Nicholas "the immigrant" Gentry

Nicholas Gentry and his brother Samuel Gentry were among His Majesty's troops

sent to Jamestown, VA, to quell an indian uprising. When his duties were ended

he decided to stay in this new country. Early land records indicate they had

land adjacent to each other. No descendants of Samuel Gentry have been found.

The first authentic record we have found of the Gentrys is in the

register of St. Peter's Parish of New Kent County, VA, shows the baptism of

Peter Gentry, son of Samuel Gentry on 10 April 1687. No other trace of this

Peter Gentry has been found. St. Peter's Registry also shows the baptism of

Elizabeth Gentry, on 29 August 1687; Nicholas Gentry baptized 30 May 1697, and

Mable Gentry baptized 13 December 1702.

he decided to stay in this new country. Early land records indicate they had land adjacent to each other. No descendants of Samuel Gentry have been found.

The first authentic record we have found of the Gentrys is in the register of St. Peter's Parish of New Kent County, VA, shows the baptism of Peter Gentry, son of Samuel Gentry on 10 April 1687. No other trace of this Peter Gentry has been found. St. Peter's Registry also shows the baptism of Elizabeth Gentry, on 29 August 1687; Nicholas Gentry baptized 30 May 1697, and

Mable Gentry baptized 13 December 1702. Parents: GENTRY.

He was married in NEW KENT, VA.

Children were: SAMUEL II GENTRY, JOSEPH II GENTRY, ELIZABETH II GENTRY, NICHOLAS GENTRY, MABEL GENTRY, JAMES GENTRY

Nicholas b.1665 and his brother Samuel came to America as British soldiers during the "Bacon rebellion" . Their troopship arrived in 1677 and they served

at Mattapony Garrison, VA from 1677 to 1683. In the fall of 1683 they were paid off and discharged from the British Army and settled in New Kent County,

VA.He was also known as "Nicholas the immigrant"

The Gentry's were of Old Germanic Stock, and sprung from English families, they are descendants of the Huguenots who escaped from France during the time of persecution in the 16th and 17th centuries.

The name Gentry originally meant "Scribes" or learned people, and this was the name given to the family when surnames were adopted. Later in England the name came to mean "Nobility".

Among soldiers sent from England to Virginia to cope with Beacon's Rebellion were two brothers; Nicholas and Samuel Gentry. They came from Essex County, England and arrived in Jamestown, Virginia in January of 1677. They were discharged from the British Army and payed off in Jamestown in the fall of 1683. They elected to remain in America and settled in the area of Hanover, Louisa, New Kent, Virginia and surrounding Counties.

His is believed to be the son of Richard Gentry III who was the son of Samuel Gentry II, and grandson of Nicholas I

During the period of Roundhead Parliament under Oliver Cromwell, no new Governors were sent to the Virginia colony. The people elected their own government and exercised rights of universal suffrage. They became accustomed to having equality as British subjects and enjoyed self government. After the Restoration, King Charles II sent Lord Berkley to Virginia to restore the authority of the throne. Berkley was a tyrant and imposed harsh taxes and restrictions on commerce. Self government was abolished. The people were aroused by the deprivation of their liberty, and in 1676 they rallied behind Mathaniel Bacon to overthrow the oppressive Berkley regime. This time to prevent Berkley's return, they burned Jamestown to the ground. The colonist enjoyed liberty for a short time under Bacon's leadership, but he took ill and died. The colonist could find no one to replace him and Berkley once again regained control. He instituted vengeful reprisals against the rebels, hanging 22 of their leaders. King Charles recalled Berkley and replaced him with Lord Culpepper, who was as venal as Berkley. King Charles recalled Culpepper and declared Virginia a royal providence.

At age 19, Nicholas set sail for the American colonies. He boarded either the "Rose" or the "Dartmouth" on December 3, 1676. He and Samuel, his brother, were two of 1130 men sent by the King to quell the "Bacon Rebellion".

When they arrived in America, February 11, 1677, Nathaniel Bacon was dead and the rebellion was over. Nicholas and Samuel were stationed at Mattapony Garrison and remained in service to the British throne for another six years before being paid and mustered out. (Alaine Preciado) <equilla@psnw.com>

JOURNAL OF GENTRY GENEALOGY

Volume 1 Issue 1

February, 2001

Home Page and Index

NOTES AND HYPOTHESES ABOUT THE EARLY GENTRY FAMILY IN AMERICA

By

A. Denny Ellerman

(Reprinted from "Gentry Family Gazette and Genealogy", vol iii, #17, p.55-65 (Dec 1982), published by Richard H. Gentry, McLean, Virginia)

Abstract: The difficulty in finding any land or other references to the first three generations of Gentrys in Virginia explains the lack of accounts of these generations in "The Gentry Family in America". Ellerman proposes that Nicholas and Samuel Gentry were the only Gentrys to reach America in the 17th century, and Nicholas was the only one of the two to remain in the colonies.

Probably the most difficult task in establishing the genealogy of the Gentry family in America is determining the connections among the first three generations in America. These generations span the one hundred years between the arrival of the presumed brothers, Nicholas and Samuel, before 1684, and the American Revolution. The records for these first three generations are found with few exceptions in Virginia, since the migrations of the family to the states to the south and west occurred at the time of or after the Revolution. Unfortunately, the records for this period, and in particular for some of the counties in which the Gentry family settles, are sparse. Few of those which do exist establish definitive relationships among the Gentrys who are cited.

This period was the most difficult one for Richard Gentry in his path-breaking "The Gentry Family in America" (hereafter cited as GFA), which remains the point of departure for all genealogical research on the Gentry family on this side of the Atlantic. Except for the second Nicholas Gentry (hereafter, Nicholas-II to distinguish the son from the immigrant father, Nicholas-I), Richard Gentry was unable to make any other second and third generation connections. This is obvious in the second part of the book where the many Gentry family groups who cannot be connected to Nicholas-I or Nicholas-II Gentry are listed. In fact, "The Gentry Family in America" is really an account of the descendants of Nicholas-II Gentry with considerable information concerning what are assumed to be collateral branches of the family.

The present-day researcher has far more to work with than did Richard Gentry more than seventy years ago. In the intervening years, many more of the county records of colonial Virginia have been published and indexed, so that it is no longer as necessary for the researcher to proceed laboriously page by page through the original books looking for the occasional reference to a Gentry. A splendid example is the recent publication of the early Louisa County records by Rosalie Edith Davis. Many of the references which had been found by early researchers, and which are cited in GFA, can now be placed in context by more extensive documentation which permits a more complete and continuous picture of a particular individual

Despite these advantages, the modern researcher is still not likely to be able to make the definitive connections that would satisfy good research standards. Although one can always hope that a document will turn up sooner or later that will permit definitive relationships to be established, it must be recognized that the state of late seventeenth and early eighteenth century records is such that few such documents can be anticipated. Instead, the delineation of relationships within the first three generations of Gentrys will have to proceed by means of inference based on what scraps of information are available. Such a procedure is not dissimilar to methods of scientific inquiry where laboratory experiment is not possible, notably with respect to social phenomena, and where statistical inference provides the rules for separating meaningful insight from intriguing speculation.

The present article is an attempt at applying this procedure to what is probably the irremediably incomplete documentation on the early Gentrys. It is an attempt at organizing the available data in a way that is eighty percent accurate where the present, and perhaps permanent, incompleteness of the data does not permit the drawing of definitive conclusions. In so doing, working hypotheses are developed to serve three purposes: 1) To organize the available data to tell a plausible and hopefully accurate story; 2) To guide further research for the definitive documentation which would prove or disprove the working hypotheses; and 3) To provide the stimulus for the piecing together of other scraps of information or for different readings of the circumstances prevailing at the time and place that will lead to the elaboration of alternative hypotheses that organize the extant data in a more meaningful fashion.

Section 1: The Immigrant First Generation

Two hypotheses are advanced in this section. These are, first, that Nicholas and Samuel Gentry were the only Gentrys to emigrate to Virginia in the colonial period, and second, that only Nicholas survived or remained in the colony. The first hypothesis has been more or less assumed by most researchers based on family tradition related in GFA. The second hypothesis has long been suspected and has been given additional support by the recent publication of a land patent that has perhaps escaped the notice of many researchers on the Gentry family. Both hypotheses are very helpful in bringing some order to the second generation which is the subject of the next section to follow.

Working Hypothesis #I

The only Gentrys to emigrate to America in the seventeenth or eighteenth centuries were Nicholas and Samuel who, by family tradition, were brothers.

The earliest known record of a Gentry in America is the 1684 patent for 300 acres in the vicinity of Totopotomoy's Creek in New Kent County (later Hanover County) by Samuel Gentry. The entry in the patent book is cited in full below with the original spelling and punctuation. The citation comes from Nell Marion Nugent's "Cavaliers and Pioneers: Abstracts of Virginia Land Patents and Grants. Vol. II (1666-1695)", page 282.

"Samuell Gentrey, 300 acs., New Kent Co.; S. side of York River; Betw. brs. of same and brs. of Tottapottamoys Cr., 21 Oct 1684, p. 405 (of Patent Book 7). Adj. Col. John Page, Esqr.; Edward Houchin and Nicholas Gentrey. Trans. of 6 pers; John Morris, Francis Middleton, Hen. Tully, Elizabeth Ody, Mor. Gardner, 2."

Aside from the obvious information concerning date and location, this patent contains two items of great interest. The first is the reference to Nicholas Gentry who is an adjacent landowner. The fact that Samuel would take out land adjacent toa person of the same surname must be considered a strong indication of some family connection between the two. The assumption that the two were brothers is based on family tradition as discussed on pages 14-15 of GFA.

The second item of note in this patent is that Samuel was granted the 300 acres for transporting 6 persons to the colony. This is completely in keeping with the headright system by which 50 acres were granted for every person brought into the colony. [Edit. note: a coming article will delve into the headright and indentured worker system in more detail.] It is not clear whether Samuei Gentry was one of the six persons for whom headrights were claimed. Five names are listed, leaving room for Samuel to be the sixth; however, there is a curious "2" listed after the last name suggesting that the sixth person could be an unnamed dependent of Mor(ris?) Gardner. There is no other reference in the land patent records to Samuel Gentry as either transporting himself or being transported by another. This could be explained by speculation advanced by Richard Gentry in GFA, that Nicholas and Samuel were British soldiers brought over to quell Bacon's Rebellion and later released to settle in Virginia. If so, Samuel was presumably able to accumulate the money as a soldier, or after discharge, to pay for the transportation of others to the colony, or to buy someone else's headrights.

In this regard, another land patent is of interest in indicating that Nicholas Gentry was transported to the colony by someone else, and not as a British soldier. The following citation is taken from Nugent's Vol. 1II (1695-1732), p. 39, where Patent Book 9 is copied.

