Lost Descendants of William Lee, the Son of Colonel Richard Lee and Anne Constable: Lees of Virginia Lost Lineages a Series by Jacqueli Finley, #3

By Jacqueli Finley

For hundreds of years, the Lees of Virginia descendants of Col. Richard Lee's son, William Lee, have been denied their heritage - denied their birthright by historians and scholars that refuse to allow the truth to be known. I am referring to the descendants of William Lee and his wife Alice Felton as the "Lost Descendants of William Lee".

 

Because of past speculation that was considered as truths, and opinions that were published as facts by outdated references that have no proven documentation, as law that governs over who descends from Richard Lee and Anne Constable on 'majority rule' genealogy sites, and false Lee Y-DNA Project claims.

 

The denial of the William Lee line goes on even in these times because of false Lee Y-DNA Project claims, as the internet opens new frontiers of knowledge, as Federal Census records and documentation that was previously blocked from our view are now accessible - as birth, marriage and death publications are now available-making it possible to prove the existence of this lineage and that it does live on-through the thousands of GEDCOM files available on genealogy sites worldwide-- and even though the facts are there, the denial of these proud descendants goes on ...

 

And the denial of descendants goes beyond William Lee, it goes on to all lines, except for those associated with Ditchley, Cobb's, or Stratford, of primarily white European descent, which seem to be the only lines recognized at this time because of tainted Y-DNA projects, prejudiced genealogy sites, and non-sourced references!

• Language: English
• Publisher: Jacqueli Charlene Finley
• Release date: Mar 31, 2023
• ISBN: 9798215336342

Jacqueli Finley

I am a professional Genealogist, APG Member (Association of Professional Genealogists) and have over 40 years of genealogy experience and research.  About a decade ago I was hit by a drunk driver and the accident left me disabled with severe spinal injuries so I have been forced into a "retirement" of sorts - my focus remains on my lifetime research and repairing of the Lees of Virginia descendant lines, sharing my lees of Virginia data, writing on my discoveries about our Lees of Virginia lineages, and helping others find the truth in their own genealogy and family ancestry when I am able for even though I have limitations now physically, I am still unlimited mentally and my determination has not been hindered by my hardships. I am always here to help. As a professional genealogist: I proudly abide by the code of ethics of the Association of Professional Genealogists as I undertake my genealogy and history research.

Book preview

Prologue

Lost Descendants of William Lee

For hundreds of years, the Lees of Virginia descendants of Col. Richard Lee's son, William Lee, have been denied their heritage- denied their birthright by historians and scholars that refuse to allow the truth to be known, referring to the descendants of William Lee and his wife Alice Felton as the Lost Descendants of William Lee.

Because of past speculation that was considered as truths, and opinions that were published as facts by outdated references that have no proven documentation, as law that governs over who descends from Richard Lee and Anne Constable on 'majority rule' genealogy sites, and false Lee Y-DNA Project claims.

The denial of the William Lee line goes on even in these times because of false Lee Y-DNA Project claims, as the internet opens new frontiers of knowledge, as Federal Census records and documentation that was previously blocked from our view are now accessible - as birth, marriage and death publications are now available-making it possible to prove the existence of this lineage and that it does live on-through the thousands of GEDCOM files available on genealogy sites worldwide—and even though the facts are there, the denial of these proud descendants goes on ...

And the denial of descendants goes beyond William Lee, it goes on to all lines, except for those associated with Ditchley, Cobb's, or Stratford, of primarily white European descent, which seem to be the only lines recognized at this time because of tainted Y-DNA projects, prejudiced genealogy sites, and non-sourced references!

William Lee Research

Many previous Lee researchers failed to note that William Lee the son of Col Richard Lee was of age to inherit when his father passed away in 1664 as Will and Last Testament does not stipulate William was not of age as his younger siblings were mentioned as when probated 1664/65. Most previous researchers and genealogy references have William’s birth circa 1650 per Edmund J Lee’s research in Lee of Virginia setting that stage William’s birth would have been more of circa 1640, as men were to be age 21 to inherit without a legal guardian, yet he would have been legally able to wed at a younger age, as was customary at that time as it appears that he did just that. A practice of when giving a ‘circa’ date in genealogy research as EJ Lee had done usually gave a 10-year span in general understanding not to be taken literally. The math tells us William Lee would have been born around 1640 to be more accurate to his father's probate instructions which would also coincide with marriage record date for William Lee (Lea was a phonic spelling as was often the case in records of that time as with this record) to widow Alice Felton and land transactions that they had both witnessed as well.

