William Lee Research
Research Compiled by Jacqueli Finley
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: In regard to 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.
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.
Generally speaking, 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 an executor so long as other actions by adults were not required. (This is a relatively rare occurrence.)
Legal Age | Bob's Genealogy Filing Cabinet (genfiles.com)
These actions by minors were accepted without question. For example, when we find record 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. 2
Minors and Land
The particular 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 father’s will 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 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 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 EJ Lee published 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 others verbiage on the biographies for ancestor profile reflecting the information on what they wish to present on the World stage as true and accurate in regards to our Lee family ancestors and history. Seeing the words "In Dispute" on the ancestor profiles this 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, in spite of 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 in itself 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 that has narrowed the access, even though these archives are for the public to view as containing public information that should be accessed freely.
Even past seasoned researchers and historical publishing's seemed to have ignored the existence of this record.
One Example:
William's daughter Mary Lee: William and Mary College quarterly historical magazine, Volume 9, page 274. - Caroline Jett wrote in her article "In the Shadow of the Chicacoan Oak": "It was in the 1680’s that Thomas Heath came to Northumberland County. As he died soon after arriving there, the folks of Northumberland County knew little about him. His wife was Mary, and much effort has been made to discover her maiden name. Some believe that she was the daughter of Captain William Lee (son of Richard Lee.) However, as no clear evidence or proof that she was Captain Lee’s daughter has ever been discovered, the Society of Lees of Virginia will not accept her descendants as members. Whether she was his daughter or not, she definitely was the executor of Capt. Lee’s estate."
One would think if such statements were made as above years ago, there had to have been a Will for William Lee to have had made Mary an Executor of his estate ... and we are to believe they did not even think of it as possible a Will existed as is necessary to legally address a probate in court.
More recent research, documentation and using DNA has confirmed that William Lee and Alice Felton did have four children, Mary Lee Heath Schriever being their daughter. The court records verify that their sons did eventually have their day in court with Uncle Richard. They were awarded monies and land from their uncle, Richard Lee, years after the initial court battle, when they were not yet of adult age, where their uncle had taken their inheritance from their sister Mary's husband, Bart Schriever. It has been documented that Bart and Mary received her furniture and what money that Bart had saved up, then the land had been divided between Uncle Richard and his two brothers. This included the same land occupied by William and his family and the adjacent land which once had belonged to Thomas Felton, then Alice Felton, then sold to William Heath, then Mary and husband Bart.
Below are images describing the distribution of William Lee's land holdings to his brothers after Uncle Richard took his sons to court to regain William's inheritance -
Uncle Richard Lee's distribution of brother William's inheritance to himself and two brothers:
From Lee of Virginia, 1642-1892: Biographical and Genealogical Sketches of the Descendants of Colonel Richard Lee Edmund Jennings Lee
court order from court to uncle richardland grant to william
Source:
9 May 1711 Westmoreland County Grant: Author Link: Lee, Richard, Col., grantee.
Title Link: Land grant 9 May 1711.
Summary Location: Westmoreland County.
Description: 792 acres beginning &c being the 4th corner of a patent for 2200 acres of land belonging to the sd. Richd. Lee by patent granted to Colo. Richard Lee, decd.
Source: Northern Neck Grants No. 4, 1710-1712 , p. 33 (Reel 289).
Part of the index to recorded copies of land grants issued by the agents of the Fairfax Proprietary between 1690 and 1781 and by the Commonwealth between 1786 and 1874. Original and recorded surveys are also indexed when available. The collection is housed in the Archives at the Library of Virginia. Other Format Available on microfilm. Northern Neck Grants, reels 288-311.
Subject - Personal Link: Lee, Richard, Col., grantee. Link: Lee, Richd. Subject - Topical Link: Land titles. -- Registration and transfer -- Virginia -- Westmoreland County Subject -Geographic Link: Westmoreland County Virginia -- History -- 18th century. Genre/Form Link: Land grants -- Virginia -- Westmoreland County. Added Entry Link: Northern Neck Land Office. Northern Neck grants, 1690-1874. Link: Library of Virginia. Archives.