"George Alves granted 1014 acres in New Kent Co., St. Peters Perish, on both sides of Totopotomoys Creek, 24 Apr 1700, p. 268, for transportation of [21 persons, among whom is to be found Nicholas Gentry, George Alves and an Alice Alves]."

The Alves family will be found adjacent to the Gentrys not only on Totopotomoy's Creek, but also at a later settlement further upriver in Hanover County. Since Nicholas Gentry was in Virginia as early as 1684, this grant to George Alves was obviously made long after the actual transportation had been made, as was not infrequently the case. Alternatively, this particular patent may have been a reconfirmation of an earlier grant for which no record is now (and perhaps then) available. In any case, this entry suggests that Nicholas did not come over as a British soldier but as dependent in some manner, perhaps as an indentured worker, of a George Alves or unknown person from whom George bought Nicholas' headright..

It should be further noted that there is no record of a land grant to Nioholas Gentry, similar to the one for Samuel Gentry. Presumably, Nicholas purchased land on Totopotomoy's Creek or was granted it after his arrival in the colony. The land transfer records of New Kent County could provide invaluable information on Nicholas Gentry, but those records were destroyed.

In view of the above, it ought to be questioned whether Nicholas and Samuel were British soldiers brought over to quell Bacon's Rebellion. This bit of family tradition may be more post-revolutionary embroidery on the family's undoubtedly English origins than fact. If the patents cited above are to be believed, Nicholas Gentry certainly was not brought over as soldier and the patent for Samuel Gentry suggests a man of more means than what would have been likely for British soldiers in the late seventeenth century. A further consideration is that New Kent County was a hot-bed of pro-Bacon sentiment during Bacon's Rebellion and one wonders whether it would have been the place a couple of ex-Redcoats would have chosen to settle.

The records cited above provide the basis for assuming that both Samuel and Nicholas were immigrants. In the 1680s, there were still few native-born. The only adult Gentrys found in the early Virginia records before 1709 are Samuel and Nicholas. Others are found after 1709, a full generation after the original seating on Totopotomoy's Creek; but those references are easily related to Nicholas Gentry in a manner that makes it most likely that they are his descendants.

Working Hypothesis #2

Of the two related Gentry immigrants, only Nicholas survived or remained in America, so that all the Gentrys of colonial Virginia and their progeny descend from Nicholas Gentry only.

The vestry book of St. Peter's Parish, New Kent County, Virginia, which was transcribed by C. G. Chamberlayne, contains the following entries on pages 357-358 relating to the baptisms of:

Peter, son of Samuel Gentry on April 10, 1687;

Elizabeth, daughter of Nicholas Gentry an August 29, 1689;

Nicholas, son of Nicholas Gentry on May 30, 1697; and

Mable, daughter of Nicholas Gentry on December 13, 1702.

Both immigrants clearly had children in Virginia and it could be supposed that the many Gentrys who cannot be definitely related to the Nicholas-II are descended either from Peter or from other sons of Samuel and Nicholas-I who did not get entered into the St. Peter's Parish Vestry Book.

There are however two circumstances which suggest that the immigrant Samuel Gentry and his son Peter either died or did not stay in colonial Virginia. The first of these is the complete absence of any mention of either this Samuel Gentry or of Peter Gentry in the existing records of this period. (A later Samuel Gentry who is a member of the second generation starts showing up in the records in the 1720s and can be traced through at least the 1760s.) Of course, the records for this period are not many, particularly for New Kent County, where the Gentry family first settled. Nevertheless, a continuous skein of evidence attests to the presence of Nicholas Gentry from 1684 through 1709, and always in the vicinity of Totopotomoy's Creek. This skein of evidence consists of the following items:

1684 Nicholas Gentry is cited as an adjacent landowner in the previously cited patent which granted 300 acres on Totopotomoy's Creek in New Kent County to Samuel Gentry.

1689 Nicholas Gentry is named in a processioning order of the St. Peter's Parish Vestry (op.cit., p. 21).

1689 Nicholas Gentry is cited as the father of Elizabeth who was baptised on August 29 of this year in St. Peter's Parish in New Kent County (Chamberlayne, "St. Peter's," p. 357).

1697 Nicholas Gentry is identified as the father of Nicholas who was baptised on May 30 of this year in St. Peter's Parish (op.cit., p. 357).

1701 Nicholas Gentry is ordered paid for clothes and funeral charges for a Mabel Wood (op. cit., p. 78).

1702 Nicholas Gentry is identified as father of Mable baptised on December 13 in St. Peter's Parish (op. cit. p. 358)

1703 Nicholas Gentry and all the "tithables up the north side of Totopotomoy's Creek," are ordered to help George Alves clear the roads in his predinct (op. cit., p. 89).

1709 Nicholas Gentry and "Jo Gentry" are named as land-owners in Precinct 13 for the 1708/09 Procesioning (Chamberlayne, "St. Paul's," p. 212). (St. Paul's Parish was formed in 1704 from the upper reaches of St. Peter's Parish including Totopotomoy's Creek.)

1709 Nicholas Gentry is appointed overseer for and keeping in repair an unspecified road cited in a county court order of January 8, 1708/09. Joseph Gentry as well as several others named in the Precinct 13 processioning order for this year are ordered to assist (op. cit., pp. 32-33).

1709 Nicholas Gentry enters complaint that more assistance is needed to keep his road passable and the vestry wardens order that 12 additional tithables be sent for two days to assist Nicholas Gentry make bridges over Crump's Creek and the Deep Swamp (op. cit., pp. 33-34). (Crump's Creek is a tributary of the Pamunkey River to the north of Totopotomoy's Creek and south of Mechumps Creek on which the Hanover County Court House would later be located.)

1709 Nicholas Gentry is cited in a payment order of the St. Peter's Parish vestry wardens in connection with Henry Chiles for keeping Benjamin Billingsly (op. cit., p. 35).

This undoubtedly incomplete record is nevertheless convincing in demonstrating that Nicholas Gentry was alive and did remain in New Kent County at what must be presumed to have been the first home of the Gentry family in America in the vicinity of Totopotomoy's Creek. (This part of the county later became Hanover County which it remains to this day.) With the exception of the entry dated 1687 concerning the baptism of Samuel's son, Peter, there is no record of Samuel Gentry. It could have easily happened that Samuel and his family moved to another county; however, the quit rent rolls of 1704 which gave the first comprehensive listing of landowners in colonial Virginia list only one Gentry, Nicholas, the owner of 250 acres in New Kent County. (See "The Quit Rents of Virginia, 1704", compiled by Annie Laurie Wright Smith, p. 35.) And, to this writer's knowledge, no record of either the first Samuel or the son Peter has been found in any other county records of this period. The verdict of Richard Gentry, "No other trace or record of this Peter or any other child of Samuel Gentry has ever been found," (GFA, p. 15) appears as sound in 1982 as it was in 1909.

The second circumstance supporting the hypothesis that Samuel Gentry and his descendants did not survive or remain in Virginia is a recently published record of a later patent concerning the 300 acres originally granted to Samuel Gentry. The patent, an extract of which is quoted in full below, can be found on page 107 of Nugent's recently published Volume III concerning patents issued between 1695 and 1732.

"David Holt, 300 acs. New Kent Co., S. side of York River, bet. brs. of Sd. River and and brs. of Totopotomoys Creek, 2 May 1706, p. 728 (of Patent Book 9). Adj. Col John Page, Esqr., land of Edward Hawkins and Nicho, Gentry. Granted Samuell Gentry, 21 Oct. 1684, who deeded same to David Crawford, Grandfather of said David Holt, 5 Jan. 1685,who by deed of gift, dated 28 May 1686, conveyed to said David Holt, then and still a minor, the land is granted by order, etc."

This,entry is a good example of the benefits to be derived from a good index for no one would have thought to look under David Holt for information about Samuel or Nicholas Gentry and few researchers would have the time or patience to read through every word of the patent records for a reference to a Gentry. This entry in the patent books was not an original grant but a confirmation of the current owner's possession by merit of earlier purchase from the original patentee.

It is clearly indicated here that Samuel Gentry did not long own the 300 acres he took out in 1684. Indeed the question can be raised whether he ever even "seated" himself on the grant. What appears to be the case is that soon after acquiring the land, which was his right for transporting six persons to the colony, he sold it to another who stayed.

Samuel Gentry's possession of the patented land was little more than a year (5 Jan 1685 is 5 Jan 1686 by the new calendar adopted in the 1740s which moved the change in year from April 1 to January 1). That allows for the possibility of having put in a crop for one growing season in 1685; but, if so, Samuel Gentry did not continue. He obviously was still living in St. Peter's Parish for a year or more after he sold the 300 acres since Peter was baptised on April 10, 1687. Thereafter, there is no further record.

Premature death certainly cannot be ruled out for both Samuel and Peter; however, return to England must be viewed as equally probably, expecially since Samuel seems to have been a person of sufficient means to transport six persons to the colony in the first instance. Whatever the sum received from David Crawford for the 300 acres, the absence of further record of Samuel Gentry in colonial Virginia argues against the supposition that Samuel bought land elsewhere and stayed on in the colony.

All that we can assert for sure is that Samuel Gentry, who was quite probably related to Nicholas Gentry, had arrived in the colony by October 1684, that he was still there in April 1687, and that in this period of time he converted his headrights to land, sold the land little more than a year later, and fathered a son. The baptismal entry makes it clear that Peter was legitimate and from that circumstance we can also strongly infer that Samuel had taken a wife in the colony since there is no indication of a wife among those for whom head-rights were claimed with the 1684 patent.

Coming Issues

The manner in which the political, religious, and cultural climate of 17th and 18th century Virginia affects our knowledge of the early Gentrys, including the "headright" and "indentured worker" systems and the lack of land records, will be briefly summarized. In addition, we will describe St. Peter's Parish and St. Paul's Parish in which the early Gentrys resided, and their related records.

Following issues will cover in considerable detail in turn: the evidence for the make-up of the family of Nicholas-I; what we know of Nicholas' sons, Joseph-II and Samuel-II; and the documentary evidence for the brief description of Nicholas-II found in "The Gentry Family in America".

© 2001, W.M. Gentry - All rights reserved. This article may be reproduced in whole or in part for non-commercial purposes provided that proper attribution (including author and journal name) is included.

