Matthew HOWARD

                   Notes:
Mathew Howard received a Grant/Patent for Land in 1638 in Lower Norfolk Co., VA. In 1638 was granted 150 acres for the transport of himself, his wife, and 2 other persons to Virginia. He received a Grant/Patent for Land on 3 Jul 1650 in Anne Arundel Co., MD. A tract of 650 acres called "Howard" was surveyed 3d July 1650 for Matthew Howard on the south side of Severn River. In the 1707 rent rolls, the comment was made that it could not found that this land was ever patented, but ye Survey Supposed to be alteredby Howard into others. He died before 1659. Matthew Howard was in Virginia 8 February 1637/38 when he was located in the Upper County of New Norfolk on the western branch of the Elizabeth River. This information comes from a land patent granted to Robert Taylor, which describes the land grant boundaries as on the West Branch of the Elizabeth River bounded on the west with Matthew Howard running nearly into the woods and Sly. It is known that Matthew and Anne had children by 1640, for in the court records there is apparently a slander case where Simon Peeter age 26 stated that Edy Hanking said that Mathew Howard's wife went walking with Wdward Lloide and left the children crying and her husband had to quit his work and quiet the children.
Mathew Howard was the executor of the will of Richard Hall in 1648. This will left Anne Howard a cow calf and a barrow shote, Elizabeth Howard two cows and their increases, to Mathew Howard the younger a sow shote, to Cornelius Howard a sow and y hat, to John Howard my wiff and new clothes, to Samuel Howard, my money and tobacco, and to old Mathew one yearling Stear calf and my best paor of breeches. This will was proved 15 Nov 1648 by Mathew Howard.
15 June 1649, Mathew witnessed the will of Edward Hodge of Lower Norfolf Co. There are continuing references to Mathew Howard, in Lower Norfolk Co., VA up through 1652. It is not known if this was Matthew the elder or his son. These references include a court order in Lower Norfolk County for a 100# tob. bounty for killing a wolf and in 1652 Matthew Howard is listed in the tax listings on the Western Branch of Elizabeth River and at court 21 Dec 1652 in Lower Norfolk Co., Robert Woody was ordered to pay Matthew Howard a debt of 500# tob.

