Regarding Spotswood's Germans, there were two groups, one in 1714 and one
in 1717/1718. Living at Fort Germanna for some years, the 1714 group was
not granted land by Spotswood. The land they were granted was located in
the Northern Neck Proprietary (then Stafford County, today Fauquier County)
and thus granted by Lady Fairfax who had the misfortune to die before the
transaction was completed. The land was granted on behalf of the 1714 group
to Jacob Holtzclaw, John Fishback, and John Hoffman, the three who had been
naturalized by that time (See Volume A, 63 of Northern Neck Land Grants).
It is questionable as to the dates the others were naturalized, if in fact,
they ever were. The Rent Roll 1738-1739 Prince William County, Hamilton
indicates that Fishback and Holtzclaw were still paying the taxes on the
original grant (typed transcript from Bull Run Regional Library, Manassas,
Virgina, original held at the Huntington Library).

On Thu, Dec 18, 2014 at 10:10 AM, Lyle E. Browning <[log in to unmask]>
wrote:
>
> The very early 18th century French Huguenots who populated the 10,000 acre
> grant along the James River west of Richmond sold their properties, willed
> them to offspring and for some time did all their legal transactions in
> French. What was involved in naturalization in that era? Perhaps
> naturalization was a pre-condition of their agreeing to live on the margins?
>
> Spotswood's Germans were also of that era. But then Spotswood's position
> would presumably have enabled him to overcome minor bureaucratic hurdles.
> Presumably there has been done considerable genealogical work on them that
> might shed light.
>
>
> Lyle Browning
>
> On Dec 17, 2014, at 7:53 PM, "Wilson, Donald L" <[log in to unmask]>
> wrote:
>
> > Craig -
> >
> > From reading Blackstone's Commentaries [William Blackstone, 1723-1780],
> it appears that under English common law aliens during the Colonial period
> could not pass on land they had acquired, indeed that they could not own
> land but only have a leasehold or life estate.    Once they were
> naturalized, they would have the full right to own and bequeath land, as
> any other citizen.   It appears to me that IF Theriott was not a citizen in
> 1662, then he would not have been legally entitled to a patent to the 1600
> acres.  In that case it seems likely that the only document that could have
> been filed in 1661/2 was the 14 year lease you cite.
> >
> > My understanding is that interpretation and enforcement of law in the
> colonies might have been a bit more lax than would have occurred in
> England.  But I don't have any example of an alien receiving a land grant.
> Capt. Nicholas Martiau was a French Protestant who came to Virginia in 1620
> and owned much land, but he was naturalized in England before he arrived.
> [Adventurers of Purse and Person 2: 503]
> >
> > The citation you give for Theriott's naturalization (Hening 3: 479, Acts
> of Oct. 1705) does not say when he was naturalized, only that is was "by
> former acts of assembly."  This is only a confirmation by the General
> Assembly that he (and his heirs) were to have the full privileges of
> citizenship.  I do not find a mention of it in the Journals of the House of
> Burgesses, 1619-1776.  (The surviving journals lack most private
> legislation.)  Do you have other evidence that citizenship was first
> granted in 1672?
> >
> > I would contend that Theriott actually received denization sometime
> before 1652, when he first appears in the Lancaster County records.  His
> name appears many dozens (hundreds?) of times in the court minutes between
> then and his death.  In none of the entries I have checked have I found him
> referred to as an alien or foreigner (which was a common practice for
> persons not naturalized).  Many of the activities he is involved in are
> likely to require citizenship.  In fact the first entry I see has him
> obtaining a certificate for a land grant for two headrights.  [Lancaster
> County Court, 8 Oct. 1652, Deeds and Wills 1652-1657, p. 16, from abstract
> by Ruth and Sam Sparacio]  He takes part in all the usual civic activities
> and the court even meets at his house.  That would not be likely for
> someone who was not a citizen.
> >
> > If his naturalization was before 1652, then of course he would be
> eligible for a land grant.  For evidence that he really did acquire a land
> grant by 1661 to the 1600 acres, see Lancaster Deeds and Wills 2,
> 1654-1661, p. 227-228 [from Sparacio abstract]:
> > 1 Nov. 1661.  Dnc. THERRIOTT of Lancaster County, planter, to John
> FLETCHER and Joseph BAYLEY of the same county, planters.  Therriott is
> giving Fletcher and Bayley a lease for 14 years to 1600 acres which he
> already owns.  It is not a lease TO the three of them.
