There are some errors in the currently popular Gregory Ancestry, that have been perpetrated by assorted printed pedigrees.
Even though the printed pedigrees start with Adam Gregory, the 1619 Visitation of Leicester began the misconception that Nicholas was the father of Adam.
|1619 Visitation of Leicester|
This is a short pedigree, beginning with a John, Lord of Feseley and Asforby, who had several children, including Nicholas, who was the father of Adam. Considering the lack of dates on all of these pedigrees and the large quantity of Gregorys, it should not be assumed that the Adam in this pedigree is the same Adam who begins the pedigree of immigrant, Henry Gregory.
Grant Gregory also points out that these two men had entirely different arms and were located a distance from each other.
This pedigree is repeated in Vol 23 p. 304 New England Historical and Genealogical Register, except that the article calls the previous Matilda, Maud. The same article contains a pedigree of Henry Gregory, immigrant, that begins with an Adam Gregory. The author of the article makes no connections between the two Adams.
The next misconception is that Adam was the father of William. The earliest recorded pedigree for this branch is from the 1567 Visitation, where it is clearly stated that William was lineally descended from Adam, not his son. Grant Gregory acknowledges this lineal descent. He believed that it was a gap of about 200 years. Many of the subsequent printed pedigree charts (including Grant Gregory's) do not mention this gap and reading them one might assume a paternal/filial relationship between Adam and William.
|Gregory Pedigree 1677|
Robert Thoroton's Antiquities of Nottinghamshire was published in 1677. It contains the correct and full pedigree as we know it, with the continuation of William's son Hugh, who was the ancestor of the New England immigrant Henry, as well as being the ancestor of the pedigree's main subject, George Gregory. This pedigree contains the gap between Adam and William.
|Gregory Pedigree (1795), Click to to see larger|
John Throsby, in 1795, reprinted Thoroton's 1677 work adding to it from Deering's 1751 History of Nottingham. He did not include the dotted line between Adam and William. Please note, there are statements that the Gregory pedigree was in Deering's 1751 work, but searching said work did not find the pedigree.
|Gregory Pedigree (1867), Click to see larger|
Vol. 23 of the New England Historical and Genealogical Register published a Gregory Pedigree, without the dotted line. This version is much neater and easier to read.
|Gregory Pedigree (1938)|
Even Grant Gregory, who pointed to the gap in the text of the Gregory Genealogy printed the chart without the gap.
Another Question? George Gregory, descendant of William Gregory, Mayor of Nottingham, presented the following to the Heralds in 1662: 
The subsequent pedigree printed by Thoroton in 1677 (see 1677 Pedigree above), shows Thomas, not William, married to Dorothy Beeston, grandfather of William the Mayor. This throws some question on this man's name. Thomas or William? Thoroton explains that in 1662, George Gregory, not "exhibiting such suffcient proof as since he hath ... " perhaps explaining the change from William to Thomas.
- ↑ Camden, William. The visitation of the county of Leicester in the year 1619. (London: 1870) p. 187 p. 187
- ↑ Gregory, Grant. Ancestors and descendants of Henry Gregory. (Provincetown, Mass., The Compiler, 1938.) p. 11
- ↑ “The Gregory Family.” The New England Historical and Genealogical Register, Volume 23. 1869. [https://play.google.com/books/reader?id=z77K5hK85ScC&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_atb_hover&pg=GBS.PA306 pp.304, 306
- ↑ Thoroton, Robert. The antiquities of Nottinghamshire extracted out of records, original evidences, leiger books, other manuscripts, and authentick authorities : beautified with maps, prospects, and portraictures. (London: 1677) pp 497, 498
- ↑ Dugdale, William (Norroy King of Arms) The Visitation of Nottinghamshire begun in 1662 and finished in 1664. London: 1986. The Publications of the Harleian Society, New Series Vol 5. p. 31