Which Richard Jordan married Elizabeth Reynolds?

 

There are two competing theories, one theory holding that she married Richard Jordan I, and the other that she married his son Richard Jordan II. 

 

Is one theory more plausible than the other?  Let’s review the evidence, and the reader can decide for himself.

 

Elizabeth Reynolds

Let’s start with we know of Elizabeth Reynolds.  We have only two records of her:

 

·        The will of Christopher Reynolds, dated 1 May 1654, mentions among his children “my daughter Elizabeth” and charges his wife with “the ordering and bringing up John and Richard, my sons, until they be sixteen years of age, and Elizabeth & Jane until they be fifteen years of age.”[1] 

 

·        The will of her brother John Reynolds, dated 11 March 1668/9, bequeaths "to sister Eliza. Jordan a bill of Robert Collier's for 800 lbs. tbo... after her decease to her son Richard Jordan.”[2]   

 

Thus, all we know is that she was unmarried and under 15 in May 1654, but was married with a child nearly fifteen years later in March 1669. 

 

We have no direct evidence of which Jordan she married.  Therefore, we must form a theory based on what evidence we do have.

 

The Neutral Evidence

We have several pieces of evidence which are genealogically “neutral”.  That is, they don’t favor one theory over the other.  For example:

 

·        Christopher Reynolds’ will mentions “my land on the southerly side of the freshet swamp that Richard Jordan now liveth upon.”  Likewise, we know that Richard Jordan I was witnessing a deed in Isle of Wight as early as 1640, bought land near Christopher Reynolds in 1653, and he had subsequent land dealings with Christopher Reynolds’ eldest son.[3]  This information is relationship-neutral, in that it doesn’t tell us whether he was Elizabeth Reynolds’ father-in-law or husband. 

 

·        Richard Jordan II was married to a woman named Elizabeth by 1677 or 1678, but whether she was his first wife or not can’t be determined.[4]  His father Richard Jordan I was married to a woman named Alice in 1679 when she released dower in a land sale, but no wife is mentioned earlier  We have no direct evidence of the name of either man’s wife in 1669 when John Reynolds’ will was written.

 

The Relevant Evidence

Both theories fundamentally rest on the birth dates of the three generations of Richard Jordans.  Theory 1 is that Elizabeth Reynolds married Richard Jordan I and that the son mentioned in her brother’s will was Richard Jordan II.  Theory 2 holds that she married Richard Jordan II and that the child was Richard Jordan III.  The key issue, then, is what evidence we have of the ages of these three men.

 

Actually, it is only the ages of Richard Jordan II and Richard Jordan III that are important.  We already know that Richard Jordan I was considerably older than Elizabeth Reynolds, since he was witnessing a deed in March 1640, about as early as Elizabeth Reynolds could possibly have been born.  Marriages between older men and younger women were so common that this is not a barrier to Theory 1. 

 

Proponents of both theories agree that Richard Jordan II was born no later than 1655, for he must have been of age when he bought land in 1676.  (We also know he had a younger brother, John Jordan born no later than early 1658.)   The crucial question is whether he was born in 1655 or whether he could have been born, say, fifteen years earlier. 

 

The corollary question is whether Richard Jordan III could have been born before March 1669, in time to have been the son mentioned in John Reynolds’ will.  

 

Let’s look at the evidence that bears on these two key questions.

 

Evidence of the age of Richard Jordan II

We have little evidence that bears directly on how old Richard Jordan II could have been.  Apart from the first item below, we have no evidence that would firmly place his birth year as 1655 as opposed to, say, 1640.  There are four pieces of evidence which might be useful in forming a theory.

 

·        A Richard Jordan “Junior” witnessed two deeds for land near Christopher Reynolds in 1662 and 1667.[5]   Likewise, there are two references to Richard Jordan I as “Senior” in Isle of Wight in 1672.[6]   (There is only one reference to a Richard Jordan sans-adjective in the ten-year period before Richard Jordan II moved to Surry County.)  Theory 1 accounts for this by assuming the presence of an unknown third Richard Jordan in the area.  Theory 2 holds that this indicates that Richard Jordan II was too old to have been the child of Elizabeth Reynolds. 

 

·        Richard Jordan II moved into Surry County sometime before mid-1673, where he appears as a tithable head of household from 1673 continuously through 1698.  Both theories agree that he was over 16 in 1673, but differ on whether he had reached majority.[7]   The question is whether a minor could have been a head of household.  If he had reached majority by 1673, then he was clearly far too old to have been a child of Elizabeth Reynolds.  Thus, Theory 1 argues that he was tithable as a minor head of household in 1673-1676 because he was married with a child. Theory 2 favors the typical interpretation that he had likely reached majority to be so taxed.  He was also paid a bounty in 1673 for a wolf’s head, raising a similar question.[8]

 

·        He bought land in Surry County on 16 December 1676.[9]  He was surely of age, thus born no later than late 1655.