NOTE: Regarding supposed research of Alice Felton having the surname FENTON, unfortunately about 20 years ago I had shared research information from a GEDCOM I had made that had a typo error of FENTON for Alice (as I had written an 'N' instead of 'L'). I had an acquaintance with a daughter with a name of Alice Fenton, so I did not catch it until after I submitted that GEDCOM to the LDS Library. This had been a typo that unfortunately some researchers have taken as a fact, even running amuck with the error by going as far as publishing books with the erroneous surname as if factual even after I had warned them it WAS A TYPO ...  I have the evidence of the creation of the typo - the GEDCOM, messages and emails about the needed correction. I reached out and informed who I could that it had been just that - a typo mistake. It seems there are those who are trying to use this as evidence to dispute William Lee's wife as Alice Felton.  Again, I apologize, Fenton was my error which I did correct, and it was limited to just one GEDCOM file at that time. It is unfortunate that some have and are trying to take advantage of this mistake.

Most seasoned researchers of family history and genealogy acknowledge that there are many variations of spellings that occur with a given surname such as Lee, Lea, Leigh, etc., as one surname example because of phonic spellings, enumerator errors and adaptations over time. Many times, the practice of using alternate phonic spellings of surnames can be helpful in finding archived records.

Unfortunately, Y-DNA projects and individuals who seem to wish to add to the misinformation and confusion in particularly the Lee lineage have used Y-DNA to dissect lines even more or separate one individual as two entities because a record may have a different spelling of a surname than another recording even though common sense and prior earlier research as in William Lee's case (Lea in this instance) were accepted as the same person. Then to add to the arguments it is claimed that his birth had to be about 1650 to 1655 so it would have been impossible for him to have married Alice Felton, widow of Thomas Felton, which conflicts what has been found on the marriage record and completely ignore the fact that William had to be at least 21 when his father WROTE his Last Will and Testament otherwise his being a minor would have been indicated. That was the law of that time. Too often words are used as 'probably, most likely, possibly, etc.,' to describe the reasoning behind what online genealogy sites argue for these dates. There are a lot of assumptions.

Land Grant Signed by William Lee

Text, letter Description automatically generated

ACTIONS MINORS COULD PERFORM EARLY COLONIAL VIRGINIA

There are those who argue that land grants and recordings signed by William Lee (or Lea) were not those of our William Lee, and wife Alice on some as they are both Witnesses, because of the given age of 'Circa 1650's' made him too young and state that he could not acquire, buy, sell land, or witness legal contracts because he was not 21 per the argument. That is not entirely true at all, age 21 was mainly about inheritance without a guardian under age 21, the rest is assumptive imposing limitations on the historical documentation signed by William Lee to create an argument not based on true facts: 

Some legal actions did not require that a person be 21.  For some legal actions, the law merely required that the person be judged capable of discretion.  The age of 14 was generally accepted under common law as the age of discretion, and in rare individual cases (particularly females) it could be even lower.  A minor could be judged by courts to be capable, just as an elderly person or an idiot could be judged to be incapable.  Further, a father could give or withhold some or all of the rights of majority to a child, by giving freedom, though actually finding such a record is quite rare.

Children aged 14 and over could legitimately perform a variety of legal actions -

Choose their guardian or replace an existing guardian.

Apprentice themselves without parental consent.

Bequeath personal property (but not real property) in a will.

Witness deeds and contracts.

Testify in court.

Boys aged 16 and over were obliged to serve in militias and could obligate themselves to military service without the consent of parents in most of the colonies.

Children aged 17 and over could act as executors so long as other actions by adults were not required. 

(This is a relatively rare occurrence.) See: Legal Age | Bob's Genealogy Filing Cabinet (genfiles.com)

These actions by minors were accepted without question.  For example, when we find records of a child selecting their own guardian or binding themselves as apprentices, it is a certainty that the minor was aged 14 or more.  Further, if judged by the court to be of sufficient discretion, a child could make a will disposing of personal property (but not real property) at the age of 14 (age 12 for females).  Children could also be witnesses in a court action.  Children aged 14 or more could legally witness a deed, will, or contract.  For a variety of practical reasons, the parties to such acts might prefer to use adults, or at least older children, as witnesses.  However, at one time it was common in England to select as a witness a young child who could be counted upon to outlive the parties to the transaction.

So strongly was this traditional common law embedded in American society that the Virginia colonial legislature deviated from it in only one circumstance.  In 1727, after the Virginia legislature enacted a statute declaring slaves to be subject to the same treatments and laws as real estate, it recognized that real estate could not be devised in the will of a minor and amended the statute to permit a child aged 18 or more to bequeath slaves in a will.

Minors and Land

The case of land transactions deserves special attention.  Minors could be landowners since they could acquire land by gift or inheritance.  Land was never without title, so a fathers will be devising land to a minor resulted in the minor’s immediate ownership regardless of age.  Likewise, the land of an intestate person fell immediately to a specific heir, even if a minor, under the law of succession.

Minors and Lawsuits

In the same manner, children were protected from lawsuits.  A child under 21 could not be sued except in the name of his guardian.  Conversely, an infant could initiate a suit only in the name of his guardian or next friend.  A minor could, however, be charged with any crime at the age of 14.

