Muddling Back to Walter: How Genealogy Can Be Both Confusing and Boring

The further back into the past we trace, the more difficult it becomes to verify predecessors accurately.

Information can be quite sketchy, especially for women, who usually give up their maiden names at marriage.  That's why most people focus initially on following the surnames of their own parents.

Uncle J. Edwin Stickland and Granddad Julius E. Strickland

The first Strickland of our line born in America was Matthew Strickland II of Virginia.  Of that, I am fairly certain.

His father, Matthew Strickland I (1627-1699), was a minor member of a prominent family in England, which should make it easy to trace him back using publicly available records, right?  Even with that advantage, there's immediately confusion about his parents.

In fact, looked at another way, there's confusion about which Matthew Strickland was the one who arrived in Virginia.  He presumably is different from another Matthew Strickland who arrived in Maryland about the same time.  That there are two Matthew Strickland's seems quite logical, considering there are conjectured to be two family branches leading to Matthew I, but some people claim there to have been only one Matthew Strickland of that generation who arrived in America, possibly having gone back to England and then returned to a different port.

The father's last name was definitely Strickland.  I'm just using easily available sources which to some extent are democratic, in that researchers make their best guesses, eventually beating a path in what had once been a wilderness of possibilities in which subsequent generations often name their own children with names of ancestors.  With many sons of the same surname who move away to seek their own fortunes, they may not even realize that they sometimes gave the same names to children in different branches of the same generation.

A significant contingent on Geni.com says Matthew I's  most likely parents were Jacob Strickland (1590-1635) and Amy Salvin (1605-1635).  I didn't find too many details about their lives, beyond the fact that they had three children and apparently both died in the same year, when Amy was only 30 years-old.

For a young woman to lose her life during childbirth wouldn't have been unusual in those days, but that wouldn't account for Jacob's passing in the same year. What might have happened at that time to cost them both their lives?

As you may remember from Thanksgiving in first or second grade, the ship named Mayflower brought the Pilgrims to America to escape religious persecution in 1620.

In 1621, the Thirty Years War broke out in earnest in Central Europe.  Catholics and Protestants fought among themselves within countries like England (primarily Protestant) and France (primarily Catholic) over religion. Ken Follett, in his historical novel A Column of Fire, does a masterful job portraying the level of animus leading up to this period.  Claiming Jacob and Amy died for their religious beliefs might be a stretch.

In 1629, Jacob's half-brother John immigrated to Salem, Massachusetts, so perhaps Jacob's family was being persecuted like those original Puritans.  Then again, perhaps he was on the Catholic side of things, which would seem more likely due to history involving the more prominent branch of Stricklands.

The Stricklands of Sizergh Castle were staunch Catholics, supporting the Jacobite cause to put Bonnie Prince Charlie on the throne of England decades later in 1745.

By then, our branch had long since immigrated to the United States, and they were Protestants in subsequent generations.  A major promise of America was religious freedom, so I have no idea which side of the violence might have killed Jacob and Amy, if indeed that happened at all.  They also might have died of some disease.

Perhaps an easier explanation is that their dates of death aren't accurate.  If they both died in 1635, however, then it brings about the question of what happened to their children?  Matthew Strickland Senior would have been only eight years-old at the time, but he would eventually pay his own way as well as finance passage by others to America.  At least some of his substantial land holdings of over 3,000 acres in America came as a result of transporting other immigrants.

If both of his parents died when he was a boy, then perhaps Matthew I moved in with a rich relative.  What about Jacob's father?

Sir Thomas Strickland, National Trust Images, Sizergh Castle

Sir Thomas Strickland (1563-1612) was already dead.  He had been a Member of Parliament, which sounds promising.  According to a bit of history, Sir Thomas was also something of a scoundrel.  He frittered away much of his family wealth on high living in London, where he had a gambling habit.  Incidentally, he was a Protestant, but his second wife was a Catholic.