Return to Top

Family and Descendants of Nicholas GENTRY the Immigrant

by

Tom Gentry

with contributions by

Willard Gentry

(Revised - see footnote)

The Genealogy of Nicholas (The Immigrant) Gentry is a fascinating collection of facts, traditions and myths about the descendants and antecedents of Nicholas I. A few Gentry genealogy enthusiasts have used the information available to weave a very plausible tapestry of the descendants of Nicholas I. Many of the myths about the early Gentrys have been researched and confirmed or debunked. Where actual facts are not available, logical hypotheses fitting the facts surrounding the question were created. This descendant chart gives an overview of this research and its compilation in the Journal of Gentry Genealogy (JGG). Next to the name in the chart is a list of references which call out the issue of the JGG or the Individual Number used in Richard Gentry's "The Gentry Family in America" (GFA). It is hoped that this will be another tool for genealogists to use in tracing Gentry ancestors through the first five generations of descendants of Nicholas I.

The Index as printed here is our best estimate of the composition of the various families involved based on information currently available, although admittedly a few relationships are quite speculative. It does not, however, include all of the early Gentrys as some relationships are still unresolved. The list is a volatile one which will certainly change from time to time in the future as additions and corrections become available. We would be naive to think that there are not errors or mistakes in judgment included here. An ongoing corrected copy will be maintained at http://yahoogroups.com/group/GFGE rather than at this location. It should be noted that where there is disagreement between this printing and proposals published in prior issues of the Journal of Gentry Genealogy, the material listed here represents conclusions that have changed with time. Additions or corrections supported by reliable data are welcome and should be directed to the first-named author at GFGE@yahoogroups.com only.

Note. Revisions of a number of earlier issues of the Journal of Gentry Genealogy in June 2008 reflect changes in conclusions as to Gentry family relationships by the editor of the Journal over a period of several years. These include (1) James Gentry Sr. as a son of Nicholas-I Gentry rather than a son of Joseph-II Gentry; (2) David Gentry Sr. as a son of Nicholas-I Gentry rather than a son of Samuel-II Gentry; and (3) John Gentry of Hanover County, Virginia as a son of James-II Gentry rather than a son of Joseph-III Gentry. In addition there have been a few relatively minor changes within a number of descendant families. The chart presented below incorporates these changes.]

(GFAxxx) = "Gentry Family in America" Individual Number or Citation

(Ixx-xxx) = Issue of "Journal of Gentry Genealogy" at www.gentryjournal.org

Major revision 21 Jul 2008, last minor revision 12 Nov 2008

________________________________________

0. NATHANIEL GENTRY(I-3) (b.Abt 1617, Essexshire, England)

	sp: Mary --?--

|--1. SAMUEL GENTRY (I-1) (b.Abt 1649, Kelvedon, Essexshire, England)
| sp: UNKNOWN
| +--2. PETER GENTRY (I-1) (bapt 1687, New Kent Co., VA)
+--1. NICHOLAS GENTRY (I-1)(I-2)(I-3)(GFA1) (b.Abt 1653, Essexshire, England ?; d.Abt 1709/1712, Hanover Co.,VA)
sp: UNKNOWN
Issue 2000 (A)
May 2007

Home Page and Index

	Issue B

June 2006

Home Page and Index

(Revision History: 1/26/07, See Note below)

________________________________________

The Origin of Nicholas and Samuel Gentry

Emigrants from England to Virginia

by

Willard Gentry

Note. This article was originally published with a Part B. Addendum to "Gentrys of Essex County, England". All of the material in that addendum has now been consolidated with its parent article, the re-publication of which coincides with the re-publication of this article.

The Origin of Nicholas and Samuel Gentry

Introduction

In the immediately preceding article of the Journal of Gentry Genealogy, the author summarized the known data concerning the Gentrys who were living in Essex County, England in the seventeenth century. We believe that Nicholas Gentry, and an assumed brother, Samuel, were the first Gentrys to emigrate from England to the Virginia Colony and probably were a part of one of the Essex County families. Because a very high proportion of all the Gentrys living in the United States descend from this Nicholas, it is of very great interest to Gentry genealogists to identify the source of the New World Gentrys. In a very early issue of this Journal (vol. 1, #2, March 2001) we discussed this in a cursory fashion. In this article we propose to examine the evidence in a more detailed fashion and present conclusions as to which family could have been and probably was in the ancestral line of Nicholas and Samuel, and which families could not have been.

Samuel Gentry in Virginia

There are very few known references to Nicholas and Samuel to their early years in Virginia especially relating to their first coming to the New World. We will consider these two together, assuming from the outset that they were probably brothers. The earliest reference is to Samuel, so we will consider him first. In Court Order Book One of Middlesex County Court, we find an entry dated 7 Sep 1674, as follows:

"Certificate is graunted this day to Nicholas Cocke upon his Oath according to Act for transportation of Seven persons (Vizt) Richard Anderson, Samm Salmon, Daniell Allpool, Jane Ward, Robert Reppett, Clemcent de Loppo, Sam'l Gentry [emphasis added]."<1>

At this point it will be helpful to the reader to review briefly the immigration and labor practices of the Virginia Colony in the late 1600's. The court document involved here is one awarding "headrights" to Nicholas Cocke for paying the cost of transportation of individuals to Virginia. These headrights could be bought, sold, inherited, bequeathed or otherwise transferred from person to person with the ultimate purpose of using them to obtain a grant of 50 acres of land per headright at a reduced rate. Sometimes the headrights were redeemed quite promptly. On other occasions they were accumulated over a long period of time if there was some reason to have a sufficient number for a specific purpose. We will see below, that Nicholas Gentry's transportation to Virginia generated a headright, similar to that for Samuel, that was not used for buying land until at least twenty years after he arrived in America.

It will also be helpful to review the process of indenture. This practice, and the use of headrights, are covered in more detail in an early article of the Journal of Gentry Genealogy (vol 1, #2, March 2001). In modern terms, this involved an individual, in return for free passage on a ship to Virginia, entering into a contract with the ship's master or with some other individual providing the wherewithal for this, to work for the person who held his contract for a period of time, generally seven years. The contract of indenture could be sold by one person to another, with the indentured servant (we would call them contract workers) being obligated to provide service to whomever held the contract. We must emphasize from the start that the contract owner did not own the worker -- they were not slaves. There was only an obligation to provide whatever service the contract called for in return for the contract owner providing food, shelter and clothing for the duration of the contract. A very large fraction of the settlers arriving in Virginia during the seventeenth century came in this fashion, many of them going on later to wealthy and prominent positions in the colony.

In connection with the type of service provided by these indentured servants, by far the greatest number were hired as domestic servants or as plantation workers. Virginia was in the rather unique position among the colonies of having no towns, other than Yorktown, and no need for craftsmen or a merchant class during the 1600's. This was in stark contrast to New England where, during the height of immigration in the 1640's there were half a dozen entire new towns founded by incoming settlers every summer. The reason for this was that the existing Virginia settlers were all living on plantations (growing tobacco) along the banks of navigable rivers. Whatever needs there were for furniture, farm supplies, clothing, or other necessities, were supplied by ships coming directly from England. The supplies were paid for at the source by tobacco credits held by brokers in London, and the goods were unloaded directly at the river bank from the ship. Thus there was no need for a class of people such as tailors, cabinet makers, weavers, etc. Whatever was needed that could not be shipped in, was made locally on the plantation rather than by craftsmen in an established town.

It was common practice for ship's captains to carry a shipload of would-be settlers from England to Virginia in exchange for an indenture contract. On arriving in port he would then sell these contracts to whomever needed workers. In this particular case Samuel may have left London under such circumstances and then been hired by Nicholas Cocke on arrival in Virginia, or Nicholas may have gone to London and recruited workers there directly. Nicholas Cocke was a prominent member of Christ Church Parish of Middlesex County, Virginia.<2> Today we would think of him as perhaps a general contractor, for he was paid by the parish to construct church buildings and other structures. This required labor to accomplish and for most efficient use of the labor, workers who would be free to work full time and not be needed for farming or other tasks. (Some parish responsibilities, especially for example road maintenance, were handled by requiring landowners to provide part time labor from their families or plantation workers.) We can imagine that Samuel Gentry was specifically recruited to do some of this full time construction work. He wound up under contract of indenture to Cocke beginning in 1674, and presumably continued in this status until about 1681. During this period of time, there are no references to him and we can assume he spent the entire time in Christ Church Parish.

The next reference to Samuel was in 1683 when he moved to St. Peter's Parish in what was then New Kent County, Virginia, and filed for a land grant. He would have completed his indenture by that time, and apparently had accumulated a sufficient amount of money during and after the indenture, so that he in turn could pay for the headrights for six individuals to come to Virginia. He used these headrights to pay for a grant of 300 acres on the banks of Totopotomoy Creek:

"Samuell Gentrey, 300 acs., New Kent Co.; S. side of York River; Betw. brs. of same and brs. of Tottapottamoys Cr., 21 Oct 1684, p. 405 (of Patent Book 7). Adj. Col. John Page, Esqr.; Edward Houchin and Nicholas Gentrey. Trans. of 6 pers; John Morris, Francis Middleton, Hen. Tully, Elizabeth Ody, Mor. Gardner, 2." <3a>

He must have found that plantation farming was not to his liking for within a year and a half, he sold this land:

"David Holt, 300 acs. New Kent Co., S. side of York River, bet. brs. of Sd. River and brs. of Totopotomoys Creek, 2 May 1706, p. 728 (of Patent Book 9). Adj. Col John Page, Esqr., land of Edward Hawkins and Nicho, Gentry. Granted Samuell Gentry, 21 Oct. 1684, who deeded same to David Crawford, Grandfather of said David Holt, 5 Jan. 1685 [1686 by our calendar], who by deed of gift, dated 28 May 1686, conveyed to said David Holt, then and still a minor, the land is granted by order, etc."<3b>

One final reference to Samuel is all of what remains of his presence in Virginia. The vestry book of St. Peter's Parish, New Kent County, Virginia, which was transcribed by C. G. Chamberlayne, contains the following record of baptism:

"Peter, son of Samuel Gentry on April 10, 1687"<4a>

Thereafter, no trace of Samuel has been found and we must conclude that either he decided to return to England or he died.

Nicholas Gentry in Virginia

We will now turn to Nicholas Gentry's arrival in Virginia. The earliest reference to him is in the Nov 1680 session of the York County Court whereby it was ordered:

"Nicholas Sabrell due wages for Nicholas Gentry from the forty for whom Gentry served as a soldier at Mattaponi Garrison till June 1680."<5>

This reference takes a little explanation to understand fully. Nicholas was representing his "forty" in response to a requirement that "every forty tythables within this country be assessed and obleiged...to fitt and sett forth one able and suffitient man and horse, with furniture well and compleatly armed" ("Hening's Statutes", vol 2, p.433-440 in "An Act for the Defense of The Country Against the incursion of the Indian Enemy"). We can assume that Nicholas Gentry was an available worker that could be spared for this purpose and was paid wages for this service by the county. The latter then was billing Nicholas Sabrell, as the assumed holder of his indenture, for the cost of Gentry's support.

