A List of Tithabels Between Seeder run and Bool run in Ditigin parish in prince William County for: 1747 includes:
Patrick Hamrick Senr. 2
Patrick Hamrick Junr. 1
Robert Hamrick 1
James Hamrick 1
(Ruth E. Lloyd Information Center (RELIC), Bull Run Regional Library, Manassas, VA. (Microfilm copy.))
This is the first indication that Patrick had sons other than Patrick, Jr. These entries appear one after the other, which indicates the households were at least somewhat in proximity to one another because the list is in geographic order. (Don Wilson. "Residents of Western Dettingen Parish, 1747," The Newsletter, Vol. 11, No. 10, April 1993. Prince William County Genealogical Society.) The area between Cedar Run and Bull Run was in western Dettingen Parish and includes the location of the properties Patrick had acquired several years earlier. (REF: September 3 1739 & December 10, 1740)
Benjamin was living in Patrick, Sr.’s household and was probably not yet married because married children did not typically live with their parents. (Rhys Isaac. The Transformation of Virginia 1740-1790. Williamsburg, VA: The University of North Carolina Press, 1982. p. 31.) The fact that Benjamin was still living in Patrick’s household, together with the subsequent fact that Patrick, Jr., James, and Robert all inherited land from Patrick while Benjamin did not (REF: 1751 - 1752) suggests he was the youngest of the individuals listed. According to his request for a military pension, Benjamin’s oldest son (Siers) was born in 1753. ( "Revolutionary War Pension and Bounty Land Warrant Records," National Archives, Washington, DC. (Microfilm copy.)) Benjamin had to be at least 16 years old in 1747 to be listed as a tithable. These facts suggest that Benjamin was born by 1731. Considering the fact he witnessed a deed in 1751, (Prince William County Deed Book M. Reeve deed. pp. 191-194.) he was most likely born by 1730 or before. If Benjamin was the fourth son, the earliest date he could have been born was four years after his parents’ marriage, or 1714 (using the earliest date of their marriage). (REF: 1710) However, this would have him being 33 years old in 1747 when he was still living in his parents’ household. In addition, he would have been 39 years old when his oldest son was born in 1753. Both of these circumstances are unlikely. Therefore, Benjamin was probably born more toward the 1730 date, most likely no earlier than 1722, which would make him somewhere between 17 and 25 years old when he was living in Patrick’s household in 1747, and somewhere between 23 and 31 when his oldest son was born.
Patrick, Jr., James, and Robert were each living in separate households. Prior evidence indicates Patrick, Jr. was born between 1711 and 1719. (REF: September 20, 1740) Patrick, Jr. was most likely older than James because he inherited what was evidently the homestead property (REF: September 6 & 7, 1770) and he was named as executor of Patrick’s estate (a task customarily given to the oldest son) when Patrick died in 1764. (REF: April 2, 1764) (Robert died in 1757, (Prince William County Order Book 1755 – 1757. p. 272. (Names Robert’s wife Elizabeth as Administrix of his estate—May 23, 1757. Samuel Stone and John Smith furnished security for the administration; Edward Emms, John Bohanan, Isaac Davis, and George Reeves were appointed to appraise his estate.)) before Patrick, Sr.) James’ daughter Ann was named as guardian to Milloy Hamrick (an orphaned daughter of John Hamrick—another brother (REF: 1751)—and his wife Sarah) in July 1763. (Prince William County Order Book, 1761 – 1763. p. 550.) Ann would have had to be at least 21 years old at that point (William Waller Hening. Hening’s Statutes At Large, Vol I, 1619 - 1660. Charlottsville, VA: University Press of Virginia, 1969. pp. 269-270.) so, consequently, James was born no later than 1720. The only early bound that can be established for James’ birthdate is 1712, the year following Patrick Jr.’s earliest birthdate. Whether Patrick, Jr. and James were older than Robert is more difficult to discern; however, circumstantial evidence suggests that Robert was the third son. The main relevant fact is that Patrick, Jr. and James each inherited 130 acres of land, while Robert inherited slightly less (118 acres). (REF: 1751 - 1752) Although this is not a significant difference in acreage, it does seem reasonable that the largest parcels would go to the oldest sons.
