There Never Was a George X Pemberton?

Was There a George X Pemberton?

It seems apparent to this writer, that there is no original document from the early American Colonies, that will support the idea that there was a Pemberton named George X or George X. or George Xavier during that period of history. There was a George Xavier De Rochelle who was the father of Francis De Rochelle who married a John Pemberton. Daniel Buckley, who worked closely with our Vice-President Dixie Ann Pemberton, does say this however:

There is the one record in the William and Mary Quarterly of a Geo. X Pemberton, of St. Martins P. in Hanover Co. making some payment to a Jno Garth of St. Martins P. on Nov. 5, 1734.

Which George Pemberton is Which?

The question is whether this George is the same as other George Pembertons. You can read hard facts about this in Daniel Buckley’s research.

Dixie Pemberton published an article on early Virgina George Pembertons in Vol. 1, Number 1 of the Pemberton Post .

Eli Jay’s Obvious Error in Asserting Xavier as a Middle Name for George Pemberton, b. 1685

The will of George Pemberton, born c. 1685 in Cheshire, England, and died in Virginia not too long before October 4, 1757, shows that he used a mark that can be read as an “X”. This is the mark he would have made after his scribe had prepared his will. Your author does not know whether the following is true in this particular instance, but it was very common practice for a County Recorder to make a hand copy in the county book from the original will and thus allow the informant to retain possession of the original document. (If one looks forward and backward in the county record, one will often see that the same hand wrote many wills and deeds in those old books.) Indeed, this entire document appears to have been written by one person and is likely a hand copy of the original will. Nonetheless, the placement and style of the mark is precisely what would be expected for such a typical mark, embraced above and below with “his” and “mark”, and cannot be interpreted as an initial by any stretch of a research theory. The question we would ask of those who want to read this mark as the initial “X” is this: Why did the scribe write “his” and “mark” above and below the initial if it was indeed an initial? A photographic image of the will can be seen at the bottom of the page·here.

Eli Jay, in Centennial Anniversary of West Branch MM, Ohio 1807-1907, Leesburg Public Library, Leesburg, Florida, says:

Samuel Pearson, Benjamin Pearson, Sam’l Pearson and Robt. Worthington witnessed his will, which he signed George X. Pemberton, the “X” no doubt being for “Xavier” rather than that he was signing by mark as many persons have supposed.

A brief review of the will and its witnesses shows that this is clearly an error on Eli’s part for the reasons stated above. To see Eli’s comment in his context, go here and search for “supposed”.