• General Notes

  Note: Matthew Howard (c1607-c1659) immigrated to Virginia before 1635 and may or may not have moved to Maryland. We are pretty sure that Matthew cames from the Dukes of Norfolk line. Matthew's son, John affixed his seal to his will dated 30 December 1695 (produced in Court 19 May 1696, which displays "the undifferenced arms of the Howards: on an escutcheon, a Bend between six crosses crosslet fitchee. The three lower 'crosses' are placed diagonally with the bend (one 'cross' being chipped off), and these arms of the red waxen seal correspond with the exemplification of the original arms of the Howard family of Yorkshire, whence descended Thomas, Duke of Norfolk, to whom Henry VIII granted an augmentation of the arms for his signal service as General of the Army at Flodden-field."
  The ancestry of Matthew HOWARD is unknown. One theory of his ancestry, the HOWARD-ARUNDELL theory has been found to have no validity. Another theory, the HOWARD-DOUGLAS theory, is that Matthew was a great grandson of Thomas HOWARD and Margaret DOUGLAS (niece of King Henry VIII).
  This theory is also highly improbable. The foundation of Moss' theorym rests on a false premise, that does not show a union between the HOWARD and DOUGLAS families as he implied. Matthew HOWARD's son John HOWARD on his 1695 will affixed a wax seal, which corresponds with the undifferenced arms of the HOWARD family of England, from which descended the HOWARD family of the Duke of Norfolk. The arms were on an escutheon, a bend between six cross crosslets fitchee.
  After the Battle of Flodden in 1513, Thomas, Duke of Norfolk, was granted an augmentation that appeared on the bend as a small shield with the demi-lion of the arms of the King of Scotalnd cut in half with an arrow through its mouth. The seal used by John HOWARD did not contain the augmentation.
  Many writers have stated that the use of the arms by John HOWARD showed that the family was not too distantly related to the Norfolk line. They also believed that the MD Howards would not have used the arms, if they did not have the "legal" right.
  Illegal use of arms was a problem, both in England and America. The purpose of the Herald's Visitations in England in the 16th and 17th centuries were to determine those who did have right to display arms. Little, if any, effort was made by colonial governments to enforce laws regarding Heraldry.
  Contemporary with when John HOWARD wrote his will, a Mr. Gore, a carriage painter in Boston created arms for socialites there.28
  Undifferenced usage of arms passed at death to a man's eldest son, other sons being allowed to use a differenced version of the arms. In that John HOWARD used the undifferenced, pre-1513 arms of the Ducal HOWARDs his usage was illegal according to the laws of Heraldry. Whether the HOWARD family of MD was entitled to use a differenced version of the Ducal arms is unknown.
  Matthew HOWARD and wife Anne had children:
  1. Ann HOWARD1 b. ca. 1637;2 m. James GRENEFFE;4 living 16864
  2. Elizabeth HOWARD1 b. ca. 1639; m. Henry RIDGELY;5 d. 16696-16727 Anne
  Arundel Co., MD
  3. Matthew HOWARD1 b. ca. 1641;2 m. Sarah DORSEY;8 d. between 3 Oct. 1691
  and 12 Jan. 1692 Anne Arundel Co., MD3
  4. Cornelius HOWARD1 b. ca. 1643;2 m. Elizabeth;9 d. between 15 April and
  15 Oct. 1680 Anne Arundel Co., MD9
  5. John HOWARD1 b. ca. 1645;2 m.1. Susanna (NORWOOD) widow of Charles
  STEVENS;10 m.2. Eleanor,12 widow of John MACCUBIN;11 d. between 30 De
  c. 1695
  and 13 May 1696 Anne Arundel Co., MD12
  6. Samuel HOWARD1 b. ca. 1647;2 m. Catherine14 WARNER;13 d. between 28 Fe
  b. 1702
  and 9 Nov. 1703 Anne Arundel Co. MD14
  7. Philip HOWARD3 b. ca. 1649;2 m. Ruth BALDWIN;15 d. between 25 July 17
  01 and
  24 Feb. 1701 [1702] Anne Arundel Co., MD16
  There are claims that Matthew HOWARD had a daughter Mary who married Jo
  hn HAMMOND. The earliest mention I have found of this is by J. D. WARFIE
  LD in 1905.22 H

Details of Matthew's family with Anna Hall