Started by Jacqueli Charlene Finley on Monday, August 16, 2021
Problem with this page?


Profiles Mentioned:

Related Projects:

This discussion has been closed by an administrator.
Showing all 9 posts
8/16/2021 at 7:24 AM
Maven B. Helms on7/21/2019 at 11:34 AM
“Entirely too much faith has been placed in the slender evidence of a single christening report from this parish, regarding connections to the Coton Hall Lees and the Famous American Lees.

Unfortunately the original record thoroughly destroys the former connection, and subsequent records indicate *very* strongly against the latter.

The Richard Lee who was christened at Shrewsbury St. Chad's on May 15, 1617, was the son of Richard Lee, "Sharman" (shear-man, a cloth-cutter, possibly a worker in figured napped fabrics, e.g. figured velvets).

Richard Lee the shear-man died in Shrewsbury and was buried Jan 14, 1621 (New Style). (Richard Lee, Gent., of Coton Hall, was recorded as having been buried *at* Coton Hall, and the remains later removed to Alveley.)

Richard Lee the son (a "corviser" or cordwainer = high-quality shoemaker) appears to have married someone named Mary or Marie, and to have produced a clutch of little Lees between 1642 and 1653:

642, July 7. Elizabeth, d. of Richard & Marie Lea ... bap.
1642/43, Feb. 2. Andrewe, s. of Richard & Mary Lea ... bap.
1645, Dec. 4. Richard, s. of Richard & Mary Lea ... bap.
1647, Sep. 8. Marie, d. of Richard Lea, corviser, & Marie ... bap.
1647, Dec. 25. Marie, d. of Richard Lea, corviser ... bur. [oh dear]
1653, Aug. 28. Daniell, s. of Richard Lea, corviser, & Marie ... bap.
1661, May 8. John Boodell, who died att Rich. Leas house ... bur. [had his own house?]
1662, July 26. Richard Lea, corviser, of Barker Street ... bur.
1675, May 8. Daniel, s. of Mary Lea, widd. ... bur.
1676/77, Jan. 1. Mary Lea, widd: ... bur.

In essence, this appears to have been the same class of error, with less excuse, as assuming that John Lyes and Jane Hancock of Worcester, England, were the parents of Col. Richard Lee of Virginia. (*That* one at least had some flimsy associations to lean on, and no contravening evidence.)”

Now – I know Maven has a vivid imagination and gifted ‘storytelling’ abilities so over the past few days I have spent hours searching for the exact records that would validate her assertions and argument about the UK Parish Record for Col Richard Lee as son of Richard Lee of Coton … since after many requests about this Maven has still yet to supply valid primary sources from valid primary parish records – not unverifiable archives but actual legal parish records from Shropshire/Shrewsbury UK.

For public access to reliable UK Parish records:
Anyone can search for free.

And how ironic it is Maven tries to project and turn around the facts regarding her statement
“In essence, this appears to have been the same class of error, with less excuse, as assuming that John Lyes and Jane Hancock of Worcester, England, were the parents of Col. Richard Lee of Virginia. (*That* one at least had some flimsy associations to lean on, and no contravening evidence.)”

When it was she who made the ‘assumptions’ and it was I who pointed out the “flimsy associations to lean on, and no contravening evidence” by Thorndale – see:

As in today’s argument it is Maven that has not given the valid associations and contravening evidence about her claims of Richard Lee the ‘Sharman” or “Sherman” or “Shoemaker” – Parish archive location records and transcripts … so it is she who is doing the storytelling in alignment to Thorndale.

Let me break down this argument so easy to follow with facts in regard to UK Parish Record for Col Richard Lee as son and Richard Lee of Coton father.

