uncle Benjamin Tynes, who mentioned a daughter Nancy in his 1799 will. She received the same one-forty-fifth portion as did her sister Polly.)
On 18 January 1815, John Turner and wife Hollon Turner of Isle of Wight County, Virginia, sell to David Bullock of Edgecombe County, 21 2/3 acres for $80, “it being their proportionable part of the lands belonging to the Estate of Nathaniel Tynes decd., [...] it being their part of the ninth part of the aforesaid lands.”62 (This must be the one-eighteenth share of Celia (Lawrence) Bowden’s sister Holland, daughter of Nathaniel’s unnamed paternal aunt who married John Lawrence. Isle of Wight records show Holland Lawrence marrying William Hatchell in 1787.63 The name “Hollon” Turner indicates either a second marriage for Holland, or else a daughter and sole heir named Holland who married John Turner.)
The division of Nathaniel Tynes’s lands shows the following about the descendants of Thomas Tynes who were alive in the 1803-1812 timeframe:
Penelope Atherton and her husband Dr. Ashael Brunson received a full one-ninth share. Therefore Penelope was the sole surviving heir of her mother, Sarah (Tynes) Atherton.
West Tynes took his full one-ninth share in 1804. This fact masks out any information that we might have received regarding his own heirs. However, the fact that all other Tyneses are accounted for, in either the Nathaniel Tynes succession or that of Timothy Tynes, suggests that any “stray” Tyneses that we encounter in the Isle of Wight or Southampton County area in the early 1800s are probably descendants of West.
Mary Tynes took her full one-ninth share in 1804. The fact that she was still using her maiden name, 34 years after her father’s death, indicates that she probably had no issue. A check of estate records in Franklin County, North Carolina, may show what happened to her share of Nathaniel’s land at her death.
The unnamed daughter of Thomas Tynes who married John Lawrence produced two heirs, both daughters, who survived to inherit her share of Nathaniel’s estate. These were Celia (Lawrence) Bowden and Holland (Lawrence) (Hatchell) Turner.
Benjamin Tynes’s children divided his one-ninth share of Nathaniel’s estate five ways. Benjamin’s will names five children (David, Nancy, Mary/Polly, Temperance, and Sally); however, only three (David, Nancy, and Polly) appear in the land records of Edgecombe County cited here. It is unlikely that Temperance or Sally died in between the writing of their father’s will in 1799 and the division of Nathaniel’s estate in 1803, because then the division of Benjamin’s share of the land would have involved only three or four portions, and the survivors’ shares would have been larger than the eight acres mentioned for them. A Temperance H. Tynes married Thomas Harrison in 1813 in Isle of Wight County;64 this looks like the same Temperance. A more thorough check of the Edgecombe County land, probate and court records may show what happened to her and Sally’s shares of Nathaniel’s estate.
Therefore, with the exception of Benjamin Tynes’s last two daughters, we have a full list of the heirs of Nathaniel Tynes.
Timothy Tynes, grandson and namesake of the patriarch of the Isle of Wight County Tyneses, was one of the richest men in the county. His father, Robert Tynes, had amassed a fortune in land and business transactions, and had built a plantation home in 1750 that still stands today.65 When Robert died in 1794, his will66 left “all my whole Estate both real and Personal” to Timothy, his sole surviving son.
Timothy was born in the mid-1740s. He never married; he lived with some of his many slaves in the house that his father had built, just outside the town of Smithfield, from where he managed his many inherited plantations. He outlived all of his brothers and sisters. When he died, his nieces and nephews (Robert’s grandchildren) naturally expected Robert’s amassed wealth to be distributed among them.
Timothy, however, had other ideas. Upon his death in 1802, his will67 freed every one of his 81 slaves by name, and gave most of the land to them. A niece, Sarah Tynes Purdie, received one plantation; the rest of Robert’s descendants got nothing at all. The Tynes Plantation house went to David Tynes, son of Timothy’s cousin Benjamin Tynes.