The author has assumed above that Nicholas was present in Virginia at that time in an indentured worker status. What evidence is there to justify this? Primarily the evidence depends upon the fact that Nicholas, on coming to Virginia, had generated a headright that was owned by someone other than himself. Accordingly, the owner of that headright must have paid for Nicholas' passage, and in consequence held the indenture contract resulting from that payment. In the case of Nicholas' headright, it was not redeemed until at least twenty years later when in April 1700, George Alves used it along with twenty others to obtain a grant of some one thousand acres of land in St. Peter's Parish<3c >. Whether George Alves made the original payment for Nicholas' passage and then passed on his indentured contract to Nicholas Sabrell, or Nicholas made the payment and later sold the headright to Alves is unknown and immaterial.

The next references to Nicholas Gentry in the records were those pertaining to being a holder of land adjacent to Samuel Gentry's land grant as we have seen above. From these references we can infer that Nicholas had completed his indenture service by 1684 and was now free to farm a plantation on his own account. There is no record of any deed, either before this time or after, that would indicate he owned this land, but it was common practice for individuals who did not have land of their own to farm a part of someone else's land, particularly if they were related in some way. It is very probable that Nicholas had married at about this time, once he was free from the restrictions of indenture, and it is quite possible that he was occupying part of a father-in-law's land.

The next significant reference to Nicholas was in the vestry book records of St. Peter's Parish in which he resided, when he was listed in 1689 among the parish landholders who were divided into precincts for the purposes of processioning.<4b> [For a refresher or explanation of the practice of processioning, see Journal of Gentry Genealogy, vol 1, #2, March 2001).] Other references followed from time to time, including a record of the baptism of three of his children, but these references have no bearing on the timing or circumstances of his immigrating to Virginia from England.

The English Connection

It is time now for us to go back to the Gentrys of Essex County in England to determine whether or not we can identify a family from whom Samuel and Nicholas Gentry may have sprung. We can say from the outset that despite many attempts, no one has yet found any reference in seventeenth century England to a Nicholas Gentry. Attempts to link these two brothers to an English family must thus depend upon identifying a family to whom Samuel may have belonged.

As a prelude to this, we will list below a skeleton outline of the known Samuel Gentrys that were included in the previous issue of the Gentry Journal.

--1 John Gentry of Lindsell

	--2	Simon Gentry the Elder

--3 Roger Gentry
--4 Samuel Gentry, bapt. 1635, Lindsell; m. 1657, Sara Eve.
--3 Samuel Gentry the Elder, buried 1652, Great Dunmow; m (1) abt. 1643, Mary Raven; m(2) 1669, Susan Kendall.
--4 Nathaniel Gentry of Kelvedon
--5 Samuel Gentry, bapt. 1649, Kelvedon
--5 Samuel Gentry, b. after 1669, Kelvedon
--4 Samuel Gentry the Younger, b. abt.1627; m(1) 1655, Margaret Draper; m(2) 1682, Elizabeth Wison
--5 Samuel Gentry, bapt. 1663, Great Easton
--5 Samuel Gentry, bapt. 1683, Lindsell
To meet the necessary criteria for one of these Samuels to be the Samuel who went to Virginia, he must primarily have been of an age that he could have entered into contract service in 1674. In addition, since Samuel's headright was for a single person, he could not have been accompanied to Virginia by a wife. This rules out immediately, Samuel Gentry the Elder, and the two "duplicated" Samuels born to Nathaniel Gentry and to Samuel Gentry the Younger. There remains three Samuels, the son of Roger, the older son of Nathaniel, and the older son of Samuel Gentry the Younger. Let us consider them in turn.

• Samuel, the son of Roger, would have been 39 years old in 1674 and already married. This was certainly not typical of the young men who entered into a new life by going overseas. While it is theoretically possible that Samuel lost his wife and entered into a new life abroad, it is highly unlikely.

• Samuel, the son of Nathaniel, was 25 in the year that Samuel the Emigrant landed in Virginia. He was single and part of a family that was spreading from his father's home in Kelvedon to new locations (for example, Nathaniel Jr moving to Bocking, and brothers John and Simon moving to London). He is certainly an eligible prospect.

• Samuel, the son of Nathaniel's brother, Samuel the Younger, would have been 14 when Samuel the Emigrant landed in Virginia. It is possible that the two Samuels were the same, but it is quite unlikely that Nicholas Cocke of Middlesex County, Virginia, would take on such a young lad as a full-time worker when other prospects were available.

Are there any clues respecting the identity of Nicholas the Emigrant in terms of possible families to which he might have belonged? Again let us consider the families of Roger Gentry, Nathaniel Gentry and Samuel Gentry the Younger.

• Roger had one other known son besides Samuel, namely John Gentry who was baptized in 1637, two years after Samuel. There is no reason why Roger could not have had a third son, younger than John, that theoretically could be Nicholas. The same problems of an age that was inappropriately older than Nicholas the Emigrant apply here as they did in the case of Samuel the Emigrant. (If he was born in say 1640, he would have been forty years old when he was serving an indenture in Virginia.) There is no reason to suspect that Nicholas was a part of this family.

• We will jump over Nathaniel Gentry's family for the moment and consider next the possibility that Nicholas was part of the family of Samuel the Younger. We know that this Samuel was married to Margaret Draper in 1655 and his first child, Susan, was baptized in 1657. There was a gap of six years before the next known child was born, namely, Samuel Jr. There is no bar to the possibility that Nicholas was born in this interval and his birth or baptism record being lost. This would have meant he was born somewhere in the interval from say 1659 to 1661. He would have been in the vicinity of twenty years old in 1680 when he was serving in the Virginia militia. If we consider the possibility of Nicholas being born after Samuel, the same objection of being inappropriately young for indentured service is likely to apply.

• Nathaniel Gentry's family had several children whose baptismal records are missing, so the lack of such for Nicholas Gentry, if he was a part of this family, is not significant. If one considers the ages of Nathaniel's children, the most likely place for Nicholas to fit in would be after Simon, that is born in roughly 1657. In 1680, a Nicholas with this birth date would have been twenty-three, a prime period of life for entering into new adventures. The same considerations of living in a family where the children were spreading to new locations apply to Nicholas as to Samuel. Finally, of all the Gentry families described in the previous journal article, this family had the only Nicholas associated with it. Mary Raven, the first wife of Nathaniel, had a brother Nicholas Raven, who was named in the will of Mary's son, Simon. It is certainly possible, indeed probable, that Nicholas Gentry was named for his uncle, Nicholas.

Summary of Conclusions

When we consider the Essex County families above, we see that the only easy and logical explanation of the identity of Samuel Gentry the Emigrant is as a part of the family of Nathaniel Gentry of Kelvedon. His brother, Nicholas, on the other hand, could without difficulty have been part of the family of either Nathaniel Gentry or the family of Samuel Gentry the Younger of Lindsell. The presence of another Nicholas associated with Nathaniel's family is a big boost in favor of that family's involvement. This writer concludes then that:

1. Samuel Gentry of Middlesex County and New Kent County, Virginia was the same Samuel as the son of Nathaniel Gentry of Kelvedon, whose baptism was recorded on 22 Jul 1649.

2. Nicholas Gentry of New Kent County, Virginia was an undocumented son of Nathaniel Gentry and Mary Raven, born probably about 1657 in Kelvedon.

3. We conclude further that Samuel and Nicholas were brothers and that Samuel probably moved from Kelvedon to London, was the first to sail to Virginia, and then was followed in a few years by Nicholas.

The reverse consequence of these conclusions is that the Samuel Gentry who married Margaret Draper, was not the father of Samuel and Nicholas as stated in many Gentry family trees posted on the internet.

References

1. Ruth and Samuel Sparacio, editors and publishers of "Order Book Abstracts of Middlesex County, Virginia, 1673-1677" "Part I of Middlesex County Order Book No. 1, 1673-1680", McLean VA 1989.

2. "The Vestry Book of Christ Church Parish, Middlesex County, Virginia, 1663-1767", transcribed by C. G. Chamberlayne, Old Dominion Press, Richmond, VA, 1927.

Nicholas Cocke was a vestryman in Christ Church Parish from the time of its earliest records in 1663. The parish register shows Nicholas Cocke died 25 Oct 1687. As an indication of his prominence and wealth, an entry for 25 Nov 1673 (p.20-21), acknowledges he was "due 3200lb of Tobacco for Shingling ye Uper Chappell and paying in ye Yard and for Nailes towards ye Worke".

(Carpentry of this type may have been the kind of work that Samuel Gentry would be called up to perform as an indentured servant.)

3. Nell Marion Nugent, "Cavaliers and Pioneers: Abstracts of Virginia Land Patents and Grants", Virginia State Library, Richmond, 1977

(a) Vol. II (1666-1695)", page 282.

(b) Vol. III, p.107 (Patent Bk 9, p.728) dated 2 May 1706]

(c) Vol. III, p.37(Patent Bk 9, p.268)

	Headright for Nicholas Gentry [and 20 others] used by George Alves to obtain grant for 1014 ac on both sides of Totopotomoy Cr.. New Kent Co., St. Peter's Parish.

4. "The Vestry Book and Register of St. Peter's Parish, New Kent and James City Counties, 1684-1786", transcribed and edited by C. G. Chamberlayne, published by The Library Board, Richmond, VA, 1937,

(a) Vol. I, p.357

(b) Vestry Book, p.19-21, 4 May 1689

	"At a vestry held at St. Peters Parish Church... The several p'sons names ... were ordered to Prosession and Remark ye bounds of each mans Land Viz: ... ['Nic Gentry' among many others]."

5. "York County Deeds, Orders, and Wills, 1677-1685", vol 6, p.268

Revised 1/26/07

________________________________________

© 2007, W.M. Gentry - All rights reserved. This issue may be reproduced in whole or in part for non-commercial purposes provided that proper attribution (including authors and journal names) is included.

Return to Top

NICHOLAS GENTRY, THE IMMIGRANT

A Case Study of Erroneous Data Entry

by

Willard Gentry

Introduction

For a variety of reasons, genealogical records accumulated and saved for private use, or published on the internet or elsewhere for public use, may contain data that is false. Names, dates and locations may be wrong, as may relationships within a family. Other information may have been added where the sources for that information do not justify it. Supplementary material about the life and circumstances of an individual may be in error. Intrinsically, the only real harm from wrong data is that the people using it are misled, it does nothing to change the true course of events. For individual members of a family tree, this faulty data may affect only a few people, particularly if there are a minimum number of generations following the person who is incorrectly recorded. For ancestors who represent the start of a long line of descendants, hundreds or thousands of those descendants may be affected. Such is the case of mistakes in the record of Nicholas Gentry of Virginia, the original ancestor of an overwhelming number of people living today who include the Gentry line in their family tree. With well over four hundred family trees posted on the internet (for example in RootsWeb.com's WorldConnect site), plus many printed historical excerpts and multitudes of private records, the shadow cast by Nicholas Gentry is large indeed.