1. First – UK Parish records are written in Latin – and where the handwriting may be illegible for some is where the transcripts can clarify as these are transcribed exactly as the original records are written. Just like USA legal records are transcribed. Thus the transcription for the UK Parish Record image of the original record in question – verbatim:

Richard (Richardus) Lee; Present at baptism of Richard Lee:; County Shropshire; Register type Composite; Register date range 1616-1638; Archive reference P253/A/1/1; Page 2; Record set Shropshire Baptisms; Category Birth, Marriage & Death (Parish Registers); Subcategory Parish Baptisms; Collections from United Kingdom, England; (source image attached)

Richard (Richardus) Lee listed as present (Father) at baptism of Col. Richard Lee; County Shropshire Register type Composite Register date range 1616-1638 Archive reference P253/A/1/1 Page 2 Record set Shropshire Baptisms Category Birth, Marriage & Death (Parish Registers) Subcategory Parish Baptisms Collections from United Kingdom, England Note:source image attached - Primary Source:; First name(s) Richard; Last name Lee; Birth year -; Baptism year 1617; Baptism date 15 May 1617; Denomination Anglican; Place Shrewsbury, St Chad's; Father's first name(s) Richard; Mother's first name(s) -; Mother's last name -; Residence -; County Shropshire; Register type Composite; Register date range 1616-1638; Archive reference P253/A/1/1; Page 2; Record set Shropshire Baptisms; Category Birth, Marriage & Death (Parish Registers); Subcategory Parish Baptisms; Collections from United Kingdom, England

2. Maven states that the illegible word she sees on record is for “Sharman” as a record of trade.
There is no Latin word “Sharman” that exists. See:
There are several Latin search engines in regard to use in genealogy. Check for yourself – no Sharman.

3. There was a surname “Sharman” or “Sherman” of that time in the UK – meaning “sheep-shearer”
But the record in question most definitely states LEE as both father/son surname.
4. UK Parish records also have a conformity in the format in which they were written as the were the legal documentation of a baptism/christening which did not include the listing of parental status or trade – to make my point:
“The baptism record has a set format - almost as if a form is being filled in.
It need to be thought of in that way …
1. The first section is the child's name
2. son of or daughter of
3. the fathers name
4. the mothers name
5. eius uxorus means his wife and there are numerous ways of spelling and abbreviating it
6. Natus means birth again there are variations of this
7. 8. 9.
The section with the most variability is this middle section describing when the event took place
Below you will see several options for this (this morning, this night, yesterday night etc) and then mention of the day of the week and then the hour of the day
10. the parish of - again there are lots of variations in how this is written
11. Baptised
12. the godparents. If not present then "pro eo " is put =represented by
13. the names of the godparents”…
Again – feel free to research this truth on your own.

SO – again since it is Maven making the argument citing her research on Richard Lee “Sharman” … etc., she needs to provide the proof – not just a story or statements because saying something is so does not make it so.

And one must remember that during the periods between the mid-1500’s and 1600’s – Shrewsbury/Shropshire was hit hard by reoccurrences of the plague, and in the early 1600’s (from memory abt. 1604-1609) Shropshire lost around 1/3 of its occupants.

And it was the great plague pandemic in mid-1600’s that was the cause for the Constable family to send their oldest daughter on that fateful trip to the Virginia Colony where Anne was to meet and Marry Col Richard Lee … as we too are experiences a pandemic – but not as severe as the plague of 1640’s UK – it effects social economics and behaviors. Since the Constable family live in the family estate located in the London area they were affected quite tragically as they lost most of their children by the time of sending their daughter Anne to safety. They could not send their oldest surviving son as he was needed to run the estate – and sadly shortly after Anne’s arrival to the new colony her parents and brother succumbed to the plague – yet Richard made and kept his promise to Anne and sent for her two surviving sisters to come to America as well. Unfortunately, only one survived the voyage.

We Lee descendants of Col Richard Lee and Anne Constable can confirm our AU DNA matches to the surviving Constable descendants …

As well as other associated surnames to the descendants of Col Richard Lee and Anne Constable – including Heath, Allen, Bryant, Howard, Hancock … to name a few.

So – please provide proof not stories. Thank you.

8/16/2021 at 8:27 AM

And just to clarify:

Maven states on her opening message on her discussion thread:

"In essence, this appears to have been the same class of error, with less excuse, as assuming that John Lyes and Jane Hancock of Worcester, England, were the parents of Col. Richard Lee of Virginia. (*That* one at least had some flimsy associations to lean on, and no contravening evidence.)”

