Priscilla Yancey

Priscilla married William Hurt on 11 Jan 1777 in Halifax County, NC. William was born in 1756 in Halifax County, NC; died in 1812 in Hancock County, GA. [Group Sheet] [Family Chart]

1. Henry Hurt was born on 1 Sep 1778 in Georgia; died on 2 Dec 1850 in Russell County, AL.
2. Joel Hurt was born on 9 Mar 1784 in Georgia; died on 4 Jan 1843; was buried in Linwood Cemetery, Columbus, Muscogee County, GA.
3. Elizabeth Hurt was born on 1 Nov 1780; died in 1832 in Monticello, GA.
4. Sarah Hurt was born about 1787; died on 9 May 1856 in Putnam County, GA.
5. Mary Hurt was born in 1777/1790; died in 1781/1879 in Died Young.
6. Charles Samuel Hurt was born in 1777/1790; died in 1782/1876 in Died Young.

Notes:

Batch #: 7920119, Sheet #: 07, Source Call #: 1260571

Jechonias married Hannah Kimbrough about 1748 in Edgecombe County, NC. Hannah was born in 1711/1739; died about 1783 in Halifax County, NC. [Group Sheet] [Family Chart]

Notes:

Wonder the possibility Mrs. Thomas Crawford is Hannah's mother. She was
deeded land in his will. Why?

Notes:

The earliest valid documentation of a YANCEY is found on a list of landowners called a Quit Rent Roll. In 1704 Charles Yancey is listed on the Quit Rent Roll for King William County, Virginia owning 100 acres. The actual relationship of this Charles to the immigrant brothers is not clear. However, if the story of the brothers is true, he would most likely be a grandson to one of the five. Most researchers are also in agreement that around 1704, a Charles Yancey married Miss Bartlett. Some sources record her name as Mary. It would seem that Charles and Mary continued living in the area that would later become Hanover and Louisa Counties, formed in 1720 and 1742 respectively. These counties were formed from New Kent and King William Counties. One source records their marriage on January 14, 1704, although no known documentation exists to support this claim.

Family tradition has it that Charles of King William County was the son of an earlier Charles Yancey and his wife Mary Leighton. It has also been reported that Mary Leighton was thought to be a descendant of Alexander Leighton who was cruelly persecuted for his religious teachings. However, after centuries of searching, no evidence has been found to confirm or even support the above information. It should not be considered true until such documentation is discovered.

In 1722 Charles of King William County and his wife Mary Bartlett lived and owned land between North Anna and Little River. Charles later received land grants totaling 448 acres in Hanover County. These grants were issued on behalf of King George II between 1725 and 1730. The last date Charles was known to be alive was 1745 when he deeded a negro slave to his son Robert. No will has ever been found for Charles but it is believed he died shortly after the deed of 1745. There has been very little information recorded about Mary Bartlett. No birth or death dates are known for her.

Sources:
1. Marriage date and location from IGI (International Genealogical Index), but no recorded documentation is known to exist to verify this information.
2. The Early Yanceys in America by Dennis J. Yancey
3. The Name and Family of Yanc(e)y; Compiled by the Media Research Bureau, Washington, D.C.

Charles married Mary Bartlett on 14 Jan 1704 in King William County, Virginia, USA. Mary (daughter of Richard Bartlett) was born about 1678 in King William County, Virginia, USA; died in 1748 in Hanover County, Virginia, USA. [Group Sheet] [Family Chart]

Notes:

THE ORIGIN OF THE YANCEY FAMILY By Dennis J Yancey 19341 NW 61 Ave Miami FL 33015 dyancey@umiami.ir.miami.edu After nearly a century of family research, the origin of the Yancey family and the Yancey name itself, for the most part, still lie in obscurity. The history of the Yancey family has been traced back to the early 1700's to the colony of Virginia where branches of the family were living in the counties of New Kent, Hanover, Louisa, Spotsylvania and Culpeper. Where did these families come from? When and how did they immigrate to America? How did the name itself originate? These are questions that have eluded Yancey researchers for decades, most of the answers to which still lie undiscovered. What follows is not the discussion of any recent major discovery concerning the origin of the family, but a general summary of the various theories and traditions concerning the history of the family as well as some rather general information concerning life in Virginia during the 17th century. This is given to help the reader develop some general insight as to who our early Yancey ancestors were, and what life may have been like for them in the early Virginia Colony. Due to the fact that no Yancey family has ever been able to trace its lineage from America into the Old World and also due to the fact that the surname does not exist among any of the records of Europe where the family is to have come from (the surname seemingly being native to America), Onomatologists (those who study the origin of names) have had quite a hard time even theorizing the origin of the Yancey family. One noted Onomatologist states that the surname is related to the French name "l'Anglais or Langley" a name given various families in France which literally meant "Englishman". Another researcher states that the name is the Anglicized spelling of the Dutch name "Jantje" which means "Little John". Both of these theories, and various others that have been proposed, lack any serious foundation and unless evidence is found to help substantiate these claims they should not be taken too seriously. The most credible evidence, although not documented and far from being conclusive, we obtain from early records of the family and from tradition and lore that has been handed down from generation to generation in the Yancey family to the present time. The dominant family tradition that has been perpetuated through many generations and can be found in most branches of the family is the story of four or five Welsh brothers who came from the Old World in 1642 with Sir William Berkeley (Colonial Governor of Virginia) and settled along the James River in Virginia. According to some versions of Yancey lore their surname was originally to have been "Nanney", descending from a well-known royal family of Wales by the name whose estate was located in Merionethshire County. The name is to have been corrupted or changed to Yancey upon arrival in Virginia. There are various stories (often conflicting) concerning these Nanney/Yancey brothers. Some say that they were cousins of Sir William Berkeley; yet other stories say that they were stowaways. As to their fate - some say a few of the brothers were killed during Indian attacks on the colonists. The validity of these stories concerning the Yanceys coming to Virginia with Sir William Berkley about 1642 is very questionable. But by any means, by 1704, a Charles Yancey, found living in King William County, was the only Yancey found listed on the Quit Rent Rolls of Virginia. (The Rent Rolls of 1704, were in essence, a census of Virginia land owners - or "freeholders" as they were called.) One of the first references to the Yancey/Nanney connection is found in a letter written in 1805 by one Samuel Shepherd of Virginia whose mother-in-law was a Yancey. The letter reads as follows: My Dear Brother Robert: Since I last saw you, my wife has been very ill in the house of her cousin Charles Yancey. Every attention was paid to her, before I reached her side, and she was delivered of a fine boy before my coming. The boy even now resembles that old Welsh stock. Charles Yancey says he must play astrologer and prepare the horoscope of the lad . . . While visiting Charles Yancey's home, during the convalescence of my wife, we discussed old Welsh stock. He tells me Mr. William Evans of Cumberland County say she is Welsh, and descended from some outlandish prince of that country. Mr. Evans who is a broadly cultivated man, says he does not believe the Yancey name is correct, that it was Nanney and got amended in transportation across the Atlantic. Charles Yancey had heard something of this kind from his folks, and my wife has an old arms of the family, that Mr. Evans says belongs to the Nanney family. He says he has seen it in his father's books. In the early 1930's one member of the Yancey family hired a Welsh Genealogist by the name of Mr. O. E. Ruck to do research on the Nanney family of Wales to see if he could verify the Yancey/Nanney connection. Due to the lack of surnames in early Wales, few families of Welsh descent have been able to trace their lineage back for any extended number of generations. The Nanney family, on the other hand, being a well known Welsh family of royal blood, trace their lineage all the way back to the 12th century to an ancestor named Bleddyn, who became the ruler of a small kingdom in North Central Wales called "Powys". His son, named Cadwgan, struck out into the wild mountains near the coast northwest of Powys and founded his own estate near the present day town of Dolgellau, in what was until recently Merionethshire County. He named his estate "Nannau" and the structure he built was called by many of his time "the stateliest house in all North Wales". It should be noted here that, as was stated, surnames in Wales did not exist as a common thing until the late 1500's and early 1600's and it was not until about this time that members of the family took a variant form of the name of their estate as their family