Timothy’s shocked family immediately challenged the will in court, in order to prevent the emancipation and dispersal of Timothy’s valuable slaves. As the following court record shows,68 they succeeded in getting a temporary restraining order; however, Timothy’s executor, James Johnston, held firm, and the slaves went free.69
Elizabeth Day an infant, by Davis Day,
her next friend, Thomas Purdie and Sarah his wife, Pleasants Jordan &
Elizabeth his wife, Robert Tynes Fulgham, Mary Fulgham, Martha
Fulgham, Jane Fulgham and Charles Fulgham Junior, they the said Jane
& Charles Fulgham infants by Charles Fulgham their next friend,
Benj David Tynes
James Johnston Administrator debonis non of Robert Tynes decd. and Executor of Timothy Tynes decd.
The Complainants in this cause, having this day filed their Bill, in which seting forth that injustice will be done to them, if the Slaves supposed to be emancipated, by the last Will & Testament of Timothy Tynes decd. are permitted to receive the instruments of their Emancipations, required by law, — It is decreed and ordered that James Johnston Executor of said Timothy Tynes decd and all others be injoined and restrained from taking out or delivering to the said Slaves, or any of them, copies of the Will of said Timothy Tynes decd., or any other instrument of Emancipation whereby the said Slaves or any of them will be at liberty, to go without the County of Isle of Wight, untill the further order of this Court, — And on the motion of the Defendant Johnston, it is the opinion of the Court, that the said Executor of Tynes has non the right of hiring out the Negroes of said Timothy Tynes decd. and it was under that impression, they the court did grant the aforesaid Injunction.
The importance of this document in delineating the descendants of Robert Tynes lies in the information it shows on the families of Robert’s daughters Elizabeth, Mary, and Jean.
Elizabeth Tynes married Thomas Day; of their three children, only one, Julianna, survived to marry. She married her first cousin, Davis Day. By 1803, when the above suit was filed, Julianna must have died, since she is not mentioned; her interest is taken by her daughter Elizabeth, who is underage and is represented by her father Davis Day. It would appear that Elizabeth was, in 1803, the only surviving child of Julianna (Day) Day, and therefore the only living descendant of Elizabeth Tynes.
Mary Tynes married Thomas King; they had one daughter, Sarah Tynes King, who married Thomas Purdie sometime before the 1803 lawsuit. As “Sally Tynes Purdie,” Sarah was the only one of Timothy Tynes’s nieces or nephews mentioned in his will. Why would she challenge a will that had granted her an entire plantation? The answer is probably that the Purdies hoped to win a few slaves to run the plantation.
Jean (or Jane) Tynes married Charles Fulgham70; six of their children are named in this suit. They are Elizabeth (who married Pleasants Jordan), Robert, Mary, Martha, Jane, and Charles Jr. All are of age except for the last two, who are represented by their father.
Joining these nieces and nephews in the suit was David Tynes, son of Benjamin and grandson of Robert’s brother Thomas. He had inherited the Tynes Plantation house and some surrounding land. Like Sarah Tynes (King) Purdie, he joined the suit probably in hopes of retaining some slaves to help him run the plantation. As it turns out, his fears of not being able to run the place by himself were justified. Bit by bit, he sold off the land, until in 1818 he sold the Tynes Plantation house itself, and vanished from Isle of Wight County records.
Two months after the initial restraining order, however, David had switched sides:71
Elizabeth Day an infant under twenty one years of age by Davis Day her next friend, Thomas Purdie and Sarah his wife, Pleasant Jordan & Elizabeth his wife, Robert Tynes Fulgham, Mary Fulgham, Martha Fulgham, Jane Fulgham and Charles Fulgham Junion, the said Jane & Charles Fulgham under twenty one years of age by Charles Fulgham their next friend
James Johnston Administrator debonis non of Robert Tynes decd James Johnston Executor of Timothy Tynes decd & David Tynes
By consent of parties, a General Commission is awarded each of the parties to take depositions on both sides.
