"William Scarborough's name first appears in the Surry Records on Dec. 10,
1656, when he testified in the case of Potter versus Delke(BK 1-124) On June
20 1664, John Rawlings and Wm. Scarborough surveyed and assigned Mr. Humphrey
Allen 12 headrights for a certain patent of land(Id, -124). He was appointed
administrator of the estate of Ann Holdsworth, June 18, 1675(BK. 2-52) the
reason for the appointment was that Wm. Scarborough had married Mrs. Amy
Holdsworth, the mother of Ann and widow of Walter Holdsworth." http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/th/read/SCARBOROUGH/2000-06/0...
The tradition is strong that he was a "cousin" of the Accomack Scarboroughs, and that he was the son of *a* Samuel Scarburgh. We have already found that Samuel Scarburgh (1593-1655, son of Henry and Mary) had no children; but he may not have been the only Samuel Scarburgh.
If you back up one generation, to Henry Scarburgh and Elizabeth, you will find a short-lived son William, who certainly managed to beget a daughter Mary before kicking off, and some sources give him a son Samuel (possibly posthumous) as well. A Samuel born in the early 1600s is well-placed to have a son c. 1630 who would be of age by the 1650s and still young enough to get himself into serious trouble in the 1670s. This works about as well as anything else I can think of.
What do you all think?
Follow Us
Like Us