Posted by: Fredric Z. Saunders Date: October 28, 2001 at 22:11:46
Hi,
Can anyone provide documentation that Matthew Howard of Anne Arundel Co., Maryland had a daughter named Mary who married John Hammond?
In MD Testamentary Proceedings 10:315 on 1 Nov. 1678 (Family History Library microfilm 0,012,933) it was stated that Thomas ROPER of Anne Arundel County in his will requested if his wife should marry, then his child's estate was to be secured. Since that time his widow married John HAMMON of said county, who was likely to embezzle the estate and therefore Mary HAMMON, the relict of Thomas ROPER was to render an account. [Harry Wright Newman in his quote spelled it Hammond, but there are no D's on the name in this record.]
Thomas ROPER wrote his will 19 Sep. 1677 and probated 26 Oct. 1677. Harry Wright NEWMAN in Anne Arundel Gentry, 2nd Ed. stated that John Hammond, Sr. evidently had a first wife as he had married sons by 1690, within 13 years of this marriage.
Since John Hammond married Mary, widow of Thomas ROPER in 1677-1678, she would be John's widow Mary who wrote her will and died in 1721, and not an alleged Mary Howard as claimed by Maryland & Virginia Colonials by Sharon J. Doliante.
Regarding the claim that John Hammond married a daughter of Matthew Howard named Mary, the earliest mention I have seen is by Warfield in 1905 in *Founders of Anne Arundel Counties* where he said that John Hammond married Mary Howard, daughter of Matthew, based on the will of Samuel Howard.
The Maryland Calendar of Wills 3:25 has an incorrect abstract of Samuel Howard's will, implying that John Hammond, Jr. was called a "cousin" [nephew] to Sameul Howard. The abstract states he left to "cousins John Howard, Eliza: NORWOOD, Sarah BRICE, Hannah Hammond, Cornelius and Joseph Howard and John Hammond, Jr., personalty," and later states that trustees were "cousins John Howard and John Hammond, Jr., afsd."
The actual copy of Maryland wills 11:397-399 on Family History Library microfilm 0,012,844 states:
"I Give to my Cousin John Howard Twenty Shillings to buy a Ring.
I Give to John Hammond Junior Twenty Shillings to buy a Ring.
I Give and bequeath to my Cousin Eliza: [Howard crossed out, written above is] NORWOOD fiveteen Shillings.
I Give to my Cousin Sarah Brice fifteen Shillings to buy a Ring.
I Give to my Cousin Hanh: Hammond fifteen Shillings to buy a Ring.
I Give to my Cousin Cornelius Howard Tenn Shillings.
I Give to my Cousin Joseph Howard Tenn Shillings."
While the others are called "cousins" [nephews and nieces] John Hammond, Jr. is not.
Later the will book copy states:
"I leave my Cousins John Howard and John Hammond, Junr. as my Trustees."
Maryland & Virginia Colonials by Sharon J. Doliante, had a transcription of Samuel Howard's will. She cites the will book copy above but I would think she was reading a different version of the will. She capitalizes words in her transcription that are not capitalized, does not capitalize words that are capitalized, and has different spellings of numerous words than from what is in the will book copy. Her transcription totally omits the bequest to John Hammond, Jr. Her transcription variously spells the word as "Cozin," "Cozen," and "Cozon," in the various bequests, while the will book copy is "Cousin" in all.
Most importantly, while the will book copy says "my Cousins" [plural] John Howard and John Hammond, Junr. are trustees, her transcription says "my Cozon" [singular] John Howard and John Hammond, Junr. are trustees.
Does an original will for Samuel Howard exist, and is this what she transcribed, while citing the will book copy? If so, does it indeed say "Cozon" [singular] implying only John Howard, and not John Hammond, Jr. is a "cousin" [nephew] to Samuel Howard? If so, what evidence is there for John Hammond, Sr.'s first wife being a Howard?
Is there any evidence other than that one "s" on "cousins" of the will book copy of Samuel Howard's will (and is that "s" on an original will?) for John Hammond, Jr. being a nephew to Samuel Howard? Is there any other evidence for John Hammond, Sr.'s first wife being a daughter of Matthew Howard? IF there is evidence for her being a Howard, what evidence is there that her given name was Mary? It seems the name "Mary Howard" has its origin from Warfield's book, but he was unaware of the record showing that it was John Hammond's second wife, widow of Thomas Roper, who was named Mary. What records show a given name for John Hammond's first wife?

