Don, 

What you describe for English law is spot on.  Your inference about Therriott's motives in 1672 strikes me as eminently sensible and reasonable.  

17th century England (leaving aside the massive legal and social disruptions of the Civil Wars and after) was a considerably more orderly society than was 17th century Virginia.  I suspect that a few high profile, high status, or high wealth individuals in the colony might have wished to avail themselves of formal processes for losing their status as aliens.  But there really were not all that many high status or high wealth (by English standards, anyway) people in the colony.  Until late in the century, there were hardly any persons in the colony formally trained in English law--something that William Fitzhugh for example remarked on in his letters.  

So whatever the formal rules might have been, I suspect that many who were in a formal legal sense aliens were able to move to the colony, acquire property, and with that the broad civil and political standing that ownership of land and property afforded.  The 17th century Chesapeake colonies were raw, precarious, and primitive places, and those qualities lent a real fluidity to social relationships that is not well captured just by the formal law itself.

As an aside, Bernard Bailyn's last book, THE BARBAROUS YEARS, captures this quality of 17th century colonial British America quite admirably, and I thought in places quite eloquently too.

I would bet that the group naturalization that took place in 1672 was comparatively exceptional.  It is intriguing to pose the question why Therriott thought it useful or necessary to go to the bother and expense of doing it at all.  He did it right after the law was passed, so the timing is interesting.  Do we know of many instances in 17th century Virginia for which the formal status of "alien" represented a legal liability to residents of the colony--in other words, in which the formal legal status corresponded to local enforcement?  I would bet that the answer to that question bears some relationship to Imperial politics in the broader Atlantic world, but that is just speculation.

Thanks for opening up such an interesting conversation!

All best wishes,

Kevin R. Hardwick
Associate Professor
Dept. of History
James Madison University

Sent from my iPad

> On Dec 18, 2014, at 4:42 PM, Wilson, Donald L <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> 
> Craig - I've been looking at Lloyd D. Bockstruck's _Denizations and Naturalizations in the British Colonies in America, 1607-1775_ (Baltimore: Genealogical Pub. Co., 2005).  The introduction includes a discussion of the various British laws concerning denization and naturalization.  
> 
> [p. vii]  "There were two avenues to English citizenship available.  One was naturalization; the other was denization.  In England, Parliament could grant the former by private act; the King could grant the latter by letters patent.  Naturalization was more costly for the alien, but it did convey a higher status and more rights.  Because it was more difficult to qualify for parliamentary naturalizations than royal denizations, aliens often opted to be endenized.  Because denizations were granted by letters patent, however, they could be withdrawn by the authority that issued them.  Colonial governors and legislative assemblies followed the pattern of their counterparts in England."  . . . 
> 
> "In the colonial period both denization and naturalization conferred civil but not political rights.  They primarily involved the ownership and transfer of realty.  Denization conferred limited rights of inheritance, but naturalization was complete.  A denizen was allowed to buy and devise land while an alien could not."  [Here he summarized some of the provisions discussed by  Blackstone.  I might take issue with his statement that naturalization did not confer political rights -- the provisions of the Virginia law seem to cover all the same civil rights as natural born Englishmen.]
> 
> Searching Hening, the Act of 1671 seems to be the first law passed by the Virginia General Assembly devoted to the topic of naturalization.   [Hening 2: 289]   My reading of Bockstruck suggests that before that date, the Virginia legislature might not have been involved, and possibly the only citizenship papers issued in the colony came from the governor's office (denization).   Before that date full naturalization would have to have been obtained from the English Parliament.  Further research is needed to determine if that is so.
> 
> It seems to me that if Therriott had earlier (before 1652) received a letter of denization from the Governor (or from the King), he might still be interested in obtaining the full benefits of naturalization, which only became available in 1671.   That is probably why Therriott and others were naturalized as a group in 1672.
> 
> Don
> 
> Donald L. Wilson, Virginiana Librarian
> The Ruth E. Lloyd Information Center
> for Genealogy and Local History (RELIC)
> Prince William Public Library System
> Bull Run Regional Library
> 8051 Ashton Avenue, Manassas, VA 20109-2892
> 703-792-4540   
> www.pwcgov.org/library/RELIC 
> 
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Discussion of research and writing about Virginia history [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Craig Kilby
> Sent: Thursday, December 18, 2014 12:20 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: 17th Century Naturalization and Land Patents
> 
> Don,
> 
> Exceedingly grateful thanks to you for this excellent reply. This is exactly what I needed to know—and I am chagrined to say I did not think to look for Dominick Therriott under the spelling of Ferriott. I agree with your assessment that Therriott must have been at least considered a naturalized subject as soon as he hits the Lancaster County scene in 1652. There are, however, still a couple of nagging (maybe even picayune) questions:
> 
> 1. You cited Hening 3:479, Act of Assembly as reconfirming his naturalization, and ask if there is other evidence for his first being naturalized in 1672. The answer to that is yes. This identical list of peope in 1705 were first naturalized in September 1672 (Hening 2:302) under authority of Act of Assembly 20 Sep 1671 (Hening 2:289). In fact, By October 1705 Dominick Therriott was dead (d. 1675) and so was William, his son and heir at law (d. 1690). I suspect many of the other people on both lists were dead as well. Perhaps there was some compelling reason for Dominick Therriott to have naturalization reconfirmed in Jamestown in 1672.
> 
> 2. The dates for Dominick Therriott’s 1600 acre patent are interesting. It was first issued 2 June 1657 (PB 4:153-3) and on the margin of the patent it is says this patent was renewed 18 March 1662 (I assume 1663 new style). When his son William had this repainted, along with 1900 acres of new land in 1678, the date of the patent for the 1600 acres is given as 18 April 1662 (PB 6:6242). A very minor point, to be sure. The fact is, it is the identical 1600 acres which he leased in co-partnership with John Fletcher and Joseph Bayley in 1662 (an odd lease on many levels, but that is another topic.)
> 
> I’d be interested in your thoughts about the 1672 naturalization of Dominick Therriott (and others).
> 
> Again, deepest gratitude for your always thoughtful and well crafted replies
> 
> Craig Kilby
> Kilby Research Services
> www.craigkilby.com
> 
> 
> 
> ______________________________________
> To subscribe, change options, or unsubscribe please see the instructions at
> http://listlva.lib.va.us/archives/va-hist.html

______________________________________
To subscribe, change options, or unsubscribe please see the instructions at
http://listlva.lib.va.us/archives/va-hist.html