For a detailed discussion of the legal age, see Blackstone, Sir William, Commentaries on The Laws of England, Book 1, Chapter 17.  Note that specific actions by minors could be altered by colonial legislatures, based on local needs.

See Hening, Vol. 4, page 223

Blackstone, Book 1, page 465.

Blackstone, Book 1, page 465.

Hening, Vol. 1, pp269-70.

So, they plant the seeds of doubt then over time and then that doubt is used to destroy our Lee lines. 

It is a pattern of lineage destruction that has been used and is being implemented currently, as these latest claims that son of Richard Lee that married Mary Young was not related to William and Alice at all, but a random immigrant from England who voyaged over with his soon to be wife Mary.

This has been the way for the Lee lines, especially with William Lee.

First Edmund Jennings Lee published that William died without issue in his 'Lee of Virginia' book (EJ Lee's son published after EJ Lee's death a re-write correction that William had married and Alice and had four children).  Then it was argued Mary Lee was not a child of William Lee's as the Lee Society still states this today and does not recognize the line using that argument even though William Lee's handwritten Will sat hidden within the Virginia State archives.

They have argued and dissected William's children one by one from William Lee, II and John Lee, now Richard Lee. 

They have accepted for most part son Richard Lee until recently but had wrongly cut off many Lee descendants of the next generation descent down by claiming Richard Lee's son John Lee, Esquire was not the great grandson of Col Richard Lee and Anne Constable as previously claimed.

Using unverifiable Y-DNA they disputed, then divided John Lee, Esquire into three separate individuals as a John Lee, Esquire, John Lee from Johnston County, and a John Lee from Nansemond, ignoring the facts that tell he was one individual - John Lee who was son of Richard Lee and Mary Young. They use unverified Y-DNA studies to discredit previous well researched and sourced published conclusions on these Lee ancestors and their lines.

They used the false Y-DNA claims to destroy our Lee lines beyond William Lee to most of our Lee descendant lineages and continue to sow the seeds of doubt and dissect our ancestry, ignoring factual evidence that the majority of Lee descendants DNA now shows us the truth of the matter and what has been occurring is wrong.

I have learned that when I see on these online genealogy sites that promote collaborative consensus genealogy that each site does mirror each other’s verbiage on the biographies for ancestor profile reflecting the information on what they wish to present on the World stage as true and accurate regarding our Lee family ancestors and history.  Seeing the words In Dispute on the ancestor profiles eventually means that existing Lee lines from that ancestor profile will soon be separated from their rightful descents and lineages. This has happened repeatedly in this pattern.

These sites and individuals often give our ancestors different names, making our ancestors unrecognizable and impossible to find in research for future generations.

These sites also promote opinion and assumptions over facts and primary sourcing.  Instead, they use the words maybe, probably, possibly, could have been ... often as well as all kinds of vocabulary that looks good on paper but if fact checked, cannot be verified. Many of the sources they use are not sources, not even a reference to a source and too often unverifiable.

Since the first publishing of Edmund Jennings Lee's book 'Lee of Virginia' that the Lee Society and many Lee researchers use as a guide on our Lee ancestry, the only Lee lines that mattered or 'accepted' are the all-male Lee lines of descent from the 'famous' Lees or IF a female Lee married into a wealthy affluent family. When DNA became a factor with genealogy by using only male Y-DNA the segregation and discrimination continued. It is rare if a mixed marriage, or partnership resulting in children of mixed race, or a gender switch in a Lee line from a male ancestor to a female child, these lines are rarely ever recognized and IF it once was, it is disputed then eliminated. Even though these female gender switches (meaning a female Lee child married and had descendants), or a mixed race descendancy occurred, represent 80% or more of Lee DNA that can be used to verify family and ancestral relationships. With accuracy, despite what they claim.

Fact: William Lee did have a handwritten Will which verified and named Mary Lee as his daughter when she was made Trustee of Estate by the Court:

Source: Northumberland County Court Transcript

1687-1699 Order Book Part 2 - Northumberland Co Va; Hamrick: Pg 740 Northumberland County Court  September 16, 1696 Upon the Petition of MARY SCREVER formerly HEATH Executrix of the Last Will and Testament of Capt. WILLIAM LEE the said Will here in Court produced, which in the Court's Opinion (being well acquainted with the hand of the said Capt. LEE) was written by his own hand but the Witnesses not forthcoming a Probate is granted her of the Last Will and Testament

But somehow William Lee’s Will and appointment of daughter Mary Lee as Executor was lost to researchers in the past ... one must visit the archives to view the microfilm which is a feat as it is a difficult task to get the opportunity to with the bureaucracy involved. The Virginia State Library archives are full of historical public records yet a few years back the access to these public records was changed from the traditional process of viewing to a very limited process