The Daily times. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1886-1889, 1888-08-12
THE INDIAN MAIDEN.
yBE HONORABLE NARhiiGE or THE
ISDLN PRINCESS.
Conclusion of the Reply 10 Mr.. Neiil-
Roles Former Wife wr0the, Wroife'
and RoIfc-Ihe Register AT Gravcsend
Her Son. John Eolfe.


Mr.. NELL 10 discover some way 10 us
proye il. / irst he discredils the testimony
in Uamor's book, and iDsinuaies That
Whittaker's and Rolfe's hetters were
forged in London and IN case this tne-
orS should fall through, be IS READY 'of
ether horn OF the dilemma, ana charges
(agsin by insinuationl that Rome h"1
wife living eft his white wife was dead,
ne remarks) and Pocahontas husband.
Uamors True Relation was printed IN
1917 and in 1916 Dale and Role were In
Eneland If the letters of Whitaker
and Rolfe are fOrgeries so must be that
Of Dale in the same work and so must
no Uamor's statement in regard TO the
marriage and TO Roles letter he false.
Uamor saws he delivered Rolfe's letter 10
Dale and the latter mentions the receipt
of il. All must be true or all faise. III
Hamor was alone guilty OF such atorgerY,
ne would surely have been exposed the
mex, wear. and If he did not do 1t alone,
tbep Dale. Whitaker and Role were
rsr,icipants in the faisehOod and coz
doned the forgery, for they. OF course,
knew Of the publication OF The DOCK.
Can any sane man credit anything so
obsurdy Would the pious Whitaker have
been guilty of ii? Would Dale or Hamor
or Ro.fe have been guilty of crime and
qualification which would necessarily ne
discovered in a short timer In the 'Pll-
grims." published in 1923, Purchas, who
knew all the parties well, copies the let
tors and the accounts OF the marriage (,
and between 1914 aud 1925 scores OF men
must have seen llamOr's book who were
acquainted with the circumstances, but
until Mr. Nell arose no one had ever
denied the truth Of the statement it CON
tans.
And now for the question of the
former wife and husband. On February
llth. 1910, Bermuda, the infant child of
John Rolfe was christened at the Bermuda
Islands while Sir George S0mers' expedi-
ton TO Virginia was there. Rolfe, then,
was undoubtedly married when he first
left England. A fact wel'-known and
never denied But there can be no doubt
that this first wife either died at Inc
Bermudas, as several persons, whose
names are not given, did, or not long aiter
reaching Virginia, for no one but WIN
che capacious Imagination of Neil can
suppose that an English wife would re-
main silent and give no sign, while her
husband was living in Virginia and Eng
land. as the husband of another woman,
or that there should have been no men
ton of such state of affairs The TACT
that there is no record of the death OF the
first wife proves nothing for II more OF
the col0uists were dead, except those
whose deaths are matters Of record, a
great majority Of the early settlers would
still be- with us. With the exception OF
persons of prominence and official station
there is record Of but few deaths in the
colony before the census of 1928.
Such is one ground for Mr. Neill's at
tack upon Rolfe and POcahontas. Does
he regard ii an indubitable evidence OF
deprayity for a man TO marry second
time. or for woman TO marry q widow
er? Aud now the ubiquitous NELL takes
the other side. If, says he, ROlfe did not
have wife living it is very probable
that Pocahontas had q husband, for
Strachey, in his Virginia Britannica, says
that Pocahontas has "since married Ko-
cum, a private captain" No other writer
makes any such statement, and every
other writer, and men who were in Vir-
ginia and knew. state otherwise. What
Strachey was talking about it is now I'M
possible TO say lie nigh, have misun-
derstoOd the account of her marriage
with Rolfe (for he was writing in Eng
lsnd) or he might not have known what
he was talking about. But one thing is
Certsin--that he was mistaken.
Pocahontas died, says Dir. Neil, as the
wife of Thomas Wrothe," referring to
her burial register at Grayesendj The
engraving on her picture made al the
time also calls her the wife of Thomas
Wrolfe Gent" The entry of the death
has been given yariOusly; but writer in
Notes aud Queries says the name is
"WrOlfe' Ii would be easy for an en-
graver unacquainted with Rolfe, 10 make
make such a mistake, and to substitute
Thomas for John, as il would be for who
ever made the entry in the register at
Grayesend for Rolfe was there waiting TO
take shipping TO Virginia, and doubtless
had little time TO attend TO such things But
it would not be easy for all the writers in
Virginia TO overlook such a per,On as
Thomas WrOthe' Ii is indeed waste
of time TO discuss such a matter, for out
Of the dozen proofs that occur at once,
the letter of Henry Role referring to the
child his brother John Role had by
PocahOntas, and the letter of the Virginia
Company in 1913, settle the matter.
But Mr. NELL is not defeated yet. Tie
is determined 20 find flaw somewhere
in the account, so in his Virginia Nctusta
saws that after the death of Pocahontas
R0lfe married Jane, daughter OF Captain
William Pierce, and had two children,
Thomas. born about 1919, and Elizabeth,
born 1920.
That Rolfe married Jane Pierce is true,
and that he had daughter Elizabeth by
this marriage born 1920 is also true for
she is mentioned in his will and in the
census of 1923 (Hattens Emmigiants)
her age is given, and she is named as an
inmate Of the family of Captain Roger
Smith. But that Thomas Rolfe was the
son of Jane Pierce, or was born in 1919.
is untrue, and not one word can be found
in print or manuscript TO sustain the as
sertion. Neill admits that POcahontas
had a son who was under charge of
his uncle Henry Rolfe in London,
but says this was Thomas. What his
name was or what became Of him even
Mr.. NELL does not attempt TO inform US.
Rolfe in his will, dated 1922, speaks of