Nicholas and Samuel Gentry - A Summary

Very few incontestable facts are known about the Nicholas Gentry who first appeared in the records of the Virginia Colony in 1680. He lived in the vicinity of Totopotomoy Creek which was a part of New Kent County during Nicholas' lifetime and became a part of Hanover County in 1720. A handful of records indicate that he owned land there and was a member of St. Peters Parish (from which in 1704 St. Pauls Parish was formed). The baptisms of three of his children were recorded in the Register of St. Peters Parish, namely a daughter Elizabeth in 1689, a son Nicholas in 1697 and a daughter "Mabell" in 1702. Between 1689 and 1709, an additional seven references to a Nicholas Gentry are included in the Vestry Book of St. Peters Parish and its successor, St. Pauls Parish. (A summary of these references can be found in volume 1, issue 1 of the Journal of Gentry Genealogy - see index to volume 1.) The lack of references to this Nicholas in further Vestry Book references from 1712 onward suggests that Nicholas may have died between 1709 and 1712.

There are four references to a Samuel Gentry during this same period of time. In 1674, Nicholas Cocke was awarded headrights for transporting seven persons to Middlesex County, Virginia, including Samuel Gentry. In 1684, Samuel Gentry was granted a patent for 300 acres of land along Totopotomoy Creek adjoining land of Nicholas Gentry in New Kent County, Virginia. In 1687, the Register of St. Peters Parish records the baptism of Peter Gentry, son of Samuel Gentry on April 10th. Finally, in 1706, a deed by David Holt for the sale of 300 acres of land (still adjoining Nicholas Gentry) identifies this land as being that granted to Samuel Gentry who on 5 Jan 1685 (1686 by the modern calendar) deeded it to David Crawford (grandfather of David Holt). This Samuel is generally believed to have been a brother of Nicholas Gentry. The lack of any further references to Samuel or to his son Peter has led to the further conclusion that Samuel (and Peter) either died in Virginia or returned to England.

From these skeletal facts, genealogists have been able to flesh out a prolific family of Gentrys who descended from Nicholas. Some of the supplementary inferences and additional details have been justified, some have not. We will consider in turn most of the controversial data that has been added to the record of Nicholas to see what faulty material has been added and how it might have come about.

The British "Red-coat" Tradition

The earliest addition to the Nicholas Gentry record dates back to at least 1909. Richard Gentry, compiler of the classic book about the Gentry family, "The Gentry Family in America, 1676 to 1909", records, "There is a tradition in the family that the first Gentrys to settle in America were two young men, brothers [Samuel and Nicholas], who came from England as British soldiers, and settled in Virginia." Richard Gentry notes further, "British soldiers sent over to Virginia by Charles II [to] settle the controversy between Gov. Berkeley and the people of Virginia at the time of the Bacon Rebellion in January 1677, were not paid off and discharged until the fall of 1683, and many of them remained and settled in Virginia." Supporters of this tradition point to the historical fact that in 1684, Samuel Gentry received a grant of 300 acres of land on Totopotomoy Creek and that Nicholas Gentry was occupying land adjacent to this grant.

Richard Gentry does not say where this tradition was found in the Gentry family nor how widely supported, but for the next seventy or eighty years it was essentially accepted by Gentry family genealogists as factual. Further, many family histories have been embellished with details of the date of sailing of the British convoy, the names of the ships involved, and the names of commanding officers of the two presumed Gentry red-coats. Within the last twenty years or so, facts have come to light about the first Gentry settlers that cast in doubt this rather romantic tale and suggest instead that Samuel and Nicholas Gentry arrived in Virginia as indentured servants.

The most convincing piece of evidence is the certificate mentioned above granting headrights in September 1674 (before the time of the Bacon Rebellion) to a certain Nicholas Cocke for the transportation to Virginia of seven individuals including Samuel Gentry. This date for Samuel's presence in Virginia affects both the red-coat tradition, and also theories of his descent from Gentrys in Essex, England. Nicholas Gentry is also the subject of an early reference that predates the time of discharge of the British garrison. In 1680, a Nicholas Sabrell was ordered to pay wages to Nicholas Gentry for service in the militia of the Mattapony [River] Garrison until the previous June. Lest it be thought that the garrison in which Nicholas was serving was a British Army garrison, the court order continues with instructions that these wages "be paid to Nicholas Sabrell by the forty which Gentry serves for", a "forty" being a subdivision of the county's local population. Taken together, these two references imply that Samuel and Nicholas both came to America as indentured servants and place in doubt the family "Red-Coat Tradition".

Family Tree Postings on the Internet

The wide spread practice of posting family trees on the internet has led to the common practice of individuals downloading relevant portions of published family trees and adding those fragments to their own family trees. Many of these extended trees have been posted back to the internet, probably more have simply been included in private data collections. For a convenient way to review existing information that has been posted for Nicholas Gentry, a sampling of family trees on the RootsWeb.com WorldConnect website has been taken as source material for this study. A total of 425 trees are included, all for a Nicholas Gentry born in England who emigrated to Virginia. As one looks at this sampling, it is very obvious that the data on Nicholas originated from a much smaller number of original files. The search engine for RootsWeb tends to group together the trees that have a common source, and the same spelling, wording, source materials, comments, etc. for one family tree are often repeated for varying numbers of succeeding trees.

Lucy Cornelius, Alleged Spouse of Nicholas Gentry

In point of time, the next questionable point after that of the "Red-coat tradition" that was added to the Nicholas Gentry data skeleton, was a wife who was identified as Lucy Cornelius. This started some time after 1909, for Richard Gentry does not include any mention of this possibility in his book. A record of an LDS Church "endowment" of Lucy, dated November 1923, sets a bound for the latest date of this data entry. This writer has never been able to track the source of the suggestion that Lucy Cornelius was a wife of Nicholas. So far, no one has come forward with any reference to the existence of Lucy outside of the Nicholas family trees. While it is not possible to prove that Lucy Cornelius was never a wife of Nicholas, conversely no one so far has been able to prove that she ever existed. It is significant that in a census of parish families in St. Peters Parish in 1689, neighbors of Nicholas, there were no Cornelius families listed. It is highly probable that Lucy's name was inserted in a family submission to the patron files of the Church of Latter Day Saints (Mormons, commonly abbreviated as LDS).. As to how and why that may have occurred, we cannot say. Once included in the Ancestral File or International Genealogical Index, by church policy, changes are never made. The only corrections are by means of a new submission that includes the proper information. Like the internet today, the LDS records have always been a database that is widely available to genealogists. Its very availability makes it easy for incorrect information to be easily spread by users who do not have the inclination or the ability to properly evaluate that data.

Lucy Cornelius Embellishments

In the 425 Nicholas Gentry family trees in our study sample, 290 give Lucy Cornelius as a wife of Nicholas. A substantial portion of these trees also list a second, and in a few cases, a third wife. The alternative wives will be considered below, but for the moment let us concentrate on Lucy. A great deal of gratuitous information has been added to the records of the hypothetical Lucy Cornelius. We can summarize this as:

• Date of birth (added to 55 records): 1657 in Essex, England; 1659 in New Kent County, Virginia; 1655-1658 in England; 1665 in England; but most often 1660 in England.

• Date of death: 1704; after 1704; 1706; 1710; 1734; 109 entries have 1754 or "before 1754".

• Place of death: Most indicate New Kent, Virginia; "New Kent County, Hanover, Virginia"; or simply Virginia; 49 give Fort Nashboro, Tennessee [how this originated is difficult to imagine since Fort Nashboro was not built until 1779].

• Marriage: 1677 to 1695, most often about 1686; the place is most often given as New Kent County, Virginia. Several trees add the notation "National Society Daughters of Colonial Wars lists marriage as 1686". A number of family trees, and some documents relating the history of the Gentry family, have indicated that Lucy was married to Nicholas by proxy, the marriage taking place in the "Faculty Office" of the Archbishop of Canterbury in London, England, in 1690. [This is a legitimate possibility on its face, since the Faculty Office of the Church of England did perform proxy marriages under special circumstances. This possibility has been disproved, however, by a search of the record of marriages from 1685 to 1695 (stored in the Lambeth Palace Library in London, England) in which there is no mention of either a Nicholas Gentry or a Lucy Cornelius.]

Other Suggested Wives for Nicholas Gentry

Compared to Lucy Cornelius, the next most common proposal for a wife of Nicholas has been Mabel (or Mable) Wood. In the sampling of Nicholas Gentry family trees used for this study, 122 list Mabel as the only wife or as one of two or more wives of Nicholas. A dozen of these trees go further in listing her as "Jane Mabel/Mable Wood". The name Mabel Wood has a source that we will trace in a moment, but the addition of Jane as a first name is difficult to reconcile. The best explanation is probably that the originator of this name was confused with Nicholas Gentry Jr., son of Nicholas Sr., and picked up the name, Jane, from the former's will. Nicholas Jr. died in Albemarle County, Virginia in 1787, and included a wife, Jane in the will.

The name, Mabel Wood, undoubtedly has been taken from the Vestry Book records of St. Peters Parish. In 1701, Nicholas Gentry was reimbursed by the parish for the cost of clothes and funeral expenses for a Mabel Wood. In the context of other entries in the Vestry Book, this was certainly not related to expense for a wife of Nicholas (for which he would certainly have been responsible himself), but was an example of the care provided by the parish for members who were impoverished, widowed, or otherwise in need. Typically, a neighbor was charged with providing the necessary care and then was reimbursed for the expense.

What is very unusual in the proposals that Mabel was a wife of Nicholas, is the date of marriage most commonly given which is 1683 or 1684 (though a few family trees cite "after 1708"), followed by a second marriage to Lucy Cornelius in about 1686. This certainly has no relationship to the parish records and indicates a complete lack of knowledge of the origin of the name. Another unusual entry in a few trees is the fact that the mother of Mabel Wood is given as Jane Guthrie. As in the case of Lucy Cornelius, a large number of family trees are not content to leave an empty space on their family group sheet form or on the computer input screen, and a gratuitous addition of a date of birth has been included. One birth entry is truly confused, giving a date of birth of 1657 and the place as Albemarle County, Virginia (nearly ninety years before the creation of this county)!

A half-dozen of the Nicholas Gentry trees in the internet sampling give an Elizabeth as a spouse for Nicholas, in most cases leaving her surname as unknown. The source for this name is completely unknown, but a date of birth of about 1670 in England is listed. A final proposed wife for Nicholas in the sampling is Jane Brown (or in one case just "Unknown Brown"). Like the addition of the name Jane to Mabel Wood mentioned above, this is surely a co-mingling of data for Nicholas Sr., and his son Nicholas Jr. (for whom Jane Brown is usually identified as a wife). One tree listing Jane gives her as a third spouse, and in the next generation of the family tree, lists two spouses for Nicholas Jr., namely Mary Brooks and Jane Martin.

