Talk:Thomas Forrest (colonist)

Contested deletion
This page should not be speedy deleted because it is valid and documented history... --ClassicalScholar 01:08, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Gilo1969 changed a historical article that I posted today. I have asked that he revert his change.

He marked Thomas Forrest, Esq for deletion, and creates a new page (without links) for Thomas Forrest (financier)

"Esq" is a title. It stands for Esquire and in the beginning of the 17th century when Thomas Forrest, Esq. was alive and active, it was used by lesser sons of noble families to signify they were gentlemen. Thomas's elder brother Miles inherited the title Sir (Knight). To refer to Thomas Forrest as a "Financier" is a 21st century term that is inappropriate in history. This would be like referring to the Charles, Prince of Wales, as Charles Windsor (environmentalist).

While Forrest was a financier, his historical importance is not that he invested in the Virginia Company. It is the fact that he then boarded the second ship with his wife and became the first husband and wife to arrive in colonial America. Please see the ship's manifest at http://www.preservationvirginia.org/rediscovery/page.php?page_id=33. The Esq signifies that he was a gentleman, a word that meant something very different in 1608 in England than it does in 2011 in the USA. While it would be possible to replace (financier) with (gentlemen), this would probably cause more confusion than just leaving the archaic abbreviation alone.

The deletion by Gilo1969 is uninformed and the page should not be deleted. ClassicalScholar 01:29, 1 May 2011 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by ClassicalScholar (talk • contribs)

Only valid history as long as it sticks to proven facts
Reputable genealogists such as Dorman don't attribute Thomas Forrest as a son of the Morborne family. I don't think Wikipedia articles should state as fact theories which are merely speculative. It's misleading. I've removed the Morborne references and added references for the known facts. Underdoor (talk) 15:36, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

--- Rebuttal:

The fact that Dorman does not document Forrest's ancestry does not mean it is not documentable.

Underdoor writes "However, Thomas Forrest the colonist is described as "Gentleman", while the shareholder is listed as plain Thomas Forest. This suggests they were probably two different individuals."

The original source document is on film record at the University of Virginia:

At the very bottom of the page, the name is entered at Thos forrest spelled with two "r"s just as the ship's manifest. Later Internet transcriptions (that Underdoor seems to be relying on) seemed to have dropped to one "r", but in the original source document, it is quite apparent that the shareholder's name is spelled the same as the 1608 colonist. At this moment, I am unable to find the original of the Second Supply list, but note that the Internet version spells his name Forest and his wife's name Forrest. Are we to suppose that Mistress Forrest (2 "r"s) came over alone, and coincidentally a "different individual", not married to her - a gentleman by the name of Thomas Forest (one "r") was on the same boat? These would be the logical conclusion applying Underdoor's test, but for a professional historian, one would presume it was a matter of spelling, not of fact. In the 17th century, spelling was not consistent... even in the 21st it is not, as can be seen where the Internet transcription did not match the penned original. Who made the error? Does it matter? It is a mistake to apply pedantic standards to 17th century practice?

Further, the absence of Esq in the Company records does not imply two different people. Indeed there may be a much simpler explanation - the name came at the end of the page, and there was no more room for Esq. Or, it could be that Thomas did not care. As a younger son at Morbourne, he had little opportunity as landed gentry, and as there was a power shift going on from the old aristocracy to the new merchant class, it is possible that he was jumping ship, as it were, seeking adventure over status. In any case, the absence of the title Esq in the stockholder's papers is insufficient to support Underdoor's speculation that Thos Forrest the stockholder and Thos Forrest the colonist "were probably two different individuals"

As a professional historian, I challenge Underdoor to present his credentials, as his research appears to be reliant on internet transcriptions rather than source documents. While he writes "I don't think Wikipedia articles should state as fact theories which are merely speculative" he then speculates above "This suggests they were probably two different individuals" which in itself reads like speculation.

The article was changed to read "Forrest's fate in Virginia is unknown. As Ancient Planters, he and his wife would have been entitled to 100 acres of land each, under the headright system instituted in 1619; however, Forrest does not appear to have claimed either for himself or for his wife, suggesting that he may have died during the difficult early years of the colony, as so many did.' This reads like speculation.

Fact: Forrest and his 2nd wife Margaret came over on the Second Supply.

Fact. Margaret died shortly after arriving. Her remains were found in 1997 and forensic evidence suggests she died shortly after arrival.

Fact. In December 1608, Capt Newport returns with his ship to England.

Speculation: Margaret probably died before the ship left for England.

Fact: Thomas Forrest was born May 1572 in Morborne, Huntingdonshire, England (church records)

Fact: Thomas married Elizabeth Dancastle, born Sept 16. 1570 (church records) and in 1601, they had a son, Peter, born in Morborne, Huntingdonshire, England (church records)

Speculation: Dancastle died after Peter was born in 1601, but before Thomas remarried in 1605. Very possibly Dancastle died in childbirth, a common cause of death.

Fact: Thomas married Margaret Foxe August 16, 1605 in St. Giles in the Fields, London, England. Foxe was born in 1576 in St. Giles, London, England. (church records)

Speculation: Thomas left his 7 year old son by his first marriage in England when he set out for America. This would not be an unreasonable speculation.

Fact: Thomas was listed as a shareholder on the The Second Charter of Virginia; May 23, 1609, but not on the first.

Speculation: Thomas, a gentleman and a widower shortly after arrival, did not remain in Virginia, but sailed back with Captain Newport, which is why he was listed in the 1609 English document - he was back in England.

To be verified: Thomas died in St. Mary's County, Maryland. The records suggest he came back prior to 1650, as did his son.