name. The first in the Nanney clan to use the surname, it would seem, was one Grufydd Nanney. His son Huw Nanney Hen, being one of the more famous members of the family, built the Nanney estate up to a point of grandeur and it became the envy of the entire county. Many of the Yancey family have traveled abroad in search of the Nanney estate. The few, lucky enough to locate it, discovered a three story house of Georgian style set amid the Merionethshire mountains overlooking a natural deer park. The estate was, until recent times, in possession of members of the Nanney family - the last of the family to own the estate being of the name of Vaughn. Over the years, various Yanceys visited the estate and met with the Vaughns of Merionethshire, questioning the family concerning the Nanney/Yancey theory. The Vaughns, although not possessing any evidence of the sort, did seem to consider the account of the Yancey/Nanney brothers a possibility. The Nanney estate today, unfortunately, is no longer in possession of the family. Due to various unfortunate circumstances the estate was sold by the family to a development corporation and who knows what fate has in store for the property that for so long was in the possession of the Nanney family. Returning to the research of Mr. Ruck, through work done by him, and investigations done by various others on the subject, it was ascertained that the Nanney Coat of Arms was indeed, nearly identical to a coat of arms held by various members of the Yancey family - the arms bearing a blue lion rampant facing left on a gold shield. The main difference between the two being the inclusion of the motto "Ne Touchez Pas Le Chat Sans Avoir Le Gant" (Touch Not The Cat Without The Glove) with the Yancey coat of arms. It should be noted, however, that there are various versions of both the Nanney and Yancey arms, some being quite different from others. This, it would seem, is probably a result of the fact that arms were often changed from one generation to the next. Although no hard evidence was discovered by the Welsh genealogist Ruck, linking the Yanceys of America to the Nanneys of Wales, it was considered a valid possibility that the Yanceys could, indeed, have descended from the Nanneys of Wales. This theory is far from conclusive but assuming that it was true, how did the name-change from NANNEY to YANCEY occur. As one researcher states the name-change is somewhat "hard to swallow". How can one account for this drastic corruption in the spelling of the name? There are a handful of possibilities. One thing that should be kept in mind is that the Welsh were not very particular as to their surnames. As was stated, surnames in Wales did not even come into common use until the early 17th century. Although the name change seems quite drastic and unrealistic to many of us today, the theoretical name-change, drastic as it may be, whether intentional or not, is probably not as unlikely as some of us seem to think. It was not that uncommon for persons of this time period to adopt new or different surnames especially upon coming to America. Another possibility, although less likely, is that an early Yancey ancestor married into the Nanney family and instead of taking the paternal Nanney name as their own, they took their mother's name instead. One should not consider this to be too extremely out of the ordinary - as something of the sort did, in fact, happen to a member of the Wynn family who married into the family and took upon himself the Nanney name instead of his own. But, as has been stated, the name Yancey/Yancy does not exist in extant European records. Chances are much more great that the name was changed (intentionally or otherwise) from one generation to the next, from whatever the original name was to the current spelling of YANCEY. The significance of the name Yancey is uncertain. Whether it was adopted from some special origin - such as a certain place name, title, object etc.; whether the name was simply invented; or whether it was a corruption of some existing European surname is uncertain. (There are various names which did exist in Europe which could have easily been corrupted into our present spelling of the name Yancey including Jancy, Jauncey, Chauncey, DeLancey, Yantzi and various others) But, contrary to what various researchers have stated, the name does not seem to have evolved over a number of generations (such as from Nanney to Nancy to Yancey; or from De Hauncey to Hancey to Yancey). There are only two variations of the spelling of the name in America: YANCEY & YANCY; and among the early members of the family, Y-A-N-C-E-Y was by far the most common spelling. Compared to other colonial families the consistency of the spelling among the early family is rather uncommon and would indicate, as has been stated, that the name was probably radically changed or corrupted, for whatever reason, from one generation to the next and Y-A-N-C-E-Y abruptly became the accepted spelling of the name by the early family in America. How reasonable is it to assume that the Yanceys do indeed descend from the Nanneys of Wales? Before this question is answered, it should be noted that members of the Nanney family of Wales did, in fact, immigrate to America during the 17th century. One Robert Nanney, grandson of the previously mentioned Huw Nanney Hen, crossed the sea in 1635 in a ship named the "Increase" and settled in MA. In the late 1700's various of his descendants settled in Virginia and North Carolina, and today several families across the United States carry this as their surname (although the name in Wales, it would seem, has completely died out). There is also a record of one Hugh Nanney found living in Virginia in 1689 in the James River area. His exact connection with the Nanney family of Wales or to the Robert Nanney of MA is uncertain (although, in view of the name, some relationship would seem certain). Any close connection, if it existed, between members of the Yancey family and these