Perhaps David had sensed that the attempt to prevent the liberation of the slaves was a lost cause, and no longer wished to rock the boat regarding the other provisions of the will, favorable to himself. In any event, the slaves did indeed go free, as the 1810 census shows.72 Isle of Wight County court records show no further entries regarding this case.
Timothy’s white family did not succeed in preventing the emancipation of Timothy’s slaves, but the battle over Robert’s legacy was not over. Timothy had so much land that he actually forgot a plantation in his will, and had to add a codicil to specify which ex-slave would receive it. He seems to have forgotten a second parcel of land as well, because ten years after his death, his family petitioned to have it divided among them. This time the family won the case, and the land was sold and the proceeds divided as shown in the following court record.73
Alfred Jordan an infant of Pleasants Jordan decd. & Elizabeth his wife which Eliz. was the daughter of Charles Fulgham & Jane his wife, suing by Jno. Barber his next friend
Thomas Purdie & Sally his wife, Elizabeth Day, Robert Tynes, Ro. T. Fulgham, John Dering & Jane his wife, John Goodson & Martha his wife & Polly Fulgham.
By consent of parties by their attorney this day the bill and answer were filed & heard thereon whereupon it is decreed and ordered that Nathaniel Young, Thomas Uzzell and John Gibbs or any two of them, make sale of the land in the bill mentioned and divide the proceeds thereof in the following manner to wit, To Thomas Purdie & wife one fourth part, the said Elizabeth Day & Robert Tynes, one fourth part each, and the said Robert T. Fulgham, John Dering & Jane his wife, John Goodson & wife, Polly Fulgham and the complainant Alfred Jordan in right of his mother Elizabeth the remaining one fourth part equally among them and make report thereof to the court in order to a final decree.
The challenge to Timothy’s will was voluntary, meaning that the list of family members participating is not necessarily a complete list of Robert Tynes’s descendants at the time. The division of land, however, had by law to involve all of Timothy’s nieces and nephews. As we saw above, Timothy had four sisters and two brothers; of these, Sarah and Robert Jr died without issue. Therefore, the proceeds of the sale of the land had to be divided into four equal parts, one for each of Timothy’s siblings who had left children: Mary, Elizabeth, Henry, and Jean.
One-fourth part went to “Thomas Purdie & wife”; this means that Sarah Tynes (King) Purdie was, in 1812, the sole surviving heir of her mother, Mary (Tynes) King.
Elizabeth Day also received a full one-fourth part. Therefore, she must have been the sole surviving heir of her mother Julianna (Day) Day, and also of her grandmother Elizabeth (Tynes) Day. Note that Elizabeth Day represents herself in this 1812 suit, which means she has come of age since the 1803 wrangle over Timothy’s slaves.
Robert Tynes received a full one-fourth part, so he must have been the sole surviving heir of his father, Henry Tynes.
The remaining one-fourth part was split five ways, among the heirs of Jean (or Jane) Tynes who married Charles Fulgham. Note that the challenge to Timothy’s will mentioned six Fulgham children; one, Charles Fulgham Jr, must have died without issue in between the two court cases. Another child, Elizabeth (Fulgham) Jordan, must have also died, since her part is taken by her underage son Alfred Jordan. Of the remaining four Fulgham children, Robert and Polly (Mary) represent themselves; Martha is now “John Goodson & Martha his wife”; and Jane (underage in 1803) has become “John Dering & Jane his wife.”
Thus all of Robert Tynes’s grandchildren who were alive in 1812, or who had living heirs in 1812, are represented in the division of Timothy Tynes’s land. This division, therefore, performs the same service in the identification of Robert Tynes’s family as the Nathaniel Tynes succession performs for that of Thomas Tynes’s family.
Permission is granted to make and distribute
copies of this work, provided that:
(1) such copying and distribution are performed completely
free of charge or other consideration, and that
(2) the copyright statement appears on all copies, and that
(3) this Permission Notice appears on all copies.
Tynes Successions page, version 1.07, last updated on 11 October 2008.