To be verified: Peter married Elizabeth Ironmonger in England in 1623 and Elizabeth died in Charles County, Maryland in 1660. This suggests that the Forrests returned to America after 1619, and not to Virginia but to Maryland.

Fact: Peter died in Maryland in 1665 (church records)

The facts suggest that as a lesser son (who would not inherit his father's estate) in an exciting historic period, Thomas sought to throw his lot in with the London speculators. He was adventurous and made the ocean trip with his second wife - bold in itself, as she and her maid were the first two English women to attempt such a journey in the 17th Century. When they got there, they discovered life was hard. Margaret died - according to forensic evidence her diet was English food, meaning she died before it ran out. Why would a son of landed gentry hang around? A resourceful fellow with a son back in England, on the next boat home (in December... when it was getting very cold in Virginia) he would have gone back to England, resumed his life as a London gentleman, and not come back to America until it was more civilized... i.e. settled by more Virginia Company colonists. It is known from church records that his son married in England, but then moved to America, and by the time of Thomas' grandson, the family was established in Maryland at Forrest Lodge in St. George Hundred. The lesser son became landed gentry in a new land. There also is some historic evidence that some of the founding families were not excited about Virginia, which is why they chose Maryland instead. I need to do more research on this to document the facts, but it is likely that the Forrests decided amiable Maryland was more hospitable than Virginia.

What makes this story more interesting is that Thomas's grandmother was Catherine Beville. Her family is documented in the 700 years of Beville Family, going back to Le Sire de Beville, who came over with his knights from France with William the Conqueror to fight at the Battle of Hastings, which founded modern England. Thus, we have a family that played their part in the founding of two nations.

History is never precise, and if we applied Underdoor's standard for history of "only valid history as long as it sticks to proven facts", we would have very thin books indeed. What does proven facts mean? Is it a preponderance of evidence as in a civil trial, or beyond a reasonable doubt as in a criminal trial? Facts are an exceptionally elusive challenge for professional historians, and careers are spent tracking them down, only to have the next generation find new evidence that turns them upside down.

The conclusion that there were two Thomas Forrests, one an investor, but not a gentleman, and the other a colonist who was a gentleman, is a most unlikely interpretation. It is not that common a name, especially spelled with two "r"s, as the record now shows as fact. Underdoor's interpretations are less likely than the more reasonable one that Thos Forrest was one and the same person; that he was a gentleman (meaning he was of the Morbourne Forrests) and that he came to America in 1608, went back to England, but eventually he (or his son) made the move to America permanently.

It would not be unreasonable to call question in a Wikipedia article, so that future historians have more to go on, but to delete references wipes out a lead that could be of value. For this reason, I shall reinstate the earlier text with appropriate caveats. ClassicalScholar 03:31, 31 October 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by ClassicalScholar (talk • contribs)

Suit yourself
By all means descend from whoever you like. It's not history, but it doesn't really do anyone any harm. :-) Underdoor (talk) 10:20, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: not moved. Jenks24 (talk) 10:25, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Thomas Forrest (colonist) → Thomas Forrest, Gentleman – Twice editors have renamed the words after the name Thomas Forrest, failing to abide by WikiPedia Policy on Post-nominal initials where the policy reads: "Post-nominal letters, other than those denoting academic degrees, should be included when they are issued by a country or widely recognizable organization with which the subject has been closely associated. Honors issued by other entities may be mentioned in the article, but should generally be omitted from the lead." Please see Post-nominal_letters that specifically mentions esq.

Rather than keep fighting this, I propose to use the title used by Captain John Smith who sailed with Thomas Forrest in 1608, and wrote a book about it, the page of which is now quoted in the article. He described Thomas Forrest as "Gent" which is an abbreviation for Gentleman. In 1608 the title gentleman did not mean what it does today (a nice guy). In a class=stratified English society, gentleman meant " a man of the lowest rank of the English gentry, standing below an esquire and above a yeoman. By definition, this category included the younger sons of the younger sons of peers, knights, and esquires in perpetual succession, and thus the term captures the common denominator of gentility (and often armigerousness) shared by both constituents of the English aristocracy: the peerage and the gentry."

By making this change, it aligns with other articles such as Jamestown_Colonists ClassicalScholar 05:29, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

I added the new page before making the move attempt of the old page, so an administrator will need to do the move. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ClassicalScholar (talk • contribs) 05:31, 6 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment isn't Thomas Forret (also "Thomas Forrest") a gentleman, due to descent from an estate holder? -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 06:05, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose. The "WikiPedia Policy on Post-nominal initials" quoted by the nominator is WP:INITIAL, a part of the MOS guidelines that deals with styling the first mention of a person's name in the lead of a biographical article, not with article titling. The relevant guideline dealing with the disambiguation of persons' names in article titles is WP:NCPDAB, which recommends parenthetical disambiguators like that used here and makes no mention of postnominal letters. The nominator's creation today of Thomas Forrest, Gentleman, presumably in an attempt at a cut-and-paste move, has created a duplicate article which I will tag for speedy deletion, as it reproduces the content of this article without preserving the history needed for proper attribution. However this move request turns out, that duplicate is unnecessary. Deor (talk) 23:44, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose. First, "Gentleman" does not count as post-nominal letters (we don't used the designator "Knight" either). Second, that section does not cover article titles in any case as specified above. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:10, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Subject in a prominent work of art in the US Capitol Rotunda
Added a new section that shows Thomas Forrest (and family) are prominent in a historic painting in the Rotunda of the US Capital Building, with historic analysis (suggesting the painting is romance, not history), and additional historic citations ClassicalScholar 09:38, 2 May 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by ClassicalScholar (talk • contribs)