On closer examination, the half brothers and sisters of Jacob seem to have been married both before and after him (in which case Jacob might have been a bastard), which might fit with the scoundrel story. That kind of makes the religious fervor leading to death less likely, although I guess that could skip a generation here and there.

I like that story better than the Wikitree version, if only because of Sir Thomas being a rascal.

Wikitree, however, offers an alternative lineage.  According to Wikitree, Matthew I's father was not Jacob at all.  Edward Arthur Strickland III is speculated to be his father.  It further goes on to say that Edward III (1596-1661) might have been married to Elizabeth Binnes or possibly Elizabeth Basse, or maybe both.  Elizabeth was a popular name at the end of the Elizabethan Era (1558 to 1603)

Anyway, going back three generations, each was successively named Edward Arthur Strickland, with II living from 1576 to 1626 and his father only from 1551 to possibly just long enough to impregnate his wife in 1575.  Then again, perhaps his dates of birth and death are inaccurate.  The first Edward Arthur Strickland was the son of William Strickland (presumed about 1530-1590), but a theory I have would have him born in 1538, possibly implying only two generations of Edward Arthur Strickland. Not much is known about any of these folks.

However, Walter Charles Strickland Esq. (1516-1569) is listed as the father of both the scoundrel Sir Thomas Strickland (1563-1612) and William Strickland (1530 or 1538 to 1590), who in turn was the father of Edward Strickland I.

So, basically, it could be Jacob from Thomas from Walter (three generations), versus Edward III from Edward II from Edward I from William from Walter (five generations).  However, Walter's wife Alice Tempest Strickland gave birth to William and Thomas 34 years apart, making me wonder if there might have been another step between the generations (i.e., Walter Jr. born when Alice was 20, with Walter Jr. who then fathering at age 28 a son named Thomas).  Based on the way names became popular and showed up within the same families so frequently, it isn't a huge stretch to think Walter II could have married a different woman also named Alice.

As I said, it is all rather muddy, but somehow, we end up at Walter Charles Strickland Esq., where the family tree seems more specific again.  At that step, I again come back to Alice and William, though as I said either of these two branches might be correct, and of course it's also possible that neither is right.

Here is info from Wikitree for Matthew Strickland I:

Matthew Strickland Sr.
Born 24 Jan 1639 in Kendal Lake, Westmorland, England

DESCENDANTS
Father of Joanna Strickland, Thwaite Strickland, Elizabeth (Strickland) Boon, James Strickland, Joseph Strickland, William Strickland, Samuel Strickland, John Strickland and Matthew M Strickland II
Died 5 May 1696 in Isle of Wight Virginia


Matthew Strickland Sr. settled in the Southern Colonies in North America prior to incorporation into the USA.

Most researchers show that Matthew immigrated from England to the colonies in the latter part of the 17th century. Some show that Matthew was the son of Edward Strickland and Elizabeth Basse and others show he was the son of Jacob Strickland.
Biography

Matthew Strickland in about 1639 in England. His parents are disputed, and no solid proof has been located to link him to the correct parents.

The exact date of Matthew's immigration is uncertain, but the first record of him in Isle of Wight, Virginia was in 1678. On September 26, 1678, he received a land grant of 902 acres for transporting 18 people to the colonies. In 1680, he patented 1,803 acres of land in Isle of Wight.

There is a dispute among researchers whether a Matthew Strickland living in Maryland around the same time frame is the same Matthew Strickland from Isle of Wight or a different person. In an article written by L.C. Strickland in the Strickland Scene, he believes that there were two Matthew Stricklands. The possessions of Matthew Strickland of Calvert County, Maryland were inventoried after his death in November 1691. No heirs were mentioned. Matthew Strickland of Isle of Wight was still alive during this time, and his date of death is thought to be in 1696. We know that he had died before August 1699 due to the fact that there was a division of his land on this date. His son Matthew inherited all his father's land and shared it with his brothers William, John, Joseph, and Samuel.[1]

Matthew Strickland married Elizabeth. Her last name is disputed. Some sources say that it was Loreen, and others say Elizabeth Loreen married the Matthew Strickland from Maryland. Matthew and Elizabeth had at least 5 known children: Matthew, John, Samuel, William, Joseph, and Elizabeth. These have been proven to be their children through land deeds.