Please send all comments to Mark James at email@example.com.
He had to be at least 21 years old when he purchased land on 28 July 1707. See Christopher Reynolds to Timothy Tynes, Isle of Wight County Deed Book 2, pages 74-76. Unless otherwise noted, all references to Virginia county records in this article have been verified by the author during visits to the respective courthouses in March 2000, June 2003, and April 2004. References to North Carolina records come from inspection of microfilm copies at the North Carolina Office of Archives and History, Raleigh, North Carolina, during those same dates.
Will of Timothy Tynes, Isle of Wight County, Virginia, Will Book 5, pages 446-447. The will was dated 26 August 1747 and proved on 6 August 1752.
Will of Timothy Tynes.
The daughters include Sarah (Tynes) Washington (whose 1764 will is in Isle of Wight County Will Book 7, pages 334-335); Elizabeth (Tynes) Brown (mentioned in a 1779 court case, Isle of Wight County Order Book 1772-1780, page 473); and unmarried daughters Mary, Martha, and Jane Tynes (mentioned in a 1753 bond in their favor from Robert Tynes, Isle of Wight County Deed Book 9, page 137).
There was a Tynes presence in Bermuda at least as early as 1641; see A. C. Hollis-Hallett, Early Bermuda Records 1619-1826 (Hamilton, Bermuda: Juniperhill Press, 1991), page 15. They were seafarers who spread the Tynes name to the Bahamas and Barbados, and it is not unreasonable to surmise that some of them migrated to Virginia during the seventeenth century.
Mary and Martha jointly sued their brother Robert in 1774 (Isle of Wight County Order Book 1772-1780, pages 308 and 315). Martha Tynes left a will in 1778 (Isle of Wight County Will Book 8, page 503). The following year, Mary Tynes and two of her nephews again sued Robert Tynes (Isle of Wight County Order Book 1772-1780, pages 473 and 495).
Mary and Martha apparently never married; at least, they always appear under their maiden names. Jean does not appear in any record after 1764 (in her sister Sarah’s will) and may have died young. Sarah (Tynes) Washington was the stepmother of four children, but mentioned none of her own in her will. Elizabeth (Tynes) Brown had a son named Jesse Brown, but he disappears from the records after a 1790 tax list (“1790/1800 County Tax Lists of Virginia,” <http://homepages.rootsweb.com/~ysbinns/vataxlists/>).
That Sarah (Tynes) Atherton was the sole surviving child of Robert Tynes with a first wife, probable daughter of Peter Pruden of Bermuda, is the only reasonable explanation for the fact that Sarah’s daughter, Penelope (Atherton) Brunson, was described as “ye only true Heir” to Peter Pruden’s estate. See the will of Sarah’s husband, Jephtha Atherton, in Northampton County, North Carolina, Will Book 1, page 378.
William West, of Beaufort County, North Carolina, mentioned a daughter “Ceelia Tynes” in his 1744 will (North Carolina Secretary of State Will Book 4, pages 20-21). See also the will of Celia Tynes, Isle of Wight County Will Book 9, page 106.
Will of Thomas Tynes, Isle of Wight County Will Book 8, pages 69-70. The will was dated 4 October 1769 and proved on 3 January 1771.
Catherine L. Knorr, Marriage Bonds and Minister’s Returns of Southampton County, Virginia, 1750-1810 (Greenville, S.C.: Southern Historical Press, 1982), page 8.
Will of Jephtha Atherton.
Will of Henry Crittenden, Northampton County, North Carolina, Will Book 1, page 42.
There were two David Tyneses in Isle of Wight County, as proven by an 1812 deed from “David Tynes son of Benjamin Tynes” (or “David Tynes Junr”) to “David Tynes son of West Tynes” (or “David Tynes Senr”), Isle of Wight County Deed Book 21, pages 533-534.