In Reply to: Re: Howard line traced to William I The Conq by Philip Knecht
This is another theory on Matthew Howard's ancestry. It was first proposed by James E. Moss in "Providence, Ye Lost Towne at Severn in Maryland" (Washington, D.C.: by author, 1976)
His theory:
Thomas Howard (son of Thomas Howard, Duke of Norfolk, and second wife. Thomas also had a son Thomas by his first wife.) and Margaret Douglas (granddaughter of King Henry VII, niece of King Henry VIII) had a son Robert born about Jan. 1537 that was secreted away to live with relatives.
He bases this on a pedigree from the College of Arms that lists a Robert Howard born ca. 1530 of Brockdish, Norfolk, and wife Philippa BUXTON. This pedigree lists 11 children for Robert, two of them being John Howard who married ----- Lock and had 8 children (not named) and Matthew Howard who married Margaret ARTHUR and had sons named Matthew and Samuel. In 1714 Matthew and Richard Howard, great-grandsons of Matthew Howard and Margaret ARTHUR were granted arms, that were the basic arms of the Ducal Howards with the inclusion of a mullet (Star). The mullet/star is the basic symbol of the Scottish clan Douglas. He believes this shows that Robert is a child of Lord Thomas Howard and Lady Margaret Douglas.
Because of the use of the names Matthew and Samuel in the Brockdish line, he feels that Matthew of Virginia who named a son Samuel "must" be connected to them.
Moss lists that John, son of Robert Howard of Brockdish was baptized 1 Dec. 1578 and married 26 Nov. 1606 and that they then had baptized at Thorpe Abbots, Norfolk:
1. Robert Howard bap. 27 Nov. 1608
2. Daniel Howard bap. 25 Feb. 1610
3. John Howard bap. 30 Jan. 1612
4. Thomas Howard bap. 4 Apr. 1614
5. Grace Howard bap. 15 Apr. 1616
6. Mary Howard bap. 5 Mar. 1618
He believes that Matthew and Henry of Virginia must be children, as the Robert Howard pedigree chart listed 8 children.
He does not list whether the dates for children 2, 3 and 8 are from the Julian Calendar, as probably recorded in the parish register, or whether he changed them to the modern Gregorian Calendar. From the spacing, I suspect the latter.
One thing which Moss does not address, and I have not seen anyone else mention, is that this would mean that Matthew Howard could not have been born before about mid to late 1619, more likely the first half of 1620. Another thing Moss does not mention is whether all records of the Howard family cease in the Thorpe Abbots register after the 1618 baptism. If there are burial records for any of the 6 children in the 1620s or marriage records in the 1630s, signs that John was still living there, then you have to wonder why they would fail to record the births of two more children (Matthew and Henry). OR could it be that the pedigree chart was incorrect and there were only 6, not 8 children of John, since none are named on it.
Matthew Howard can be documented in Lower Norfolk Co., VA prior to 26 Oct. 1637 when he is mentioned in a court record. According to Warfield in "The Founders of Anne Arundel and Howard Counties," Matthew Howard was involved with a Mr. EVANS in a law suit in 1635. Noone seems to know Warfield's source.
If Warfield's date is accurate and could be verified, that would make Matthew only age 15 (at the most) and highly unlikely that he was a son of John Howard and Elizabeth Lock. The 1637 record means Matthew at most could have been just been turning 18, and since he would had to have been in VA for several months couldn't have been over 17 when he arrived.
Also consider that Richard Hall's will written 16 Nov. 1648 mentioned 6 of Matthew's children. If one had just been born, then (without twins) you have children born ca. 1648, 1646, 1644, 1642, 1640, and 1638. Note also the 6 July 1640 court deposition of Simon Peeter that Matthew Howard's wife went walking and left the CHILDREN (not child) crying, so there were apparently at least 2 children by this date. If a first child was born ca. 1638, then they had to have married by ca. 1637, when again Matthew was probably not yet 18. Possible, but that adds one more IF for those that accept this theory.
IF Thomas Howard and Margaret Douglas had a child, and
IF that child is the same as Robert Howard of the pedigree chart, and
IF the pedigree chart is correct that Robert's son John had 8 children, and
IF one of those children was named Matthew, and
IF THAT Matthew moved to Virginia and married when he was about 17 years old (at most), then you can believe the theory.

Name: Matthew HOWARD
Birth: 1606 in Wardour Castle, , England 1
Death: Apr 1659 in Norfolk, Lower Norfolk, Virginia 1
Spouses: Anne HALL (Wife) 1
Marriage: 1635 in , , , England
Children:
Henry Howard
Philip Howard
Samuel Howard
John Howard
Cornelius Howard
Anne Howard
Matthew Howard

Matthew Howard was among the first settlers of Anne Arundel Co. He came with many Puritan and Independent families from Virginia to "Providence" about 1650. One of the compiled genealogies on the Howard Family is in "Anne Arundel Gentry Vol 2" by Harry Wright Newman. Another source is the 1909 "Founders of Anne Arundel and Howard Counties Maryland" by J. D. Warfield. It is suggested that you check these books for more details about the Howard family. Some information on the Howards is also in "Providence Ye Lost Towne at Severn in Mary Land" by James E. Moss. Moss provides information sugesting that Mathew Howard might be a decendant of Lord Thomas Howard and Lady Margaret Douglas.

http://www.gencircles.com/users/ejeanc/1/data/2365
The premise of the HOWARD-ARUNDELL theory is that Matthew HOWARD of Virginia is identical to Matthew, baptized 19 June 1609 at St. Andrew's, Holborn, Middlesex, England, son of Thomas ARUNDELL, 1st Baron Arundel of Wardour.
Thomas ARUNDELL was married to Ann PHILIPSON, the widow THOROUGHGOOD/THURGOOD. Thomas ARUNDELL was the son of Matthew ARUNDELL, and grandson of Sir Thomas ARUNDELL and wife Margaret HOWARD. Sir Thomas ARUNDELL was beheaded by King Henry VIII. Another premise of the theory was that both the elder  Matthew and his son Thomas, later 1st Baron of Wardour due to embarrassment used the HOWARD name of their mother/grandmother while on the European continent.