Maven - you were not the one to debunk Thorndale's assumptive "Parents of Col Richard Lee" narritive and publishing ... it was myself.

And it was myself who planted the 'fake' GEDCOM source for John Leyes in so trying to make it sound if it was your findings is wrong.


and agin the discussion in which you cited the fake source for Thorndale's assertions which I debunked publicly:


Jacqueli Charlene Finley PRO
3/2/2019 at 9:10 AM
Report | Delete
FYI - The image of the 'birth' or Richardus Leyes and father John Leyes reference is from family search user submitted trees - if you go to family search and go to the record Maven mentions there is also a tree symbol to the right - click on to that and the prompt will ask if you wish to view the person or tree - view tree - go to the "Home' Person - guess who's tree it is, mine.

There is no record - this was created by family tree when I submitted the research in regards to locating Col. Richard Lee's parents. The information was taken from the family data collection, there is not an image of a parish record. This May 1812 was information taken off several research notes and various trees, there was and is not a primary source. Family data collection is just that - all the information (data) submitted to FS by site users. In this case I was the source (or my tree).

Family Search is a useful tool but if the main source is family data collections it is not really a source at all. Kind of like Wikipedia. People use it but it is not a primary source, the sources are the people like us who submits the info. Just saying.

From Family Search:

Richarde Lyes
England Births and Christenings, 1538-1975
14 May 1612
John Lyes

Click on tree image:

14 MAY 1612
Saint John Bedwardine,Worcester,Worcester,England


Click on the 1 source:

Attached By

Richarde Lyes, "England Births and Christenings, 1538-1975"
7 November 2014
View • Edit • Review Attachments • Detach • Report Abuse • Tag 0

This extracted IGI record was used to create this person.
Learn More...

Now view "person' from prompt instead of viewing tree.
Go to the tree's home person.
You will get my profile.

The BEST and ONLY way to get the birth, baptism, marriage, death, and probate records for this time period and England - I found searching the UK archives of the vital records. It was these records that Thorndale cites and cannot be found.

That is what I use.

Good try though. ;)

Jacqueli Charlene Finley PRO
3/2/2019 at 9:17 AM
Report | Delete

On my above link I have links to original UK Parish records and historic documents (including Col Richard Lee's LW&T).

English Parish records have been well preserved for a very long time ... and the records from Aveley Chapel were recovered and removed from Chapel prior to the roof collapse.

Maven B. Helms PRO
3/2/2019 at 9:20 AM
Moving the goalposts, I see. Now it has to be an *actual, verified* primary paper document.

Point taken. But then where did Thorndale get *his* information? (Yes there *was* an Internet of sorts - text-based - in 1988. And there were extensive and intensive genealogical discussions on various subgroups of a network called Usenet. It still exists, though not as widely used these days, and at least some of the old discussions have been archived for posterity at Google and elsewhere.)

Jacqueli Charlene Finley PRO
3/2/2019 at 9:30 AM
Report | Delete
I have searched all of the UK parish records ... even given a 10 year spans - Thorndale's records were a bust - not one marriage, birth, probate, baptism, nada.

Interestingly enough you may find the burial record for John Leyes of Worchester 1589'ish (memory) interesting. Way before Richard Lee's birth.

And why would Col Richard Lee lie? He was one, if not THE, wealthiest landowners of the Virginia Colonies, he was in a position of prominence, good standing, why would he lie on his "Last Will and Testiment" .... he character all his life was of integrity.

Maven B. Helms PRO
3/2/2019 at 9:33 AM
Have to tell you that that page claiming to show "Richardus Lee and Elizabeth Bendy marriage record" is almost completely illegible at that resolution but for the date at the top of the page. I can't even tell whether it is written in Latin (a common habit of pre-1600 parish records) or English. (And even when they *were* written in English, the names were often Latinized out of old habits.)