See, for example, the 1810 census record for West’s son Henry Tynes, which shows two extra males and two females in the 16-25 age bracket. These cannot be Henry’s children (he cannot have been more than 28 years old at the time), and so may be his siblings. 1810 U.S. Census, Isle of Wight County, Virginia, page 24.
John Lawrence is mentioned as a son-in-law in the will of Thomas Tynes. The daughter whom John Lawrence married is not mentioned and was probably dead.
Will of Celia (West) Tynes.
The couple is mentioned in the will of Solomon King, Gates County, North Carolina, Will Book 1, pages 136-139.
Will of Solomon King.
Blanche Adams Chapman, Marriages of Isle of Wight County, Virginia, 1628-1800 (Baltimore: Genealogical Publishing Company, 1976), page 86.
Will of Benjamin Tynes, Isle of Wight County Will Book 11, page 216. The will was dated 25 June 1799 and proved on 7 October 1799.
Mary is mentioned under her maiden name in the will of her father Thomas Tynes, and in all papers related to the Nathaniel Tynes estate.
Mary is referred to as “my Sister Mary Tynes” in the 1746 will of Lazarus Joyner, Isle of Wight County Will Book 5, page 46.
Will of Robert Tynes, Isle of Wight County Will Book 10, pages 304-305. The will was dated 21 September 1790 and proved on 1 December 1794.
Will of Thomas Day, Isle of Wight County, Virginia, Will Book 8, page 170. That Thomas Day’s wife Elizabeth was a daughter of Thomas Tynes is proven by the latter’s will, which refers to Julianna Day as his granddaughter.
Will of Thomas Day. These children, after their parents’ deaths, became wards of Robert Tynes. Isle of Wight County Orphan Accounts Book 1767-1782, pages 294-295 and 333-337.
Will of Timothy Tynes, Isle of Wight County Will Book 11, pages 587-589.
Will of Robert Tynes Junr., Isle of Wight County Will Book 8, page 268.
Sarah’s grandmother, Sarah Crocker, in her 1783 will, called Sarah the “Relict of Henry Tynes decd” (Isle of Wight County Will Book 10, pages 99-100).
Robert is mentioned as a grandson in the will of his grandfather Robert Tynes. Since two of the elder Robert’s three sons (Robert Jr and Timothy) produced no issue, the third son, Henry, must have been young Robert’s father.
The couple is mentioned in a 1781 deed: Thomas and Mary King to Christopher Dickinson, Isle of Wight County Deed Book 14, page 220.
The father-daughter relationship between Thomas King and his daughter Sally (King) Purdie is shown in an 1814 deed: Thomas and Sally Purdie to Richard W. Byrd, Isle of Wight County Deed Book 12, page 193. That Thomas King’s wife was a Tynes is proved by the reference to Sally Purdie as a “niece” in the 1802 will of Timothy Tynes.
Charles Fulgham is mentioned as a son-in-law in the will of Robert Tynes. Jean’s name is not mentioned in that will, and in fact is documented only in the Timothy Tynes succession that we discuss below.
Sarah appears in the records only once, as a young niece in the 1764 will of Sarah (Tynes) Washington.
In that year, Thomas sold his Isle of Wight County lands to his brother Benjamin, and purchased land in Edgecombe County. Isle of Wight County Deed Book 13, page 462; Edgecombe County Deed Book 3, page 273.
Will of Solomon King.
Barbara Clark Smith, After the Revolution: The Smithsonian History of Everyday Life In The Eighteenth Century (Washington: Smithsonian Institution, 1985), page 87. Smith refers to the Minute Books of the Mill Swamp Baptist Church in Isle of Wight County, which are kept at the Library of Virginia in Richmond.
Thomas Tynes to Solomon King, Edgecombe County Deed Book E, page 289.
Will of Solomon King, Gates County, North Carolina, Will Book 1, pages 136-139.
For the rules governing intestate inheritance in North Carolina, see Lee Albright and Helen F. M. Leary, “Designing Research Strategies,” in Leary, North Carolina Research: Genealogy and Local History (Raleigh: North Carolina Genealogical Society, 1996), page 36. Of note is the fact that, if the succession had occurred a decade earlier, only the uncles, not the aunts, would have inherited Nathaniel’s property; the estate would therefore have been divided in two, rather than nine, and much of our information would be missing.