members of the Nanney family who immigrated to America has not, as of yet, been discovered. All the independently collected evidence: The early letter referring to the Yancey/Nanney connection, the similarity in the coat of arms, the tradition of the Welsh brothers being such a common tradition in even distant branches of the family, would seem to indicate that there was apparently some close relationship between the Yancey family of America and the Nanney family of Wales. Information concerning the Nanney/Yancey connection even seems to have been passed down to members of the Nanney family now living in America. One member of the Nanney family of Virginia states: "From my youth I have always heard that the names were the same (my father was quite old when I was born and he had retained many of the old legends handed down mouth-ear) and I ran into the same information once when inquiring at South Hill, Virginia about the Nanneys . . . The people there . . . mentioned the Nanneys and the Yanceys in one breath and shrugged when questioned about it, saying 'They are the same family--kissing cousins'" All the collected information seems to point to some kind of connection between the Yancey and Nanney families. But, whether the Yanceys of America are of a direct paternal descent from the Nanneys of Wales has yet to be documented and due to the lack of evidence, one should not totally rule out the possibility that the Yanceys do not descend from the Welsh family after all. Other possibilities include a theory that the name was originally Jancey/Jauncey (a name which did exist in Wales and England at the time) and may have been corrupted to YANCEY upon arrival of the family in America. If the name was drastically changed from one generation to the next the original name could have been most anything. Various scholars have stated that the Yancey name itself is of French linguistic origin and another theory that has been passed on by various researchers is that the Yanceys were French Huguenots and came to America seeking religious freedom. (The Huguenots were French Protestants, persecuted for their belief in the teachings of Calvin.) Although the Yanceys were associated with various families of Huguenot origin (such as the Dumas, Dabney and Mullins families) there is little, if any, evidence to be found indicating that the Yanceys themselves were Huguenots. In fact there would seem to be quite a bit of evidence indicating that they were not part of the Huguenot movement, but rather, strong members of the Protestant Episcopal Church. (The Protestant Episcopal Church - "The Established Church of Virginia" - was essentially the Church of England in America). One of the early Yanceys of Virginia was one Robert Yancey -who became a Protestant Episcopal minister after traveling to England where he was ordained by the Bishop of London. He returned to Virginia to become the rector of Trinity Parish in Louisa County and was highly respected by all in the family. The Crawford family, who were intimately associated with the early Yanceys and may have come over to America at the same time, were also closely associated with the the Protestant Episcopal Church. It was the established and official church of the colony, Virginia was not only divided into political divisions (counties), but also into ecclesiastical units (parishes). The officers of the parish were styled vestrymen; twelve men elected by the freeholders of the parish. The early records of the parishes of St Paul's in New Kent, St Martin's in Louisa, St Peter's in Culpeper and various others Episcopal parishes indicate that the Yanceys were closely associated with, and members of, the "Established Church of Virginia" as were the majority of early colonial Virginians. In fact one early Yancey in his will (not leaving any descendants as heirs), under certain conditions, bequeathed his property to the county to be to be used to school the poor children of the area. This was made under the condition, however, that only those children with parents of the Protestant Episcopal faith could attend. There would definitely seem to exist among the early members of the family an allegiance to the Anglican Church and a link to the countries of England and Wales. This was the case among the majority of early Virginians who before the revolution considered themselves Englishmen. The majority of those who came to Virginia in the 1640's when tradition has it that the Yanceys came, did not come over to seek religious freedom, but for economic and political reasons. The main immigrations of Huguenots to Virginia did not occur until after 1685 when Louis XIV of France repealed the Edict of Nantes and thousands fled to America. One of the main concentration of Huguenot settlement in the colony of Virginia was at Manakin Town in Henrico County and there seems be little evidence of the Yancey family ever settling there. Dissenters from the established church in Virginia had been persecuted throughout the 17th century and it was not until 1689, that King William decreed the Edict of Toleration granting certain rights to protestants, and persecution of dissenters became less common as the Act of Toleration became official Virginia law in 1699. Although the Yanceys seem to have been quite a religiously devout family there is no evidence that they came to America for religious motives or were ever under any religious persecution. Concerning the fact that the name Yancey is purported to be of French origin - although the name itself would "appear" to be linguistically French, one should not automatically assume that the early Yanceys were, themselves, French. One cannot safely assume anything solely from the spelling of the name. There are various English family names of a similar spelling structure of no French origin. The French motto found on various renditions of the Yancey coat of arms is one of the few indications that suggest that the origin of the Yancey family may have had some French influence.

