This page is dedicated to my ancestor, Fantelina Joy.
In 1997 I stumbled across a FGS submission on the Yates Publishing Computerized Online Database while searching the name Gilbert Clark(e). I ordered the Family Group Sheet from Yates and from there to here has been an interesting trip.
The following is a compilation of data received from Bill Scroggin, Neil D. Thompson and hours of research by film and books.
The parents of Fantalena Joy have not been determined, but she undoubtedly was of the Joy family of St. Mary's County, Maryland, which adjoins Charles County (correspondence from Neil D. Thompson, Salt Lake City, 1995). The father of Fantalena Joy may have been named Joseph Joy. At that time couples usually named their first son for either his paternal or maternal grandfather. Since John and Jane Scrogin named their first son Joseph and his paternal grandfather was George Scrogin , perhaps the father of Fantalena Joy was name Joseph.
That likelihood is enhanced by the fact that Fantalena named her first son, who may have been illegitimate also, Joseph Joy (FANTELINA JOY AND HER HUSBANDS, Neil D. Thompson, THE AMERICAN GENEALOGIST, Volume 48, Number 2, April 1972, quarterly, Des Moines, IA).
Circumstantial evidence indicates that Jane, who married John Scrogin , was the illegitimate child of Fantalena Joy, by Gilbert Clarke, who was born about 1691, in Charles County, before their marriage. This child would have been 17 in 1708 which is considered to be the earliest birth year for Joseph Scrogin , the eldest son of John and Jane Scrogin. Joseph Scrogin named sons, Thomas Clark Scrogin and Philip Jenkins Scrogin , which substantiates this contention. The unusual given name of Fantalena Joy also provides a basis for the legend, among the descendants of Joseph Scrogin , that their immigrant ancestress was a Princess Fantalena. After reviewing new facts, subsequent to his article about Fantalena Joy, eminent genealogist Neil D. Thompson, who descends from her and her second husband Philip Jenkins, concluded, from the preponderance of evidence, that Jane Scrogin was the child born to Fantalena Joy and Gilbert Clarke, before their marriage (correspondence with compiler). He had not identified her previously (FANTELINA JOY AND HER HUSBANDS):
It often happens that the labors of the genealogist will articulate the dry bones of a story which might engage the novelist's imagination. Neil Thompson noted in the pages of his journal (TAG supra 45:34) an appearance in 1714 in the county court of Charles County, Maryland, by my ancestor Fantelina or Fantalena Jenkins, and requested further information concerning her and her family. More recent researches among the records of the county, housed at the Hall of Records in Annapolis, have answered some questions while raising others. The many courtesies of the staff of the Hall of Records were of assistance to me in the development of this problem.
The source of the unusual given name of Fantelina remains unknown to me, as does the parentage of the lady herself, who makes her first appearance in the court and land records of Charles County (hereafter abbreviated CCR) at the end of 1691 as Fantelina Joy. The surname Joy is not found in the county prior to that date, nor has it been possible to establish a connection by birth or marriage with the family of that name in neighboring St. Mary's County,. where the local records of the period are missing. Because the only male Joy in the county records prior to 1740 makes his appearance at a later date than Fantelina, it is assumed that Fantelina Joy arrived in the county either unmarried or a widow, perhaps with a child or children.
In any event, Fantelina Joy was presented by the county's grand jury to the county court on 8 March 1691/2 for having borne a bastard child (CCR R:369). Apparently she failed to appear and Sheriff Humphrey Warren was ordered to find her and bring her in on 13 June 1693. The following month, 12 July 1693 one Gilbert Clarke, a planter and sometime Sheriff, gave bond for her appearance but she again defaulted on 8 Aug. 1693 (CCR S:130). There is set forth at length the fact that the Provincial Court, having general jurisdiction throughout the colony, had issued a writ to Gilbert Clarke and Fantelina Joy directing them to appear at the May term of that Court but that the colony's Attorney General had suggested to the Sheriff that he refrain from serving the writ "to see whether ye Justices of this Court would take any notice of ye said offense." It is probable that this nudge from higher authority, with respect to a matter which was within the usual jurisdiction of the county court (one or more women were tried for bastardy at virtually every session), was responsible for its revival after more than a year.
Gilbert Clarke forfeited his bond to the Sheriff in the following year (CCR S:290, 12 June 1694) and at the same session of court Fantelina Joy was presented again (ibid. S:280). At a later session a bail bond was assigned and Clarke also posted a bond to prosecute his appeal from the forfeiture (CCR T:4, 15). Because Liber T is missing from a generally well-preserved series, its contents being known only by virtue of a valuable general index to all the records compiled in 1722, it is impossible to be sure whether this second presentment, and two others which took place the following year (T:173, 215), resulted from a series of alleged births out of wedlock or from one offense for which the punishment was constantly being postponed. It does not appear that Clarke ever went forward with his appeal. The minutes of the Provincial Court make no reference to it or to Fantelina Joy at all. At the same time, it does not seem that she was ever punished, by fine, whipping, or otherwise, for her alleged offenses. Clarke's influence may have had something to do with this, or the offense may have been deemed to be purged by his subsequent marriage to her. The fact of their marriage and the association of their names in the unserved Provincial Court writ is strong evidence that he was, or was thought to be, responsible for at least one of her children.