Robert’s inherited property was sold in 1770 by Samuel Hamrick, his wife Mary, and Elizabeth Hamrick, Robert’s widow. (Prince William County Deed Book R. pp. 255 - 258.) The property was listed under Elizabeth’s name in the 1767 Rent Roll ("A Rentall for Prince William County for 1767" Ruth E. Lloyd Information Center (RELIC), Bull Run Regional Library, Manassas, VA. (Microfilm copy.)) and was referred to as "Widow Hambrick’s land" in a 1768 deed for an adjacent property.(Prince William County Deed Book Q. Melton deed plat drawing. pp. 619A – 619B.) This suggests Samuel was not yet a vested owner of the property. There is not a record that clearly establishes Samuel as Robert and Elizabeth’s son. Samuel was not on the 1765 tithables list, (REF: 1765) implying he was not yet sixteen years old at that time but, he may have been missed or record of him may have been lost due to the unfortunate extremely tattered condition of this tax list. (REF: 1765 comments) If he was on the list as a tithable (sixteen or over), he was definitely not with Patrick, Jr., James, John, Joseph, or Jeremiah; in other words, if he was there, he was on the list in a separate household that has been lost. The first apparent record of Samuel is as a witness to the will of Elizabeth Engles, which was recorded in September 1769. (County Court Record, Prince William County, Va., 1769 – 1771. p. 85.) This means he was most likely born by 1748 (which would have made him at least 17 years old in 1765). After selling the 118 acre Prince William County parcel in October 1770, Samuel purchased 450 acres in Granville County, North Carolina less than two months later. (Granville County [North Carolina] Deed Book J. p. 268 – 269.) It is doubtful a twenty-two year old would make such an acquisition, so it is very likely that Samuel was born at least several years prior to 1748. This means that Samuel would have been at least twenty-one in 1767 and 1768 when the 118 acre parcel was referred to as Elizabeth’s. If a man died intestate (as Robert did), his real estate (other than the one-third dower for his widow) went to his oldest son under common law (primogeniture). (Marylynn Salmon. Women and the Law of Property in Early America. Chapel Hill, NC: The University of North Carolina Press, 1986. p. 142.) If Samuel had been Robert’s and Elizabeth’s son, he would clearly have been viewed as the primary owner instead of Elizabeth because a widow controlled the estate only during the minority of her children. (Salmon. p. 184.) This implies Samuel was not a son but, instead, a first cousin to his wife Mary (a situation which was not at all uncommon (Allan Kulikoff. Tobacco and Slaves: The Development of Southern Culture in the Chesapeake 1680 – 1800. Chapel Hill, NC: The University of North Carolina Press, 1986. p. 252.)), who was apparently Robert’s and Elizabeth’s only child. (Under common law, if there was no son, lands descended to all daughters as coparceners (shared equally). (Salmon. p. 142.) So, if there were other daughters they would have been listed on the 1770 deed.) Samuel and Mary were evidently married between 1768, when Elizabeth still had control of the property, and 1770, when the property was sold. Mary would most likely have been between sixteen and twenty-one years old when she was married, meaning she was born sometime between 1748 (1769 minus 21) and 1754 (1770 minus 16). Based on these dates, Mary was significantly younger than both Patrick (III) (Patrick, Jr.’s son) and Ann (James’ daughter), adding to the circumstantial evidence that Robert was younger than Patrick, Jr. and James. Mary’s latest birthdate (1754) would place Robert’s latest birthdate as 1732; however, John (who was apparently younger because he did not inherit land from Patrick) was born no later than 1722. (REF: 1751) Therefore, Robert must have been born no later than 1721. The only early bound for Robert’s birth is his parents’ marriage, with time allowed for the births of his two older brothers. Therefore, the earliest Robert could have been born was three years after the earliest point of the marriage, or 1713.
Although Patrick, Jr. and James were clearly Patrick’s sons, there is not a record that definitely establishes Robert and Benjamin as sons. Patrick, Jr. unmistakably inherited property from Patrick and when it was sold in 1770, the record clearly stated the property had been given to him by his father. (REF: September 6 & 7, 1770) Property also unquestionably passed from Patrick, Sr. to both Robert and James, (REF: 1751 - 1752) but no similar wording exists on any extant deed record to firmly establish them as sons. (Unfortunately, a record of the deed that transferred the properties from Patrick, Sr. to Patrick, Jr., James, and Robert has not survived.) The fact that Patrick, Jr. and James were brothers is evident from the surviving records of Daniel Payne’s store, where James’ account clearly shows a payment made by "yr. Brother Patrick" on May 1, 1759. (REF: 1759 - 1762) This firmly establishes James as a son. It seems reasonable to assume that the same relationship existed between Patrick, Jr. and Robert.
Benjamin did not inherit land, but his presence in Patrick’s household is an impressive and telling fact. Also to be considered is the fact that there are no other logical alternatives who could be Robert’s or Benjamin’s father. Robert and Benjamin were obviously a generation younger than Patrick, Sr. There is no manifest evidence of any other Hamrick of Patrick’s generation being in Virginia, other than Henry. (REF: February 28, 1699/1700 a comments) However, Henry had certainly died by 1725 (REF: September 3, 1739 comments) and given the fact that there is no evident record of Henry in Virginia after 1706, it does not seem probable that Henry could have been the father of any of these individuals. The deposition that Robert English gave regarding Patrick’s relationship to Roger Day also clearly stated there were "no other relations in this Country." (REF: September 3, 1739) Taken together, these facts add-up to become compelling evidence that Patrick, Jr., Robert, James, and Benjamin were, indeed, Patrick’s sons.