Holland Family – Or Is It Hollen, Hollin or Hollon?

The answer to the title question is that it is all four, depending on which record source one is reading. Welcome to another family quagmire, similar to that of the Peavlers, just as bad, but in a different way.

I am going to begin a bit backwards with the earliest Holland, who I believe is the ancestor of my husband’s earliest Hollon. Both happened to be named Anthony Holland. The first was transported to Maryland in 1650 and whose name appears on the list of First Families of Maryland. My husband’s Anthony Holland (the younger) left Maryland for the Kentucky frontier sometime after the 1790 census, when he and his family were enumerated in Anne Arundel County.

Anthony did not live long on the frontier as his will was written on 20 March 1799 and probated at the June 1799 court of Scott County, Kentucky. His year of birth isn’t known, but his children were all of legal age and his daughters married. An estimate can be made, based on his son Ephraim’s family, which is my husband’s line. Ephraim’s oldest son was probably James, born about 1791, per censuses of 1850 and later. James is also my hubby’s line. Conservatively speaking, Ephraim was likely 20-25 years old when his first child was born. Thus, his year of birth is likely between 1765-1770, but let’s go with 1765.

Similarly, his father Anthony’s age can be guess-timated. Ephraim was the first named child in Anthony’s will so he may also have been the first born. If so, Anthony was probably born in the early 1740s. For easy arithmetic, let’s just round it off at 1740.

Here begins the quagmire. The age of Anthony Holland who was transported to Anne Arundel County isn’t known either. However, he is documented as being in Maryland by 1650. Some speculate that he was born in London about 1739/40. Others claim he was transported from Virginia to Maryland as a “wee lad,” whatever that means. However, “everyone”  agrees that he received land in 1672, married at least twice, which seems reasonable given the wording of his will, and that he died a wealthy man per the estate described in his will.

Here is my dilemma – I can’t ever remember reading that a “wee lad” was transported without his parents, although I guess it is possible. His supposed places of origin – London or Virginia – are very different. If he arrived from England, why would a financier take a chance on transporting a little boy across the ocean with no apparent family with him? The alternate theory is that the man who was responsible for transporting him was known for bringing labor up from Virginia to Maryland and that Anthony Holland may have arrived in Maryland from Virginia with Richard Gott, a Quaker.

I guess either scenario is possible, but that leads me to my next question-concern. If he arrived in 1650 and indentured servants typically worked off their debt in seven years, why did it take until 1672 for him to receive his land when his indenture was finished?

Was he a newborn infant when transported? Or is this Anthony not the same man who received land AND married in the early 1670s? I have not seen evidence of two Anthonys in this time period, but I can’t seem to come up with a way to make his possible age jive with an indenture that didn’t end until 22 years after he landed in Maryland. An additional question in my mind is if he and Richard Gott were transported from Virginia and they are named together were they already at least in their teens when they arrived?

I haven’t been able to come up with any evidence to prove or disprove any of my concerns.

Tomorrow, we will look at the facts and just the facts, relating to the two known men named Anthony Holland.

 

 

 

 

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.