 

·        He died sometime between June 1698, when he last appears as a tithable, and 7 November 1699 when his will was proved.[10]  Whether he was in his mid-40s or nearing 60 is undeterminable.  We know only that, when he wrote his will in 1695, he had a son of age, two married daughters, another son over 18, and several minor children.

 

Evidence of the age of Richard Jordan III

We have better evidence of the age of Richard Jordan III:

 

·        He appears as a tithable of his father in 1685, 1686, 1687, and 1689.  He is separately tithable in 1688 with William Davis, and is a tithable head of household in 1690 and thereafter.  This the most crucial evidence in favor of Theory 2, since it is consistent with a birth date between June 1668 and May 1669.[11]  (Free white males were taxable if they had reached the age of 16 by 9 June of the tax year.)  If born within that range, he would have reached 16 in time to be a tithable in 1685 and would have reached majority by 1690.   He could also have been born in time to be the son mentioned in John Reynolds’ will of March 1669.  Theory 1 holds that he must have been incorrectly listed in 1685 and 1686, for he could not have reached 16 until 1687 at the earliest.

 

·        He appears on a militia list recorded on 19 December 1687, indicating that he was at least 16 and therefore born before late 1671.[12]   No other records bear on his age.   

 

·        He left a will dated in 1749 and proved in 1751.  If he were born 1668/9, a death at the age of 82 or 83 indicates an unusually long life.  However, even Theory 1 holds he was born by 1671, making him 80 at his death.

 

 

Summary of Theory 1 (She married Richard Jordan I)

This theory can be summarized as follows:

 

·        Elizabeth Reynolds married Richard Jordan I almost immediately after her father’s will was written in 1654.  She was either still under, or had just reached, the age of 15.   She had her child Richard Jordan II no later than late 1655, and bore another son, John Jordan, before early 1658.

 

·        Elizabeth Reynolds died, and her husband had remarried to a woman named Alice by 1679.

 

·        Her son, Richard Jordan II, was the child mentioned in the will of her brother in March 1669, when the son was about 14 years old. 

·        The son, Richard Jordan II, married as a young teenager and had his own son, Richard Jordan III, no later than 1671, when he was perhaps 16 years old. 

 

Apart from the interpretation of evidence mentioned above, this theory includes an explanation for two contrary pieces of evidence:

 

·        Surry County incorrectly taxed Richard Jordan III as a tithable in 1685 and 1686.  Since it’s implausible that Richard Jordan II might have fathered a child at the age of 13 or 14 (and that Elizabeth Reynolds had married and become a grandmother in the space of less than 15 years) the tithables records must be incorrect.   Further, both Richard Jordan II and Richard Jordan III must have been taxed as minors when they were heads of households – Richard Jordan II in 1673-1675 and Richard Jordan III in 1688-1691.   
 

·        The references to a Richard Jordan “Junior” in 1662 and 1667 are either transcription errors by Boddie, or refer to a third, unknown Richard Jordan, since the child of Elizabeth Reynolds could have been no older than 7 and 12 years old, respectively.  

 

The Jordan Family Association has accepted this theory as the more plausible of the two. 

 

Summary of Theory 2 (She married Richard Jordan II)

This theory can be summarized as follows:

 

·        Richard Jordan I had a son, Richard Jordan II, who was born perhaps as early as 1640.  This accounts for the references to “Jr.” and “Sr.” in Isle of Wight records.

·        Elizabeth Reynolds married that son, Richard Jordan II sometime in the mid-1660s, perhaps ten or more years after her father’s will.  They had a son, Richard Jordan III, in late 1668 who was the child mentioned in her brother’s will of March 1669.

·        Elizabeth Reynolds is probably the same person as Elizabeth Jordan, the widow of Richard Jordan II.

 

This theory rests mainly on three arguments:

·        The tithables records for Richard Jordan III indicate a birth between June 1668 and May 1669.  This means he was probably the child mentioned in John Reynolds’ will of March 1669, having been born just prior to that will.   Further, Richard Jordan II was likely in his 20s when this son was born, and therefore could not have been Elizabeth Reynolds’ child.  

·        The theory is not contradicted by any evidence.

·        The theory seems the most plausible explanation that fits the evidence we have.  It accommodates the tithables lists, (and the references to Richard Jordan “Junior” and the wives’ names) without resorting to additional hypotheses. 

 

It does, however, require accepting that all three generations of Richard Jordans lived to ripe old ages (perhaps 62, 59, and 83, respectively.)

 

The Bottom Line:

Neither theory can be proven beyond a shadow of doubt.  To quote the BCG Genealogical Standards Manual:  “an objection that something else could have happened is insufficient to discredit our own or another person’s conclusions.” 

 

The question is whether, weighing all the evidence, one theory seems to be significantly more plausible than the other.   And that judgment is up to each of us as individuals.