Roger Rooker of Virginia
I guess I’m like most Family Genealogists in that I love to collect stuff. During almost every research outing, I always find something that doesn’t mean much at the time, but later when going back through my findings, I realize that I may have found another interesting piece of the puzzle. I have very good documentation that proves my line back to the Reverend John Rooker of York County, South Carolina. However, for a long time I didn’t know very much about his ancestors other than a brief mention of them in John Rooker’s autobiography.
Several years ago I ran across an article by another Rooker researcher who had discovered a reference to a Roger Rooker in the early records of colonial Virginia. Unfortunately, I don’t have the name of the researcher so that I could give them proper credit for the find. So whoever you are, I’d like to thank you very much for finding such a colorful story about our ancestor Roger Rooker.
Roger Rooker was the grandfather of the Reverend John Rooker (1755 – 1840). Roger was born about 1700 in Richmond, Virginia. About 1724 he was married to Eleanor Jennings the daughter of Henry and Eleanor Jennings of Virginia. Roger and Eleanor has three children that I have records of. They were Jennings Rooker (b. 4 Sep 1725), Hannah Rooker (b. 11 Mar 1729) and Henry Rooker (b. before 14 Nov 1736). Their son Jennings Rooker was the father of the future Reverend John Rooker.
Here is the article found by one of my fellow descendents of Roger Rooker.
While searching for records in Criminal Proceedings in Colonial Virginia, Records of fines, Examination of Criminals, Trial of slaves, etc., from March 1710 to 1754, Richmond County, Virginia, I came across a reference to Roger Rooker in a court document, July of 1727. Thinking he might have been a magistrate or other important person, I eagerly looked up the record, which follows in its original form:
“Roger Rooker being by Vertue of a Warrant of Newman Brockenbrough Gentleman one of his Majesties Justices of the Peace for this County, brought before this Court to Answer the Complaint of John Dunlop Merchant on Suspicion of the said Rookers taking one hundred twenty Seven pounds of Tobacco out of a hogshead of Tobacco belonging to
the said Captain Crawleys Quarters, And Several Evidences being Examined Concerning the same, This Court are of Opinion that the said Rooker is Guilty of the Crime laid to his Charge, It is Therefore Ordered that the Sherriff take him to the common Whipping post and Give him Twenty lashes on his bare back Well laid on, and then to Remand him to the Goal of this County until he Gives Good and Sufficient Security for his Good Behaviour During the Terme of one year.” Roger behaved himself for one year and one month, then appeared in the court records again!
“At a Court held for Richmond County the Seventh day of August 1728. Present: Jogn Tayloe, Charles Grymes, Willoughby Newton and Thomas Wright Belfield, Gentlemen Justices. Rooker bound to his Behaviour Robert Rooker of North Farham parish haveing been Summoned to Answer the presentment of the Grandjury against him for being a Common Drunkard and Swearer and this day Appearing but offering nothing Materiall to Excuse himselfe. It is the Opinion of this court and Accordingly ordered that for the said Offence he give good and Sufficient Security for his good Behaviour during the Terme of one year. Whereupon the said Roger Rooker Together with Edward Cornwell his Security in open court Acknowledged themselves Indebted unto our Sovereign Lord the King his heirs and Successors in the sum of Twenty pounds Sterling to be Levyed on their Lands and Tenements goods and Chattles with condition that the said Roger Rooker shall be of good Behaviour as well Towards his Majestie as all his Leige people,
That then this recognizance to be Void and of None Effect or Else to Remain in full Force.”
Roger didn’t have enough land or money to provide his own security, which is similar to posting bond. Edward Cornwell hoped Roger would behave himself; he would have lost twenty pounds sterling or his land if Roger appeared in court within a year.
Roger and his wife Eleanor left their two children in Virginia and were next found in Dublin City, Ireland. They baptized a son, Henry on 14 Nov 1736. He appeared in English records when he created a new court record at age 67. He was convicted of assault and given the choice of staying in the London Jail or returning to the colonies, which of course was his choice. We always wondered why no one in the family was named after him; these records certainly provided the answer!