However that may be, there was recorded in 1697 or 1698, in another volume of the records which is now missing, a deed of gift from Fantelina Clarke "to her children" (CCR W:209). The marriage may have occurred that year, for Clarke had made two conveyances in 1696 without the participation of any wife (CCR Q:101, to William Digges, 16 July 1696; D-2:78, to John Bayne, 28 Oct. 1696, recorded 4 March 1713/4). It was not to endure long. Fantelina Clarke's bond as administratrix of her husband's estate is dated 15 Feb. 1700/01; her name was misread by the clerk as "Parthenia" (Maryland Testamentary Proceedings, 18-B:69, 28 April 1701). Two days after the execution of the bond, an inventory of the decedent's property in the hands of "Fantolany, his wife who is administratrix" was taken by Walter Story and Thomas Dixon. Her account is incomplete, showing no balance for distribution and no reference to heirs. She requests a maintenance allowance "at a moderate rate" (Maryland Inventories & Accounts, 20:171, 17 Feb. 1700/01; folio 267, dated 10 July 1701, filed 14 Sept.
That year the administrator of the estate of Sheriff Humphrey Warren had execution against Gilbert Clarke's estate in the amount of 5,000 lbs of tobacco (CCR Y:229, 1 April 1701). It seems that the forfeited bond had lain uncollected for almost seven years. At the same term of court Fantelina Clarke acknowledged a debt of the estate to one George Muschamps (ibid. 238). The following year there is a judgment against the estate in the Provincial Court (Prov. Court Judgments WT4:52), and then the records are silent for more than a decade.
During this period Fantelina met, married and lost her second husband Philip Jenkins or Jenkinson, a Charles County planter. He appears on the county rent rolls as the holder of 290 acres of a tract in Wicomico Hundred; no date is given, but it was prior to 1709 and the death of Peter Ord or Oard who held ten acres of the same tract (Maryland Rent Rolls 8:284; CCR B-2:684). As Philip Jenkinson he was a witness to the will of Justinian Tennis, made 23 Jan. 1698/9 (Maryland Wills 6:251). He served on juries in 1707, 1708, and 1712, the latest date being 11 Nov. 1712 (CCR B-2:457, 534, 9 March 1707/8, 9 Nov. 1708; Prov. Court Judgments TP2:635, 12 Aug. 1712; IO-1:153, 11 Nov. 1712). On 15 April 1714, as the widow of Philip Jenkins, Fantelina Jenkins recorded the ages of her two sons Philip and John Jenkins and provided for the inheritance of their father's property upon their coming of age at eighteen years (CCR F-2:10). Hence Philip Jenkins must have died during this hiatus of seventeen months.
It was more than two years before an administration bond was executed and filed for the estate of Philip Jenkins by one William Penn (Maryland Testamentary Proc. 23:33, 27 June 1716, dated 30 May 1716). Apparently Fantelina Joy had taken her third and last husband. The estate inventory, taken 5 June 1716, calls the decedent Philip Jenkinson, and it is signed by Frances Loften and William Jenkinson as next of kin (Md. Inventories & Accounts, 37A:53), while the scanty account calls him Jenkins again (Charles Co. Accounts 1708-38, f. 112, 6 Aug. 1716). William Penn is recorded as the father of two children, William and Elizabeth, by his first wife Elizabeth Dutton (CCR H2:86, 88, Nathaniel and Eleanor Hubbard to William Penn, 8 and 9 Aug. 1717).
Together with Fantelina he conveyed land to Charles Yates in 1720, both signing by mark (CCR H2:349, 4 June 1720).
The will of William Penn (Md. Wills 21:749, made 9 Feb. 1736/7, proved 14 March 1736/37) indicates that he had no surviving issue by Fantelina. To her he left one third of his personal property; to his daughter Elizabeth, the wife of Joseph Joy, he left one guinea. The balance passed to his namesake and executor, William Penn, whose account (Md. Accounts, 16:179, 17 May 1738; CCR T2:541, 17 May 1738) shows that Fantelina Penn received her legacy on or shortly after its execution. No further record of Fantelina Penn has been found, and, while she may have married again, it is more likely that her estate was divided after her death by agreement among her surviving children without formal administration.
If you have comments or suggestions, email me at email@example.com