Appearing in print as early as 1919, the theory has little foundation.

The burial record of that Matthew ARUNDELL was recorded at St. Andrew's Holborn, Middlesex, England as: "Matthew ARUNDELL, son of Thomas Lo: ARUNDELL out of Castill Yard in holborne was buried in the Chancell under the Table the 2 June 1620." (Church of England, Saint Andrew Holborn Parish Register, Register of Burials, 1556-1623, M.S. 6773/1, unpaginated, entry number 63 for the year, overall entry number 6810, Guildhall, London, England, Family History Library microfilm 374389, Salt Lake City, Utah)

The burial record alone is enough to invalidate the HOWARD-ARUNDELL theory, but there are also other flaws in the theory. No one has ever supplied evidence that the elder Matthew ARUNDELL or his son Thomas, 1st Baron of Wardour ever used the HOWARD surname. There is also evidence that this is not true. Thomas ARUNDELL had gone to Europe with an introductory letter from Queen Elizabeth, in which she referred to him as her "dearest cousin Thomas Arundel." While there, due to bravery in battle, the Emporer of Germany gave him as Thomas ARUNDEL the title of "Count of the Empire."  [Edward Doran Webb, "Notes by the 12th Lord Arundell of Wardour on the Family History", (London: Longmans, Green and Co., 1916), 32-41 and John Pym Yeatman, "The Early Genealogical History of the House of Arundel," (London: Mitchell and Hughes, 1882), 274-277., FHL microfilm 496545, item 4]

It is interesting also that some have cited the above book by YEATMAN as showing how Thomas ARUNDELL went to Europe, changed his name to HOWARD, and had a son Matthew who faked his death and went to Virginia. The book contains no such statements.

YEATMAN does contain statements regarding Thomas ARUNDEL receiving from Emperor Rudolf the title of Count of the Holy Roman Empire. Through improper citations, some researchers have made it appear that the whole theory is listed in YEATMAN. As listed above YEATMAN does quote from letters of Queen Elizabeth introducing Thomas ARUNDEL to Emperor Rudolph. That also would invalidate parts of the theory that Thomas was operating in Europe incognito under the HOWARD name.

The ancestry of Matthew HOWARD is unknown. One theory of his ancestry, the HOWARD-ARUNDELL theory has been found to have no validity. Another theory, the HOWARD-DOUGLAS theory, is that Matthew was a great grandson of Thomas HOWARD and Margaret DOUGLAS (niece of King Henry VIII). While it cannot be disproved, as that would involve proving negatives, the number of speculations involved over 3 generations makes it highly improbable.

Matthew HOWARD and wife Anne had children:
1. Ann HOWARD1 b. ca. 1637;2 m. James GRENEFFE;4 living 16864
2. Elizabeth HOWARD1 b. ca. 1639; m. Henry RIDGELY;5 d. 16696-16727 Anne Arundel Co., MD
3. Matthew HOWARD1 b. ca. 1641;2 m. Sarah DORSEY;8 d. between 3 Oct. 1691 and 12 Jan. 1692 Anne Arundel Co., MD3
4. Cornelius HOWARD1 b. ca. 1643;2 m. Elizabeth;9 d. between 15 April and 15 Oct. 1680 Anne Arundel Co., MD9
5. John HOWARD1 b. ca. 1645;2 m.1. Susanna (NORWOOD) widow of Charles STEVENS;10 m.2. Eleanor,12 widow of John MACCUBIN;11 d. between 30 Dec. 1695 and 13 May 1696 Anne Arundel