Charles married Mary Leighton. Mary was born in 1660 in Hanover County, Virginia, USA. [Group Sheet] [Family Chart]

Notes:

The Leighton Connection
By Garland Branch
Niskayuna, New York
(about 1980 ??)

[DJY: This is a report concerning the Leighton Family. The earliest documented Yancey in America - Charles Yancey of King William County, VA, 1704, is often recorded as the son of Charles Yancey I and his wife Mary Leighton. Evidence for this is pretty much non-existent - but the following research notes do shed some light on the family, that according to family tradition was the maternal ancestry of Charles Yancey II or King William County]

According to Rosa Faulkner Yancey ("Lynchburg and Its Neighbors" Richmond, J W Fergusson, 1935 p 330) Charles Yancey, the immediate ancestor of the Yancey Family in Lynchburg came to Virginia about the year 1674 with his wife, who was the granddaughter of Alexander Leighton, the famous Scotch Divine, whose persecution was one of the greatest scandals of the reign of Charles I. She was also a niece of Robert Leighton, another famous churchman, who was Bishop of Dublin and later Archbishop of Glasgow.

Alexander Leighton (1568-1649) was a physician and divine and was born in Scotland. The Dictionary of National Biography states that he was descended from an ancient family possessed of the estate of Ulysham near Montrose. He was outspoken in his opposition to the Roman Papacy and published a book, "Sion's Plea", against Roman Catholicism in 1628 in Holland. He was tried for this by the Star Chamber and in June 1630 was sentenced to pay a fine of 10,000 pounds, to have both nostrils slit, to have both ears cut off, and to have his face branded with the letters "S.S." for "Sower of Sedition". Only a part of this sentence, however, was carried out and the Long Parliament released him from prison in 1640, cancelled his fine, and paid him 6000 pounds for his suffering. In 1642 he was appointed Keeper of Lambeth House, which had been converted into a prison. He died in 1649.

Alexander Leighton had four sons and daughters: James, Robert, Elisha, Caleb, Elizabeth and Sapphira. Only Robert and Elisha and the daughter survived to maturity. He was twice married, his second wife being the daughter of Sir. William Musgrave of Cumberland.

Robert Leighton (1611-1684), the elder surviving son of Alexander and his first wife, was noted for his Christian piety, his humility and gentleness, and his devotion to his calling. Although he had strong Presbyterian leanings, he allowed himself to be named First Bishop of Dunblane and later Archbishop of Glasgow by Charles II in order to help preserve harmony and unity in Scotland.

Robert Leighton never married, but references to his mother and sisters appear in a letter he wrote to his brother-in-law Edward Lightmaker of London: "My mother writes to me and presses my coming up. I know not yet if that can be. But I intend, God willing, so soon as I can conveniently. . . Remember my love to my sisters. The Lord be with you, and lead you in his ways".

Bishop Leighton's sister, according to a biography ("The Life of Archbishop Leighton", New York, American Tract Society, n.d. p. 53) was married "to a gentleman of fortune and character, Edward Lightmaker, Esq. of Broadhurst, in Sussex. Mrs. Lightmaker was now a widow, and lived with her son, in the family mansion. Thither Leighton was invited to retire[1674] and spend the remainder of his days. His sister's spirit was congenial with his own, and young Lightmaker was a most dutiful son and respectful nephew.

Robert's only surviving brother was Elisha, later "Sir Ellis Leighton". Sir Ellis served as secretary to John Lord Berkeley of Stratton when he was Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland in 1670 and Ambassador to France in 1675. He died 9 Jan 1684 and his will mentions a daughter Mary (Will P.C.C. 23 Cann.)

In all the sources studied so far on the family of Alexander Leighton, only one granddaughter, Mary the daughter of Sir Ellis Leighton, has been mentioned. It would appear that one of Alexander's daughters never married and lived with her sister, Mrs. Edward Lightfoot, and only a son of Mrs. Lightmaker is mentioned. Further research may show whether there were any other granddaughters of Alexander Leighton who may have married Charles Yancey and came to the Colony of Virginia with him in 1674.

It is interesting to note that the secretary to Sir William Berkeley, Governor of the Colony of Virginia, was Thomas Ludwell, who wrote correspondence for Sir William to his brother John, Lord Berkeley of Stratton. Thus two Yanceys, Robert Leighton Yancey, a son of Capt. Charles Yancey of Louisa County, Va. and Ludwell Yancey, son of John and Mary Layton Yancey of Culpeper County, were given names of families associated with the Berkeleys.