Sir Thomas Leigh, of Oswestry - No such place as "Morton Regis"

What's worse, it looks as though he doesn't belong to either Lee of Coton *or* Lee of Langley. Humphrey Lee of Coton appears to have had only the one (surviving) son John (per 1623 Visitations).

There was a Thomas Lee of Langley, who married Jane (Joan) Corbet and had some ten children; he was the son of Fulk Lee of Langley and Alice Cornwall.

Lee of Wellington (probably no relation, completely different arms and a very short pedigree) yields a Sir Thomas Lee or Leigh, Marcer, Lord Mayor of London 1558; wife Alice Barker, descendants not followed.

Lee of Bridgnorth (another very short pedigree with radically different arms, explicitly a recent (1593) grant) yields another Lord Mayor of London (Sir Robert Lee, 1602) but no Thomases.

Leigh of Ellesmere contains some Thomases of dubious placement, and no other matching data.

-- And that's it for Lees and Leighs in the Visitations.

Also, incidentally, there is no record in Shaw's "Knights" of any Sir Humphrey Lee or Leigh. Nor do the Visitations describe Humphrey Lee m. Katherine Blount as such.

This family is such a total mess that I'm not sure they shouldn't be disconnected and marked for deletion.

He appears to e a mash-merge of several different Thomas Lees, Leighs and Leghs.

Joan(na) Cotton belongs to this one: Sir Thomas Legh, Kt., MP - one child, a daughter Catherine.

"Elisabeth Woltermans" appears to be a total crock with no visible means of support: baptismal record for "her" "daughter" is actually dated Feb 19, 1694/5. and there is no other documentation whatsoever. The child's name is just Mary, and the mother's name was recorded as Eleanor, not Elizabeth. And no evidence is provided as to precisely *which* parish the records come from.

There remain a few instances of children of Dorothy Oteley, who was the wife of Thomas Lee of Coton Hall they need to be transferred to their proper parents.

The whole thing is such a Goshawful mess that it looks like a slap-together of all the Wild Mass Guesses ever made about the ancestry of Colonel Richard "the Immigrant" Lee.

Dorothy Oteley's children now properly attached, and two duplicates merged into Thomas Lee of Coton.

CUT LOOSE John Leigh, of Agawam - his PROPER parents are "John Leigh's father" and "John Leigh's mother" (i.e. they are UNKNOWN).

CUT LOOSE Hugh Lee, of Northumberland County - *definitely* not a Lee of Langley *or* Coton ("Hugh" was not a name used in either branch of the family).

CUT LOOSE Henry Lee, of York County.

DISCONNECT AND MARK FOR DELETION: Sir Thomas Leigh, of Oswestry and all remaining attachments.

There are ERRONEOUS Relationship Locks on these profiles, which means that any dissociation MUST be done by a Curator.

Whoever MIS-locked them - Bad Curator!

And why does no one else give enough of a damn to comment?

Private User Hello! Sorry I'm late to the discussion. My sister and I are trying to untangle our confusing line which also supposedly comes from Sir Thomas. I did find this interesting article, I don't know if it helps any. https://leefamilyarchive.org/reference/essays/montague/index.html

There is also a record Sir Knight Thomas Robert Lee de Morton, passed away in Nordley Regis, maybe it was smashed together.

A short while back, I finally got to the bottom of the whole mess. It seems that one Grace McLean Moses went looking for the ancestors of Col. Richard Lee, and turned up a baptismal record for a Richard Lee, son of Thomas Lee, corser (or maybe corviser), in Morton parish in Oswestry district. This turned out to be a wrong number, and caused all manner of confusion.

A "corser" is a horse trader, and a "corviser" is a shoemaker. Both are working-class occupations, and are almost never gentry (i.e. almost never armigerous).

There are a couple of Sir Thomas Lees and Leighs, but not in Oawestry district and not connected to Col. Richard Lee.

As for this fellow Sir Thomas Robert de Morton Lee , I think he's a bit messed up. There definitely *was* an armigerous Thomas Leigh (not Lee), in Northam. Devon (not Dorset), but he married an Agnes Borrough, and had a son William (living as of 1620 with a wife and 3 children) and daughters Anne (m. Arthur Gifford) and Mary (m. Arthur Lippin(g)cott). He didn't have a middle name (middle names wouldn't become common until the late 18th-beginning of 19th century), and was probably not a knight (you had to distinguish yourself militarily or in politics for that).

Thank you for clearing it up.

No sources, no evidence, no nothing - cut and shove.

Looks like a Lancashire-Buckinghamhire smash-merge on top of it all, disentangling this lot is not going to be fun.

Footnote on Humphrey Lee of Langley - he wasn't a knight, he was a baronet (created by Jams I in 1620). This explains why he isn't in Shaw (Shaw didn't do baronets). Unfortunately for him, his only son, Richard Lee of Langley (2nd baronet) left no surviving male issue (there were sons but they all predeceased him sans issue) and the title became extinct.

This may shed some light on the subject: https://archive.org/details/ancestryposterit00leaj/page/4/mode/2up?...

It's from "The Ancestry and Posterity of John Lea of Christian Malford, Wiltshire, England, and of Pennsylvania in America".

The family illustrated in this section of the tree appears to be "Lee of Lea Hall and Dernhall, Cheshire, and of Quarrendon, Bucks." https://archive.org/details/ancestryposterit00leaj/page/6/mode/2up?...

But no, no "Thomas Robert de Moreton Lee".

Tagging Benedict Lee for ease of corrections. (Already gave Thomas the boot.)