> >
> > If Therriott was a citizen in 1662, then your questions are moot.  If he
> was NOT a citizen, he could not have patented the land, and if he acquired
> it in some other way (legally or not) it would have escheated at his
> death.  Although we don't seem to have an exact record of his
> naturalization, the surviving documents imply his citizenship was
> recognized.
> >
> > Lastly, the grant for 1600 acres is not lost!  It was not found in the
> indexing because his name was spelled differently there.
> > DOMINICK FERRIATT, of Corotoman, in Lancaster Co., 1600 acs., 2 June
> 1657, Patent Book no. 4, p. 102 (152).  At the head & upon main branch of
> Corotoman Riv. which divides this & land of Mr. Edwin Connaway & S. W. upon
> Claphams Cr.  Trans: of 32 persons: [names]  Renewed 18 Mar. 1662.  [Nell
> M. Nugent, Cavaliers and Pioneers, 1: 347]  This document by itself is
> evidence he was a citizen by 1657.
> >
> > 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
> >
> > ----
> >
> > Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England (1892 ed.) on Google
> Books.  Chapter 15, Title by Escheat.
> >
> > "6. Aliens. Aliens also are incapable of taking by descent, or
> inheriting, as they have no inheritable blood, rather indeed upon a
> principle of civil policy, than upon reasons strictly feudal. Though if
> lands had been suffered to fall into the hands of those owing no allegiance
> to the English crown, the design of introducing feuds, the defence of the
> kingdom, would have been defeated. Wherefore, if a man leaves no other
> relations but aliens, his land shall escheat to the lord.
> >       "Cannot hold by Purchase or Inheritance.  Aliens are under still
> greater disabilities than bastards, for they are also unable to hold by
> purchase. Hence they can have no heirs' because they can have nothing for
> an heir to inherit; they have no inheritable blood.
> >       "Effect of Naturalization. If an alien be made a denizen by the
> king's letters patent, and then purchases land, his son born before his
> denization shall not, under the common law, inherit, but a son born
> afterwards may do so. But if the father had been naturalized by act of
> parliament, such elder son might then inherit, for the act has a
> retrospective effect.
> >       "Sons of an Alien. Coke [Sir Edward Coke, 1552-1634] holds, that
> if an alien comes into England, and there has issue two sons, who are
> thereby natural born subjects, and one of them purchases land and dies, the
> other brother cannot be his heir, because the common stock, the commune
> vinculum, is the father, who having no inheritable blood in him, could
> communicate none to his sons, and as the sons could not be heirs to the
> father, neither son could be heir to the other. But this opinion has been
> overruled, and it is now held, that sons of an alien, born here, may
> inherit from each other, the descent from a brother being an immediate one.
> >       "By later Statutes. By statute of William III, it is also enacted,
> that all persons, being natural born subjects, may inherit, and take title
> by descent from any of their ancestors, lineal or collateral, although
> their parents or other ancestors were born out of the king's allegiance. By
> statute of George II, no such right of inheritance shall accrue, unless to
> persons in being, and capable of taking as heirs at the death of the person
> last seised, excepting where lands descend to the daughter of an alien,
> which estate shall be divested in favor of an after-born brother."
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Discussion of research and writing about Virginia history [mailto:
> [log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Craig Kilby
> > Sent: Tuesday, December 16, 2014 1:12 AM
> > To: [log in to unmask]
> > Subject: 17th Century Naturalization and Land Patents
> >
> > Here are some question for the land title experts here:
> >
> > (1) It has been my understanding that non-naturalized people could own
> land, but only in a life estate and then escheat. I am not 100% certain if
> that is true and would like verification of this.
> >
> > (2) If that IS true, could someone still obtain a land patent? If so,
> was it only for a life, with no further rights to it by his heirs?
> >
> > The reason I ask is the case of Dominick Therriott, who obtained a
> patent (now lost) to 1600 acres in Lancaster County on 18 April 1662
> (recited in a repatent by his son William in 1678).
> >
> > Dominick Therriott, a native of France, was not naturalized until 1672
> (Hening 3, 479).
> >
> > Even before his patent to the 1600 was issued, he had entered into a
> generous 14-year lease of it with two other partners (John Fletcher and
> Joseph Bayley), as tenants in common. Fletcher died in 1663. Administration
> on the estates of both Dominick Therriott and Joseph Bayley were granted on
> the same day, 10 March 16745—the lease was to expire on 25 Dec 1675, so the
> issue of clear title to his son William is rather moot.
> >
> > But, what if Therriott had been the one to die in 1663? What if he had
> never been naturalized at all?
> >
> > 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
>
> ______________________________________
> 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