Parents of Nicholas Gentry

We will not spend much time on this question as it has been covered in some depth in recent issues of the Journal of Gentry Genealogy (Issues A and B, April and June, 2006)(see index to back articles on this website). The prevalence of Samuel Gentry as father and Margaret Draper as mother is shown by the fact that of 425 family trees taken for our internet survey, 238 of them list Samuel and Margaret as parents. The only other parent found is a Nicholas Gentry in 6 cases. The remainder of the family trees simply list Nicholas' parents as being unknown.

The presumption that Samuel and Margaret were Nicholas' parents dates to fairly recent years, and undoubtedly comes from an article in May 1987, by Mrs. Herbert R. Gentry in "Gentry Family Gazette and Genealogy Exchange" (published by Richard Hayden Gentry). Mrs. Gentry presented a comprehensive summary of information found on her behalf by professional genealogists in England. They were unable to find any Nicholas Gentry in the English records of births or baptisms, deaths or burials, wills and probate action, or other court cases during the 1600's. Lacking any Nicholas, efforts to identify a parent have had to depend on identifying a Samuel Gentry who might have been a brother of Nicholas. Readers of this article seized upon the fact that a Samuel Gentry and Margaret Draper were married in Thaxted, Essex, England, on 22 Aug 1655, and then had a son Samuel who was baptized 9 Aug 1663 at Great Easton, Essex. This son, Samuel, seemed to some to fit the Samuel Gentry who was granted land in New Kent County, Virginia in 1684, land which adjoined Nicholas Gentry. Undoubtedly all of these readers were ignorant of the fact that a Samuel Gentry was brought to Virginia in 1674 (presumably the same as the 1684 Samuel) when the Essex Samuel was only ten years old. From there, this identification of Nicholas' parents has obviously gained very wide acceptance. This author firmly believes that the Samuel Gentry who married Margaret Draper could not have been the father of Nicholas and his brother Samuel. We have proposed Nathaniel and Mary Gentry as the best alternative for parents in the past articles, but will not pursue the issue further here.

Birth and Death of Nicholas Gentry

Along with the proposal that Samuel Gentry and Margaret Draper were the parents of Nicholas, has come the very wide-spread identification of 1655 as the latter's date of birth. Given the fact that this was the year of Samuel and Margaret's marriage, it is likely that the first people who added this date to their records for Nicholas did so as a very approximate birth date following the marriage. With limitations in the way various genealogy software programs accept dates, it is easy to see that this date degenerated in presentation and has wound up as a definite date. As an example of using dates inappropriately by family historians, the 1655 date has frequently been further qualified to list 22 Aug 1655 for the birth date of Nicholas (this date in fact is the date of marriage for Samuel and Margaret). Even worse, a number of family trees in our internet sampling, list 22 Oct 1655 as a birth date. October 22, by coincidence is the date given in Mrs. Herbert Gentry's article for Samuel Sr.'s burial (in 1695).

Other dates include a couple of "outliers" at 1635 and 1650, but most list 1660 or 1660-1665 as alternatives. Actually, a date range of five or six years centered on 1660 would probably include the true date. The only criticism is to the reporting of a specific year of birth when such date cannot be confirmed and is entirely an estimate.

Beyond the question of date, a lack of knowledge of English geography is very evident in a variety of family trees that list Nicholas' place of birth as "Sussex, Essexshire, England" or "Essex, Sussex, England". In addition, source records have been misspelled by those copying them, with Thaxted being spelled "Thaxtel" and "Thaxter" in multiple records.

There is a far wider range of dates for Nicholas' death. These are grouped as follows: one for 1705; 1709-1712 (44 entries); 1720 (10 entries); 1736 (264 entries); and "before 1755" and 1755 (29 entries), plus several entries that were computer-generated giving a range of 1728-1788. The first date range is very appropriate, but the very large number of family trees giving 1736 as the year Nicholas died, are truly a mystery. In that year, a Nicholas Gentry was granted 400 acres of land in western Hanover County (later to become Louisa County), but that was Nicholas Jr., (although he was not identified as such in the land patent). It is difficult to imagine why this acquisition of land would lead someone to think that Nicholas Sr. had died in that year. (A deed of land from one Nicholas to another in anticipation of death might be a different matter, but this was a grant of land from the Colonial Land Office to Nicholas.) The cases where Nicholas's death is reported as 1755 are likewise a mystery. They are probably related to the listing of the year 1754 for the death of Lucy Cornelius, but no logical reason for either is apparent.

Children of Nicholas Gentry

For both public and private genealogy records, one is particularly interested in an individual's birth, marriage and death with a date and a location for each of these vital statistics. The identity of the individual's spouse is equally important. We want these to be reported accurately, and if there is a degree of uncertainty about any data item, that should be indicated in the record. There is not quite the same concern with parents or children of the individual. The parents' names and vital statistics should be given correctly if known, but the lack of such information is just a part of the normally incomplete nature of genealogy records. The names of children, hopefully, should also be correct. But there is not the same pressure for completeness that there is for the parent individual.

In a great many cases, you may be trying to extend the pedigree of an ancestral family member, and you want to know the pertinent facts about that family member and his or her parents. Whether you have any interest in the family member's siblings is a different question. This explains the fact that the Nicholas Gentry family trees that we sampled from the internet and discussed above, for the most part included only the one child that connected to a succeeding family pedigree or descendancy chart.

A significant number of the internet sample family trees did include more than one child of Nicholas. We mentioned in the opening paragraphs that there is documentary evidence in the Register of St. Peters Parish for three of the children of Nicholas, namely Elizabeth, Nicholas Jr., and Mabel, giving their dates of baptism (not of their births). Succeeding Vestry Book records for the successor parish, St. Pauls Parish, very strongly suggest that Joseph Gentry and Samuel Gentry were also children of Nicholas. These names occur frequently in Nicholas Gentry family trees, especially those of Nicholas Jr. and Samuel. There is some variation in records of dates of birth but not so extreme that it poses a serious problem. Two other names are found in a significant number of the family trees, James Gentry and David Gentry. These are names that are within the bounds of appropriate inclusion as both lie on a borderline of possibility as to whether they were sons of Nicholas or grandsons. James Gentry in particular, is one that might have been a son of Nicholas or a son of Nicholas' oldest son, Joseph. David Gentry, based on estimations of his date of birth, could perhaps have been a son of Nicholas, but much more likely, was a son of Nicholas' son, Samuel. A daughter, Mary who married John Spradling, is also a possibility for Nicholas.

One wishes that all the listings for multiple children of Nicholas were complete and correct. This is not always the case, but in most instances where errors are made in listing children, there is no inclusion of any further generations to muddy the waters more than they already are. A case in point is the inclusion of William Gentry and occasionally a John Gentry as a son of Nicholas Gentry. Fortunately, in none of these listings are any children or spouse given for either William or John. There is good evidence for a William being a grandchild of Nicholas, but no evidence whatsoever for him being a son. Similarly, there is probable evidence for more than one grandson, John, but not for a son, John. An occasional family tree in the internet group has added Moses Gentry as a son. This is clearly a case of displaced generations, because the only Moses among the early generations of Gentrys is known to have been a son of Nicholas Gentry Jr., not Nicholas Sr.

A related series of mistakes, which we will not get into here, is found with the internet records for Nicholas Jr. A very large number of them give Mary Brooks (alone or with various additions and embellishments to her name) as the wife of Nicholas Jr. This can be clearly demonstrated to be wrong, Mary being the wife instead, of the nephew of Nicholas Jr., his brother Samuel's son, Nicholas-III (known at the time in Louisa County as "Nicholas the Younger"). Other erroneous wives include Sarah Jennings, Jane Albert, Jane Martin, Jane Abbott, Elizabeth Granger, Elizabeth Stringer, Jane Austill, Sarah Dickens, and Jane Barrett. Two of these, Elizabeth Stringer and Sarah Dickens were wives of Nicholas Jr.'s son, Nicholas III, rather than Nicholas Jr. There is absolutely no obvious rationalization for any of the others.

A final series of mistakes among the descendants of Nicholas Gentry Sr., lies with proposals that Elizabeth Gentry, or Mable Gentry, or both, married James Haggard of Stafford County, Virginia. As with the wives of Nicholas Jr., this is not a question which we will address here other than to speculate that the Elizabeth Gentry part of this mixup may have arisen from the fact that Nicholas Jr. had a daughter Elizabeth who married Nathaniel Haggard, a son of the James Haggard mentioned above. Nathaniel and Elizabeth then had a son, James Haggard, who married his first cousin, Elizabeth (Betsie) Gentry, daughter of Moses Gentry (a brother of the elder Elizabeth). With such convoluted relationships, it is not surprising that generations of Gentrys and Haggards might be misplaced.

Conclusion

A sample of 425 family trees posted in the RootsWeb.com WorldConnect website on the internet has been used to illustrate the wide variety of erroneous entries for Nicholas Gentry Sr. that can be found in the public records. These are probably only the tip of the iceberg and many, many more of mistakes are surely included in private family trees, differing only in number, not in content. It is too much to believe to think that any significant number of either the public or the private family trees will ever be corrected, but if only a few readers of this article review their own records and correct mistakes, it will be worthwhile. It is the author's hope that having a catalog of mistaken entries for Nicholas Gentry on record, will provide a valuable point of reference for future genealogists.

5/16/07

________________________________________

© 2007, W.M. Gentry - All rights reserved. This issue may be reproduced in whole or in part for non-commercial purposes provided that proper attribution (including authors and journal names) is included.

Return to Top

From: Nicholas "the immigrant" Gentry

Nicholas Gentry and his brother Samuel Gentry were among His Majesty's troops

sent to Jamestown, VA, to quell an indian uprising. When his duties were ended

he decided to stay in this new country. Early land records indicate they had

land adjacent to each other. No descendants of Samuel Gentry have been found.

The first authentic record we have found of the Gentrys is in the

register of St. Peter's Parish of New Kent County, VA, shows the baptism of

Peter Gentry, son of Samuel Gentry on 10 April 1687. No other trace of this

Peter Gentry has been found. St. Peter's Registry also shows the baptism of

Elizabeth Gentry, on 29 August 1687; Nicholas Gentry baptized 30 May 1697, and

Mable Gentry baptized 13 December 1702. -------------------- Nicholas Gentry and his brother Samuel Gentry were among His Majesty's troops sent to Jamestown, VA, to quell an indian uprising. When his duties were ended

he decided to stay in this new country. Early land records indicate they had land adjacent to each other. No descendants of Samuel Gentry have been found.

