The Descendants of Coll0 Giles Brent Capt George Brent AND Robert Brent, Gent IMMIGRANTS TO MARYLAND AND VIRGINIA BY CHESTER HoRTON BRENT (The Descendants of Hugh Brent etc.) PlllVATELY PRINTED BY THE TUTTLE PUBLISHING COMPANY RUTLAND, VERMONT 1946 Copy Number of IJO Copies TO MISTRESS MARGARET BRENT 1601 - 1671 Gentleman EXPLANATIONS AND. ABBREVIATIONS The nethod of showing descentAised in this work is similar to that used by Hayden in his Virginia Genealogies, and will be readily understood by anyone who will examine the illustration that foliows. On page n9, the children of (65) ROBERT BRENT, are numbered first by Arabic numerals beginning with 82 and ending with 89: then by Roman numerals I thru vm. The first child is given thus: + 82 I George. The plus sign indicates the continuation of his record as the head of a family on page 132; the number 82 is his family number, and the letter I is the number of his order of birth. By turning to page 132, he will be found recorded as the head of a family, his record reading thus, para­ phrased: (82) GEORGE BRENT, 7th generation, son of Robert, 6th generation, George 5th generation, Robert 4th generation etc. However, the easiest way to find your line is to look in the index and find the name of your known ancestor, and follow his number back to the immigrant. This work is fully indexed. b. born. d. died. m. married. d. u. m., died unmarried. d. s. p., died sine prole, without issue. d. v. p., died in his father's lifetime. OPR., Overwharton Parish Register of Stafford Co. Va. Hayden, Hayden's Virginia Genealogies (reprint). Nugent, Cavaliers & Pioneers by Nell Marion Nugent. Bozeman, History of Maryland, 1833. Meade, Old Churches & Families of Virginia. JHB., Journals of the House of Burgesses of Virginia, (Mc­ Ilwaine). MCGC, Minutes of the Council & General Court of Colonial Virginia. OGI, Old General Index; this was an index made of the Stafford County records before the Civil War; this index shows the approximate dates of certain legal transactions in Will, Deed and Order Books that were stolen or destroyed during this invasion (1861-1865). Va. Mag. of Hist. & Biog., The Virginia Magazine of History and Biography, published by the Virginia Historical Society. W. M. Q., William & Mary ~uarterly, first and second series. FOREWORD In 1936, after twenty years of odd-time research, I published The Descendants of Hugh Brent etc. In collecting this data, I had · to study all records where the name BRENT was mentioned. As the Hugh Brent genealogy was a pioneer study with many of my own family registers to draw from, the task was much easier than this present one. So much has been printed and accepted, some based on fact and some on wishful thinking, over a long period of years, concerning Giles and George Brent, that one who attempts to do a complete job, hesitates to write Finis to his work. I have accepted the data compiled about 1740 by George Brent (44) and published by George Fitzhugh in De Bow's Review, July 1859; and the later work of William Brent Chilton as published in the Virginia Magazine of History f3 Biography, as the basis of this genealogy. I have had, thru the generosity of Mr. H. G. Hunt, access to Mr. Chilton's data. The latter notes had been carried on from George (44) by Daniel Carroll Brent (85), and John Carroll Brent (127). To this I have added the records now extant in the counties of Northumberland, Lancaster, Westmoreland, Stafford, Prince William and Fairfax; also some church parish registers, and data from family Bibles from Maryland, Virginia, Florida, Louisiana, New York and Michigan. A few years ago, Mrs. Duncan Kenner Brent loaned me the data on the Origin of the Brent Family made 1932. This had been thoroughly checked as the notes herewith printed show. The use of hereditary surnames did not come into general use until the 13th century, and it is always rather difficult to impress upon people the fact that all persons of the same surname do not necessarily descend from a common ancestor of that name. This is rather well illustrated in this case by the entry in the Somerset Plea Rolls relating to Richard de Brent, son of .ddam de Thurburn, in 1225. In spite of the fact that at that time there were living in Somerset a Robert de Brente and a Richard de Brent, they were not apparently related. The reason of course is that in neither case in the de Brente--the former as we now know was a grandson of Sauvin de Turre, and the latter son of Adam de Thurburn, was de Brent a surname. But in the case of Robert, the de Brent became an hereditary surname after