Who was the Father of Charles Witt?

 

 

Although I have shown him here as a child of John Witt III, it is not actually clear who his father was.  His apparent birth year of 1718 or earlier makes determining his father aomewhat awkward.  He is older than any of the known 4th generation Witts, and younger than any of the 3rd generation Witts (except perhaps for Sylvanus Witt).  He could therefore have been either the youngest son of John Witt II or the eldest son of John Witt III.  You can make an argument for either.  I suppose you could make an argument for William Witt as his father, as the Huguenot  Society (erroneously) did in 1924, though it seems by far the least likely alternative.  

 

Unfortunately, the fact that he lived just over the border in Henrico County until the late 1740s, eliminates any possibility of finding him in records for most of his early life.  The arguments for any of the alternatives are inconclusive, but most current Witt researchers accept him as a probable son of John Witt III. 

 

In favor of John Witt II, we have mainly the argument that John Witt II could have had a child as young as Charles Witt.  He was still in his 40s in 1718, and may have been married to a young second wife.  Ann Rogers (who had two unmarried sisters in 1730) may well have been a young second wife capable of bearing children in 1718.  Sylvanus Witt, a proven son of John Witt II, may have been another young son.  We have no reason to believe that Sylvanus Witt was significantly younger than Charles – he first appears in the records the same year as Charles and died within five years of Charles.  In addition, we have the striking absence of records for Charles Witt involving other Witts, a circumstance that makes sense if he were a much younger half-brother to John Witt III.  We also have his purchase of land in Henrico County in 1739, a demonstration of independence perhaps more logical for a young son of John Witt II than for the eldest of John Witt III.  Against this argument, we have his absence from the deed selling John Witt II’s land – though he may have been in Lunenburg and unavailable at the time. 

 

In favor of John Witt III we have some weak circumstantial evidence.  Although we don’t find John Witt III in the records until 1731, he also could have had a son as early as 1718.  We do know he had other children born just a few years later.  Although Charles Witt rarely appears in records in conjunction with other Witts, the other Witts are sons of John Witt III (perhaps the 1746 tithables, the 1767 deed witnessed by Elijah, and the road order near Elijah).  Further, he and his children are sometimes found in the vicinity of 4th generation Witts and their in-laws – though this could be more of function of their ages and geography than of their generation.  Against this argument is the possibility that Charles Witt’s wife was a daughter of Thomas Harbour.  If this is the case, then all the circumstantial evidence in favor of John Witt III becomes worthless.  The circumstantial evidence would then be explained by the Harbour connection – his marriage to Lavinia Harbour has no bearing on Charles Witt’s parentage, but is sufficient to explain his association with David and Elijah Witt.

 

Some of our knowledge is “neutral” in the sense that it supports neither argument.  For example, either he or Sylvanus is certainly the third tithable in 1734 – but only one of them since the other two were John II and John III.  He moved to Lunenburg (later Halifax) County, but so did both John Witt III and several of his children, as well as his supposed father-in-law.  He did not give the names John, Elizabeth or Ann to any of his children.  (His children had mainly biblical names, a circumstance most likely due to his age and religious beliefs rather than to his generation.)  He was not involved in any transactions with any other Witts or the Harbours beyond those mentioned, though he did at one point own land adjoining a patent of Thomas Harbour’s.  None of the children of John Witt II or John Witt III named any children “Charles”.  His age, of course, can work for either argument.