The first authentic record we have found of the Gentrys is in the register of St. Peter's Parish of New Kent County, VA, shows the baptism of Peter Gentry, son of Samuel Gentry on 10 April 1687. No other trace of this Peter Gentry has been found. St. Peter's Registry also shows the baptism of Elizabeth Gentry, on 29 August 1687; Nicholas Gentry baptized 30 May 1697, and

Mable Gentry baptized 13 December 1702. Parents: GENTRY.

He was married in NEW KENT, VA.

Children were: SAMUEL II GENTRY, JOSEPH II GENTRY, ELIZABETH II GENTRY, NICHOLAS GENTRY, MABEL GENTRY, JAMES GENTRY

Nicholas b.1665 and his brother Samuel came to America as British soldiers during the "Bacon rebellion" . Their troopship arrived in 1677 and they served

at Mattapony Garrison, VA from 1677 to 1683. In the fall of 1683 they were paid off and discharged from the British Army and settled in New Kent County,

VA.He was also known as "Nicholas the immigrant"

The Gentry's were of Old Germanic Stock, and sprung from English families, they are descendants of the Huguenots who escaped from France during the time of persecution in the 16th and 17th centuries.

The name Gentry originally meant "Scribes" or learned people, and this was the name given to the family when surnames were adopted. Later in England the name came to mean "Nobility".

Among soldiers sent from England to Virginia to cope with Beacon's Rebellion were two brothers; Nicholas and Samuel Gentry. They came from Essex County, England and arrived in Jamestown, Virginia in January of 1677. They were discharged from the British Army and payed off in Jamestown in the fall of 1683. They elected to remain in America and settled in the area of Hanover, Louisa, New Kent, Virginia and surrounding Counties.

His is believed to be the son of Richard Gentry III who was the son of Samuel Gentry II, and grandson of Nicholas I

During the period of Roundhead Parliament under Oliver Cromwell, no new Governors were sent to the Virginia colony. The people elected their own government and exercised rights of universal suffrage. They became accustomed to having equality as British subjects and enjoyed self government. After the Restoration, King Charles II sent Lord Berkley to Virginia to restore the authority of the throne. Berkley was a tyrant and imposed harsh taxes and restrictions on commerce. Self government was abolished. The people were aroused by the deprivation of their liberty, and in 1676 they rallied behind Mathaniel Bacon to overthrow the oppressive Berkley regime. This time to prevent Berkley's return, they burned Jamestown to the ground. The colonist enjoyed liberty for a short time under Bacon's leadership, but he took ill and died. The colonist could find no one to replace him and Berkley once again regained control. He instituted vengeful reprisals against the rebels, hanging 22 of their leaders. King Charles recalled Berkley and replaced him with Lord Culpepper, who was as venal as Berkley. King Charles recalled Culpepper and declared Virginia a royal providence.

At age 19, Nicholas set sail for the American colonies. He boarded either the "Rose" or the "Dartmouth" on December 3, 1676. He and Samuel, his brother, were two of 1130 men sent by the King to quell the "Bacon Rebellion".

When they arrived in America, February 11, 1677, Nathaniel Bacon was dead and the rebellion was over. Nicholas and Samuel were stationed at Mattapony Garrison and remained in service to the British throne for another six years before being paid and mustered out. (Alaine Preciado) <equilla@psnw.com>

JOURNAL OF GENTRY GENEALOGY

Volume 1 Issue 1

February, 2001

Home Page and Index

NOTES AND HYPOTHESES ABOUT THE EARLY GENTRY FAMILY IN AMERICA

By

A. Denny Ellerman

(Reprinted from "Gentry Family Gazette and Genealogy", vol iii, #17, p.55-65 (Dec 1982), published by Richard H. Gentry, McLean, Virginia)

Abstract: The difficulty in finding any land or other references to the first three generations of Gentrys in Virginia explains the lack of accounts of these generations in "The Gentry Family in America". Ellerman proposes that Nicholas and Samuel Gentry were the only Gentrys to reach America in the 17th century, and Nicholas was the only one of the two to remain in the colonies.

Probably the most difficult task in establishing the genealogy of the Gentry family in America is determining the connections among the first three generations in America. These generations span the one hundred years between the arrival of the presumed brothers, Nicholas and Samuel, before 1684, and the American Revolution. The records for these first three generations are found with few exceptions in Virginia, since the migrations of the family to the states to the south and west occurred at the time of or after the Revolution. Unfortunately, the records for this period, and in particular for some of the counties in which the Gentry family settles, are sparse. Few of those which do exist establish definitive relationships among the Gentrys who are cited.

This period was the most difficult one for Richard Gentry in his path-breaking "The Gentry Family in America" (hereafter cited as GFA), which remains the point of departure for all genealogical research on the Gentry family on this side of the Atlantic. Except for the second Nicholas Gentry (hereafter, Nicholas-II to distinguish the son from the immigrant father, Nicholas-I), Richard Gentry was unable to make any other second and third generation connections. This is obvious in the second part of the book where the many Gentry family groups who cannot be connected to Nicholas-I or Nicholas-II Gentry are listed. In fact, "The Gentry Family in America" is really an account of the descendants of Nicholas-II Gentry with considerable information concerning what are assumed to be collateral branches of the family.

The present-day researcher has far more to work with than did Richard Gentry more than seventy years ago. In the intervening years, many more of the county records of colonial Virginia have been published and indexed, so that it is no longer as necessary for the researcher to proceed laboriously page by page through the original books looking for the occasional reference to a Gentry. A splendid example is the recent publication of the early Louisa County records by Rosalie Edith Davis. Many of the references which had been found by early researchers, and which are cited in GFA, can now be placed in context by more extensive documentation which permits a more complete and continuous picture of a particular individual

Despite these advantages, the modern researcher is still not likely to be able to make the definitive connections that would satisfy good research standards. Although one can always hope that a document will turn up sooner or later that will permit definitive relationships to be established, it must be recognized that the state of late seventeenth and early eighteenth century records is such that few such documents can be anticipated. Instead, the delineation of relationships within the first three generations of Gentrys will have to proceed by means of inference based on what scraps of information are available. Such a procedure is not dissimilar to methods of scientific inquiry where laboratory experiment is not possible, notably with respect to social phenomena, and where statistical inference provides the rules for separating meaningful insight from intriguing speculation.

The present article is an attempt at applying this procedure to what is probably the irremediably incomplete documentation on the early Gentrys. It is an attempt at organizing the available data in a way that is eighty percent accurate where the present, and perhaps permanent, incompleteness of the data does not permit the drawing of definitive conclusions. In so doing, working hypotheses are developed to serve three purposes: 1) To organize the available data to tell a plausible and hopefully accurate story; 2) To guide further research for the definitive documentation which would prove or disprove the working hypotheses; and 3) To provide the stimulus for the piecing together of other scraps of information or for different readings of the circumstances prevailing at the time and place that will lead to the elaboration of alternative hypotheses that organize the extant data in a more meaningful fashion.

Section 1: The Immigrant First Generation

Two hypotheses are advanced in this section. These are, first, that Nicholas and Samuel Gentry were the only Gentrys to emigrate to Virginia in the colonial period, and second, that only Nicholas survived or remained in the colony. The first hypothesis has been more or less assumed by most researchers based on family tradition related in GFA. The second hypothesis has long been suspected and has been given additional support by the recent publication of a land patent that has perhaps escaped the notice of many researchers on the Gentry family. Both hypotheses are very helpful in bringing some order to the second generation which is the subject of the next section to follow.

Working Hypothesis #I

The only Gentrys to emigrate to America in the seventeenth or eighteenth centuries were Nicholas and Samuel who, by family tradition, were brothers.

The earliest known record of a Gentry in America is the 1684 patent for 300 acres in the vicinity of Totopotomoy's Creek in New Kent County (later Hanover County) by Samuel Gentry. The entry in the patent book is cited in full below with the original spelling and punctuation. The citation comes from Nell Marion Nugent's "Cavaliers and Pioneers: Abstracts of Virginia Land Patents and Grants. Vol. II (1666-1695)", page 282.

"Samuell Gentrey, 300 acs., New Kent Co.; S. side of York River; Betw. brs. of same and brs. of Tottapottamoys Cr., 21 Oct 1684, p. 405 (of Patent Book 7). Adj. Col. John Page, Esqr.; Edward Houchin and Nicholas Gentrey. Trans. of 6 pers; John Morris, Francis Middleton, Hen. Tully, Elizabeth Ody, Mor. Gardner, 2."

Aside from the obvious information concerning date and location, this patent contains two items of great interest. The first is the reference to Nicholas Gentry who is an adjacent landowner. The fact that Samuel would take out land adjacent toa person of the same surname must be considered a strong indication of some family connection between the two. The assumption that the two were brothers is based on family tradition as discussed on pages 14-15 of GFA.

The second item of note in this patent is that Samuel was granted the 300 acres for transporting 6 persons to the colony. This is completely in keeping with the headright system by which 50 acres were granted for every person brought into the colony. [Edit. note: a coming article will delve into the headright and indentured worker system in more detail.] It is not clear whether Samuei Gentry was one of the six persons for whom headrights were claimed. Five names are listed, leaving room for Samuel to be the sixth; however, there is a curious "2" listed after the last name suggesting that the sixth person could be an unnamed dependent of Mor(ris?) Gardner. There is no other reference in the land patent records to Samuel Gentry as either transporting himself or being transported by another. This could be explained by speculation advanced by Richard Gentry in GFA, that Nicholas and Samuel were British soldiers brought over to quell Bacon's Rebellion and later released to settle in Virginia. If so, Samuel was presumably able to accumulate the money as a soldier, or after discharge, to pay for the transportation of others to the colony, or to buy someone else's headrights.

In this regard, another land patent is of interest in indicating that Nicholas Gentry was transported to the colony by someone else, and not as a British soldier. The following citation is taken from Nugent's Vol. 1II (1695-1732), p. 39, where Patent Book 9 is copied.

"George Alves granted 1014 acres in New Kent Co., St. Peters Perish, on both sides of Totopotomoys Creek, 24 Apr 1700, p. 268, for transportation of [21 persons, among whom is to be found Nicholas Gentry, George Alves and an Alice Alves]."

The Alves family will be found adjacent to the Gentrys not only on Totopotomoy's Creek, but also at a later settlement further upriver in Hanover County. Since Nicholas Gentry was in Virginia as early as 1684, this grant to George Alves was obviously made long after the actual transportation had been made, as was not infrequently the case. Alternatively, this particular patent may have been a reconfirmation of an earlier grant for which no record is now (and perhaps then) available. In any case, this entry suggests that Nicholas did not come over as a British soldier but as dependent in some manner, perhaps as an indentured worker, of a George Alves or unknown person from whom George bought Nicholas' headright..