successive generations had been of Brent-meaning Lords or Owners of Brent, in Somerset. The first Robert de Brente was a tenant of the Abbey of Glas­ tonbury. The land grants to him in South Brent were made about 1240, and were in the nature of a confirmation of a previous grant made about I 170-80 to his grandfather Sauvin de Turre, who held the office of Porter to the Abbot at that time. Glastonbury Abbey was one ot the most ancient Religious Houses in England. In fact, tradition has it that it was founded by Joseph of Aramathea in the first century A. D. However, that may be, there is definite records of the Abbey's existence from ,the sixth century; and in the thirteenth century it was one ot the richest monasteries in England. The Office of Porter to the Abbott, therefore, was a position of some note. It has been published in some genealogical works without offer­ ing any substantiating data whatever, that Anne, younger sister of Giles and Margaret Brent, married Gov. Leonard Calvert of Maryland. Considering the closeness of both business and friendly relations between these two families in Maryland, it appears odd that the Maryland records show nothing relative to this mar­ riage, even though the children of Leonard Calvert came to Mary­ land after his death and _married and died there. Anne Calvert married for her second husband Henry Brent, a nephew of Giles and Margaret Brent. Margaret Brent names several neices and nephews in her will, but not the Calverts. No authority can he found for these three children given to the first G_iles Brent: Katherine, Henry and Margaret. They are not named in the father's will, nor in that of his sister, Margaret. Katherine is given as marrying Richard Marsham. Richard Marsham was the third husband of the much-married Ann Cal­ vert; the first having been Baker Brooke, and the second, as stated above, was Henry Brent (17). It has been suggested by some members of this family that Martin de Turre was the son of Odo, Prince Bishop of Bayeaux, and later Earl of Kent 1067, an"d half brother of William the Con­ quorer. However, no evidence has been proffered to substantiate this claim, nor has a search been made by this compiler. Much unwarrented cnt1c1sm has been made of Giles Brent's aggrandisement and land grabbing tactics. But one would have to understand conditions in England and also in Maryland and Virginia, to properly evaluate the situation. His father's large estates in Gloucestershire had been sequestered by the Stuart dynasty, because the Brents were Catholics. After Giles arrived in Maryland he was sorely beset by the vacillating policies of Lord Baltimore, and the frequent raids made by Virginia's jealous Claiborne. Then came the Puritans. H_is marriage to the very young Indian empress, it solely for the expected inheritance other father's lands, was in no wise peculiar to the custom of the times then, or even of today; he, at least, after failing to gain her father's estate, continued to live with her, raised a family, and when he could no longer suffer the conditions in Maryland, moved across the Potomac into the Virginia wilder­ ness, and established a large estate for himself there. He has never received his proper due for opening up this Chica­ koun country to the white settlers; and it is very doubtful that anyone else with a less friendly inderstanding of the Indians could have done it so successfuily. His home, first at Peace, and later at Retirement, was a sort of white outpost on the freshes of the Potomac, where all later settlers from the south stopped on their way to patent new lands and build new homes. It will be noticed that not every person listed in this work has a family number. This was caused by the late reception of data, and a haunting fear that mistakes would crop out by changing and copying. All family lines carried to completion do have num­ bers, however. To those who were very gracious with their help, I thank most sincerely: Mr. H. G. Hunt, Washington D. C.; Dr. G. M. G. Stafford, Baton Rouge, La.; Miss Catherine M. Neale, New York; Mr. Clayton Torrence, Virginia Historical Society, Richmond: Mrs. Richard Robbins Kane, Baltimore; Mrs. Hally Carrington Brent, Ruxton, Maryland, and Colonel William Lyster, Wash­ ington D. C. Chester Horton Brent Harrisonburg, Virginia 15 June, 1946 CONTENTS PAGE The Origin of the Family of Brent 13 The Barony of Kernes or Kemys 26 The Brent Family of Somerset, England 27 The Brent Family of Kent, England 31 Harleian Society . 33 De Bow's Review 35 Brent Memorials, Ilmington, Warwickshire 36 Descendants of Col.