Edgecombe County, North Carolina, Record of Estates, Book 3 (1801-1804), pages 461-462. Available on microfilm at the North Carolina Office of Archives and History, reel C.037.50003.
Blanche Adams Chapman, Marriages of Isle of Wight County 1628-1800 (Baltimore: Genealogical Publishing Company, 1976), page 84.
Another possible reading of the name Celia Lawrence is that this is, at long last, the missing name of the daughter of Thomas Tynes who married John Lawrence. Although long dead, Celia’s name would be used, as was that of “Ben Tines,” as a placeholder for her heirs’ share of Nathaniel Tynes’s estate. Tempting though this theory may be, it leaves unexplained why Nathaniel’s King aunts are not treated in the same way.
It must be said that much of the Record of Estates microfilm covering the years 1801 through 1804 is faint to the point of illegibility.
I have used Joseph W. Watson, Kinfolks of Edgecombe County, N.C. 1788-1855 (Durham NC: Seeman Printery, Inc., 1969), pages 60-110, as an index to the deed books. The extracts are my own, from microfilm copies at the North Carolina Office of Archives and History. Edgecombe County Deed Books 11 and 12 are available on microfilm reel C.037.40010; Deed Books 13 and 14 on reel C.037.40011; and Deed Book 15 on reel C.037.40012.
Edgecombe County Deed Book 11, pages 236-237.
Edgecombe County Deed Book 11, pages 228-229.
Edgecombe County Deed Book 11, pages 238-239.
Edgecombe County Deed Book 12, pages 17-19.
Edgecombe County Deed Book 11, pages 489-491.
Edgecombe County Deed Book 12, pages 66-67.
Edgecombe County Deed Book 12, page 159.
Edgecombe County Deed Book 13, pages 129-130 and 191; the same deed was recorded twice.
Edgecombe County Deed Book 13, pages 275-276. On 30 April 1810, Isham Holoman sold to David Bullock all of the land that he had purchased in the above cited transactions, “being two ninth parts of the Lands belonging to the Estate of Nathaniel Tines” (Edgecombe County Deed Book 13, pages 280-281). Holoman sold the land for $450, having paid a total of $337 for it. With the other deeds cited here, David Bullock became, by 1815, the owner of nearly all of the land in question.
Edgecombe County Deed Book 15, pages 253-255.
Edgecombe County Deed Book 15, pages 255-256.
Edgecombe County Deed Book 15, pages 228-229.
Edgecombe County Deed Book 15, pages 256-257.
Blanche Adams Chapman, Marriages of Isle of Wight County 1628-1800, page 57.
Isle of Wight County Minister’s Returns, page 459.
Will of Robert Tynes, Isle of Wight County Will Book 10, pages 304-305.
Will of Timothy Tynes, Isle of Wight County Will Book 11, pages 587-589. The will was dated 9 May 1802 and proved on 7 June 1802.
Isle of Wight County Order Book 1801-1803, page 356 (3 January 1803).
The 1810 U.S. Census for Isle of Wight County, Virginia, shows nine Tynes households marked “F.N.” (Free Negro), containing 53 “free persons of color” and twelve slaves. It would appear that the great majority (if not all) of Timothy’s freed slaves took the surname Tynes. These families have continued to appear in Isle of Wight and nearby counties on every subsequent census.
This fact is made clear only in the 1812 excerpt from the order books (below).
Isle of Wight County Order Book 1801-1803, page 375 (7 March 1803). It is possible that the recording clerk erred in one or the other of these entries, and that David Tynes did not actually switch sides.
“Free Negro” Tynes households appear on the 1810 U.S. Census for Isle of Wight County, Virginia, pages 12, 30, 31, and 36.
Isle of Wight County Order Book 1810-1813, page 235 (3 February 1812).