It should be further noted that there is no record of a land grant to Nioholas Gentry, similar to the one for Samuel Gentry. Presumably, Nicholas purchased land on Totopotomoy's Creek or was granted it after his arrival in the colony. The land transfer records of New Kent County could provide invaluable information on Nicholas Gentry, but those records were destroyed.

In view of the above, it ought to be questioned whether Nicholas and Samuel were British soldiers brought over to quell Bacon's Rebellion. This bit of family tradition may be more post-revolutionary embroidery on the family's undoubtedly English origins than fact. If the patents cited above are to be believed, Nicholas Gentry certainly was not brought over as soldier and the patent for Samuel Gentry suggests a man of more means than what would have been likely for British soldiers in the late seventeenth century. A further consideration is that New Kent County was a hot-bed of pro-Bacon sentiment during Bacon's Rebellion and one wonders whether it would have been the place a couple of ex-Redcoats would have chosen to settle.

The records cited above provide the basis for assuming that both Samuel and Nicholas were immigrants. In the 1680s, there were still few native-born. The only adult Gentrys found in the early Virginia records before 1709 are Samuel and Nicholas. Others are found after 1709, a full generation after the original seating on Totopotomoy's Creek; but those references are easily related to Nicholas Gentry in a manner that makes it most likely that they are his descendants.

Working Hypothesis #2

Of the two related Gentry immigrants, only Nicholas survived or remained in America, so that all the Gentrys of colonial Virginia and their progeny descend from Nicholas Gentry only.

The vestry book of St. Peter's Parish, New Kent County, Virginia, which was transcribed by C. G. Chamberlayne, contains the following entries on pages 357-358 relating to the baptisms of:

Peter, son of Samuel Gentry on April 10, 1687;

Elizabeth, daughter of Nicholas Gentry an August 29, 1689;

Nicholas, son of Nicholas Gentry on May 30, 1697; and

Mable, daughter of Nicholas Gentry on December 13, 1702.

Both immigrants clearly had children in Virginia and it could be supposed that the many Gentrys who cannot be definitely related to the Nicholas-II are descended either from Peter or from other sons of Samuel and Nicholas-I who did not get entered into the St. Peter's Parish Vestry Book.

There are however two circumstances which suggest that the immigrant Samuel Gentry and his son Peter either died or did not stay in colonial Virginia. The first of these is the complete absence of any mention of either this Samuel Gentry or of Peter Gentry in the existing records of this period. (A later Samuel Gentry who is a member of the second generation starts showing up in the records in the 1720s and can be traced through at least the 1760s.) Of course, the records for this period are not many, particularly for New Kent County, where the Gentry family first settled. Nevertheless, a continuous skein of evidence attests to the presence of Nicholas Gentry from 1684 through 1709, and always in the vicinity of Totopotomoy's Creek. This skein of evidence consists of the following items:

1684 Nicholas Gentry is cited as an adjacent landowner in the previously cited patent which granted 300 acres on Totopotomoy's Creek in New Kent County to Samuel Gentry.

1689 Nicholas Gentry is named in a processioning order of the St. Peter's Parish Vestry (op.cit., p. 21).

1689 Nicholas Gentry is cited as the father of Elizabeth who was baptised on August 29 of this year in St. Peter's Parish in New Kent County (Chamberlayne, "St. Peter's," p. 357).

1697 Nicholas Gentry is identified as the father of Nicholas who was baptised on May 30 of this year in St. Peter's Parish (op.cit., p. 357).

1701 Nicholas Gentry is ordered paid for clothes and funeral charges for a Mabel Wood (op. cit., p. 78).

1702 Nicholas Gentry is identified as father of Mable baptised on December 13 in St. Peter's Parish (op. cit. p. 358)

1703 Nicholas Gentry and all the "tithables up the north side of Totopotomoy's Creek," are ordered to help George Alves clear the roads in his predinct (op. cit., p. 89).

1709 Nicholas Gentry and "Jo Gentry" are named as land-owners in Precinct 13 for the 1708/09 Procesioning (Chamberlayne, "St. Paul's," p. 212). (St. Paul's Parish was formed in 1704 from the upper reaches of St. Peter's Parish including Totopotomoy's Creek.)

1709 Nicholas Gentry is appointed overseer for and keeping in repair an unspecified road cited in a county court order of January 8, 1708/09. Joseph Gentry as well as several others named in the Precinct 13 processioning order for this year are ordered to assist (op. cit., pp. 32-33).

1709 Nicholas Gentry enters complaint that more assistance is needed to keep his road passable and the vestry wardens order that 12 additional tithables be sent for two days to assist Nicholas Gentry make bridges over Crump's Creek and the Deep Swamp (op. cit., pp. 33-34). (Crump's Creek is a tributary of the Pamunkey River to the north of Totopotomoy's Creek and south of Mechumps Creek on which the Hanover County Court House would later be located.)

1709 Nicholas Gentry is cited in a payment order of the St. Peter's Parish vestry wardens in connection with Henry Chiles for keeping Benjamin Billingsly (op. cit., p. 35).

This undoubtedly incomplete record is nevertheless convincing in demonstrating that Nicholas Gentry was alive and did remain in New Kent County at what must be presumed to have been the first home of the Gentry family in America in the vicinity of Totopotomoy's Creek. (This part of the county later became Hanover County which it remains to this day.) With the exception of the entry dated 1687 concerning the baptism of Samuel's son, Peter, there is no record of Samuel Gentry. It could have easily happened that Samuel and his family moved to another county; however, the quit rent rolls of 1704 which gave the first comprehensive listing of landowners in colonial Virginia list only one Gentry, Nicholas, the owner of 250 acres in New Kent County. (See "The Quit Rents of Virginia, 1704", compiled by Annie Laurie Wright Smith, p. 35.) And, to this writer's knowledge, no record of either the first Samuel or the son Peter has been found in any other county records of this period. The verdict of Richard Gentry, "No other trace or record of this Peter or any other child of Samuel Gentry has ever been found," (GFA, p. 15) appears as sound in 1982 as it was in 1909.

The second circumstance supporting the hypothesis that Samuel Gentry and his descendants did not survive or remain in Virginia is a recently published record of a later patent concerning the 300 acres originally granted to Samuel Gentry. The patent, an extract of which is quoted in full below, can be found on page 107 of Nugent's recently published Volume III concerning patents issued between 1695 and 1732.

"David Holt, 300 acs. New Kent Co., S. side of York River, bet. brs. of Sd. River and and brs. of Totopotomoys Creek, 2 May 1706, p. 728 (of Patent Book 9). Adj. Col John Page, Esqr., land of Edward Hawkins and Nicho, Gentry. Granted Samuell Gentry, 21 Oct. 1684, who deeded same to David Crawford, Grandfather of said David Holt, 5 Jan. 1685,who by deed of gift, dated 28 May 1686, conveyed to said David Holt, then and still a minor, the land is granted by order, etc."

This,entry is a good example of the benefits to be derived from a good index for no one would have thought to look under David Holt for information about Samuel or Nicholas Gentry and few researchers would have the time or patience to read through every word of the patent records for a reference to a Gentry. This entry in the patent books was not an original grant but a confirmation of the current owner's possession by merit of earlier purchase from the original patentee.

It is clearly indicated here that Samuel Gentry did not long own the 300 acres he took out in 1684. Indeed the question can be raised whether he ever even "seated" himself on the grant. What appears to be the case is that soon after acquiring the land, which was his right for transporting six persons to the colony, he sold it to another who stayed.

Samuel Gentry's possession of the patented land was little more than a year (5 Jan 1685 is 5 Jan 1686 by the new calendar adopted in the 1740s which moved the change in year from April 1 to January 1). That allows for the possibility of having put in a crop for one growing season in 1685; but, if so, Samuel Gentry did not continue. He obviously was still living in St. Peter's Parish for a year or more after he sold the 300 acres since Peter was baptised on April 10, 1687. Thereafter, there is no further record.

Premature death certainly cannot be ruled out for both Samuel and Peter; however, return to England must be viewed as equally probably, expecially since Samuel seems to have been a person of sufficient means to transport six persons to the colony in the first instance. Whatever the sum received from David Crawford for the 300 acres, the absence of further record of Samuel Gentry in colonial Virginia argues against the supposition that Samuel bought land elsewhere and stayed on in the colony.

All that we can assert for sure is that Samuel Gentry, who was quite probably related to Nicholas Gentry, had arrived in the colony by October 1684, that he was still there in April 1687, and that in this period of time he converted his headrights to land, sold the land little more than a year later, and fathered a son. The baptismal entry makes it clear that Peter was legitimate and from that circumstance we can also strongly infer that Samuel had taken a wife in the colony since there is no indication of a wife among those for whom head-rights were claimed with the 1684 patent.

Coming Issues

The manner in which the political, religious, and cultural climate of 17th and 18th century Virginia affects our knowledge of the early Gentrys, including the "headright" and "indentured worker" systems and the lack of land records, will be briefly summarized. In addition, we will describe St. Peter's Parish and St. Paul's Parish in which the early Gentrys resided, and their related records.

Following issues will cover in considerable detail in turn: the evidence for the make-up of the family of Nicholas-I; what we know of Nicholas' sons, Joseph-II and Samuel-II; and the documentary evidence for the brief description of Nicholas-II found in "The Gentry Family in America".

© 2001, W.M. Gentry - All rights reserved. This article may be reproduced in whole or in part for non-commercial purposes provided that proper attribution (including author and journal name) is included.

Return to Top

Family and Descendants of Nicholas GENTRY the Immigrant

by

Tom Gentry

with contributions by

Willard Gentry

(Revised - see footnote)

The Genealogy of Nicholas (The Immigrant) Gentry is a fascinating collection of facts, traditions and myths about the descendants and antecedents of Nicholas I. A few Gentry genealogy enthusiasts have used the information available to weave a very plausible tapestry of the descendants of Nicholas I. Many of the myths about the early Gentrys have been researched and confirmed or debunked. Where actual facts are not available, logical hypotheses fitting the facts surrounding the question were created. This descendant chart gives an overview of this research and its compilation in the Journal of Gentry Genealogy (JGG). Next to the name in the chart is a list of references which call out the issue of the JGG or the Individual Number used in Richard Gentry's "The Gentry Family in America" (GFA). It is hoped that this will be another tool for genealogists to use in tracing Gentry ancestors through the first five generations of descendants of Nicholas I.

The Index as printed here is our best estimate of the composition of the various families involved based on information currently available, although admittedly a few relationships are quite speculative. It does not, however, include all of the early Gentrys as some relationships are still unresolved. The list is a volatile one which wil