On 6 Jun 1687 Matthew Strickland gave a power of attorney to John Brown to execute a deed to William Evans "by reason of my nonability to travel to court held for this county the 9th if this instant June". This power of attorney was witnessed by Richard (RB) Booth and Elizabeth (S) Strickland.

On 6 Jun 1687 Matthew (X) and Elizabeth (E) Strickland of the Lower Parish deeded to William Evans of the Upper Parish for 4,000 pounds of tobacco in cask 800 acres in the Lower Parish between the main Swamp of King Sal and Beaver Dam Branch adjoining William Collins (from a tract of 902 acres patented by the said Strickland on 26 September 1678, of which ao2 acreas hd been leased to Thomas Jones for ninety-nine years on 6 November 1682. Witnessed by John Brown, Richard (RB) Booth, and Robert (R) Lawrence.

1699 -DIVISION OF LANDS, Isle of Wight Co., VA, August 4(or 9) ---Deed Book 1, page 302-303

To all persons whom these present shall come, Matt Strickland and William Strickland, sons of Matthew Strickland, late deceased, have made, concluded and agreed for a division between them and either of them, and their heirs forever. Decided and bounded as followeth, I, the said Matthew Strickland, doth give and make over my whole right and title for me and my heirs unto him and his heirs forever, a piece of land whereon my father lived at beginning of the Horse Swamp, S)S running up the Horse Swamp to the Gum Branch, thence running up the said Branch to Col. Pitts line, Sos running the line unto the Plantation whereon the said Matt Strickland deceased dwelt, now all the land above the forementioned, Branch joining unto -------- Plantation and also all the land that lieth on the South side of the Horse Swamp. Now I, the said Matthew Strickland, doth give one hundred and fifty acres of land at the Old Plantation unto my brother John Strickland and his heirs forever and never to go out of the name of ye Stricklands;

This appears to be a disclaimer to the English "Primogenture" law which was passed in 1631. This law established that the eldest son should inhereit any title and land of the father, and if the eldest died without issue, then the land and title would go the next eldest son, etc. Here, Matthew Jr. clearly disclaims his right to the entire land holdings of his father and chose to share with his brothers. Just to add - this was a great gesture on the part of Matthew Strickland, Jr.

Also, ye said Matthew Strickland, doth give one hundred and fifty acres of land unto my brother Sam Strickland and his heirs forever and never to go out of the name of ye Stricklands, lying at the head of Watery Branch, joining upon Arthur Whitehead; Next, all the land above the forementioned Branch and only the south side of the Horse Swamp, the said Matt Strickland doth given unto my brother, William Strickland, and his heirs;

And the said Matt Strickland doth give unto my brother Joseph Strickland, one hundred and fifty acres of land lying upon the Blackwater between my Plantation and the line of M. Woodwards being on the (most of the rest is illegible, but it seems to speak about "defrauding" and if defrauded, "shall forfit his own part according to these articles to him or them that shall be defrauded" then something about the 150 acres to John Strickland, and then "of a piece of land joining upon the Black Pond at the head of the Horse Swamp, bargained, and sold from me, Will Strirckland unto Arthur Whitehead".) Witness of our hands and seal this 4th (or 9th ?) Day of August in the year of our Lord God, 1699. Signed "M" Strickland.

Witnessed by Barnaby MacKinney, ackowledge at a (illegible) for ye Isle of Wight County, Virginia by Mathew Strickland and WIlliam Davidson

Maloney, Hendrick & Others - J. H. Maloney

1706 - Isle of Wight Co., VA - Deed Book 2, p. 47