And at THAT time you were even trying to dis-credit the marriage record of Richard Lee of Coton and Elizabeth Bendy that is historically accepted and has been repeatedly validated.
Proving again that this is just a game to dis-credit valid research.

I only want to validate my research and credibility that has faced multiple attacks and attempts to take credit where I have worked so hard ... and now seems that others are trying to take credit for as well or appear that way. So I am only clarifying with past discussions and arguments that thought 'settled'.

Thank you.

8/16/2021 at 8:50 AM

As for me - I am not a genetic specialist or DNA expert, although I learned the basics from one, I just want to help clear up the confusion and misrepresentations of what Y-DNA and Autosomal DNA can and cannot do. In my opinion one has been over-rated (Y-DNA) and one under-rated (Autosomal) so I am only trying to clarify in the simplilest "layman' terms to help things along.

I am not perfect - I make mistakes and if proven wrong make admission, adjustments, apoligies, then move on ...

I AM a genealogist though, one who loves history and wishes to preserve it for all generation - today's and tomorrow's - regardless of race, color, creed, religion, politics, or surname ...
so I fight hard for what is true and correct.

Thank you for the patience with me in advance.

Private User
8/16/2021 at 10:33 AM


Private User
8/16/2021 at 10:33 AM


8/16/2021 at 2:09 PM

RE: - Maven's "Source" for Richard Lee 'Sharman" Baptismal Record -

From the 'source' site:

Contact Details
I welcome corrections to errors in any of the data for which I'm responsible and mistakes I've made in putting it together. And, of course, I welcome contributions from readers who have data to offer me.

However, much as I would enjoy doing so, I don't have the time to engage in email exchanges about users' own research. With the qualification that I don't promise to answer all (or even many) emails, if you've got a correction to provide, my email address is:
Return to top of page

URL of this page:
Copyright notice:
All pages at
are Copyright Mel Lockie 2011.
All rights reserved.
For a detailed copyright policy see: Conditions of Use.

[Last updated 16 Oct 2015 - 14:16 by Mel Lockie]

So PROBABLY WHY Maven made the statement:

"Dear Jacqueli: The evidence that the birth record from Shrewsbury St. Chad's does NOT pertain to the Coton Hall family can be found on the very image you waved around as "proof" that it *does*.

Take a good close look at the word following the father Richard Lee's name. Does it say "Gent."? It does not. It says "Sharman". I looked it up, and it's an obsolete occupational term for a worker-in-cloth, and some definitions added the velvet-cutting detail.

So I went digging deeper into the Shrewsbury St. Chad's parish records. What I found, I posted.

I have done nothing else except tattle.

I think you also need to go yell at Morgan Fourman and Alan Nicholls.

Maven B. Helms PRO
8/13/2021 at 8:19 PM
Re: Elizabeth Bendy, widow, nee Brooke:

Re: additional Bendy-Lee connections:

Please note that these articles *are* sourced, and the sources appear to be primary documentation."

Unless a "source' is thoroughly vetted and original primary or secondary publishing with primary citations is not a reliable source BTW. Just going over and vetting properly so I am correct in confirming not a source to dispell a UK Parish record as was stated by Maven - thank you.

8/16/2021 at 2:36 PM

"Baptism and Birth Records in the UK
Baptism Records
A baptism record is a any type of record or certificate that states the date and place an individual was baptised into a church. These records are available from 1538 onwards, and are recorded in Parish Registers. They are an invaluable resource for researching your family tree because the census and official records of birth, marriage and death do not go back further than 1837.
Baptism Records before 1813
Until 1813, the amount of information given is very basic. This included:
Child's name
Father's name
Church/Parish where baptised
It was very uncommon for the mother to be mentioned, as this was considered to be unimportant..."

Note by Jacqueli:
It was NOT customary or Parish practise to list parent 'trade' or status on Baptismal Records.

8/18/2021 at 11:18 AM

I’ve been exhausted by this discussion and I’m sure anyone reading has been also. Let’s consider it tabled and closed.

Showing all 9 posts

Create a free account or login to participate in this discussion