RESEARCH NOTE: GRANTEE COL Richard Henry Lee – from lawsuit 1711 – so lawsuit was recorded around that timetable not from Col Richard Lee probate as he died in 1664 and his probate distributed in 1665 ... not 1711 and the probate gave a detailed inventory of Col Richard Lee's vast estate and what William Lee had inherited. This land the court viewed as possible land Uncle Rich took back from William's sons and as inherited land from Col. Richard Lee.
By tracing land back to William and Alice Lee this land grant starts to make more sense as records show William and Alice owned land adjacent to William Heath and daughter Mary.
There are more court filings available to view as well in the VA archives in regard to this matter. This one in particuliar holds some details to land that may be traced to future descendants from Richard Lee and his child John Lee, Esquire's estate.
John Lee, Esq – son of Richard Henry Lee and grandson of Wm Lee, appears to inherit portions of this same land from his father Richard Lee and by following the land John Lee, Esq distributes later on to his children via his Will, by reviewing inventory of the land William had inherited from his father, reviewing land his brother distributed to his two siblings after reversing William's inheritance, and noting that William, Alice acquired properties in what was the Westmoreland region and comparing to land divisions and renaming of that particular territory.
IMPORTANT NOTE: Please see and read https://www.wikitree.com/photo.php/0/08/Lee-1662.pdf compiled by Jacqueli Finley (or by reading the PDF below at bottom of page as well) to understand the fluidity of the Virginia territorial changes in the area that took place during Wm Lee, Richard Henry Lee, and his son’s John Lee Esquire lifetimes.
You can follow the land that Wm’s boys got back from their Uncle Richard Henry Lee in court battle, following intricate territorial name changes – eventually to Nansemond then to Johnston County, North Carolina. This was what I label the “HEATH” land because the deeds and land grants make it a little easier to follow as this land was given back to the boys Richard and John from their Uncle Richard when the inheritance reversal occurred as he had confiscated the land on which Mary and her husband Bart had occupied at that time as well.
Newer verifiable DNA studies from Lee descendants using GEDMatch and similar DNA comparison tools with Lee descendant collected linear DNA overrides previous Y-DNA controversial and incorrect data stating otherwise.
It has been and can be determined by these new linear DNA comparisons confirmation of the relationships of lines for William Lee, son of Richard Lee and Anne Constable, their children, and descendants. This includes for their son Richard Lee who married Mary Young and their children, and descendants.
Descendants of Lee lines from Richard Lee and Anne Constable can use linear DNA – which means using the raw data from Autosomal, Mitochondrial, and Y-DNA comparison results – to verify genetic relationships using GEDMatch type DNA tools regardless of Lee descendant donor sexual orientation using both male and female Lee descendant DNA.
Because Y-DNA is limited and cannot verify an NPE (Non-Parental Event), linear DNA studies are more comprehensive and when using a platform as GEDMatch the comparison results are fairer and more transparent.
And with these new tools and advancement in DNA comparisons, especially for clarification where paper trails may not clear up Lee relationships and lineages, the DNA is able to confirm what has been in dispute.
Of course, there are family trees and GEDCOMs that may be incorrect or have NPEs, but in these cases there will not be DNA matches or discrepancies in what MRCAs may reflect. That is where the documentation and research can be complimented with the DNA results.
And if there are DEFINITIVE records of facts and not just an opinion of records of Lee ancestor relationships, please come forth with the factual evidence (not just research speculation) as many of us Lee descendants have confirming DNA matches with other confirmed Lee descendant lines from Richard Lee and Anne Constable, overwhelmingly so.
Many of us who are often told we are not related to the famous Lees are in fact related and not "Lee Wanna-Be's" as we have been erroneously called.
Our DNA tells us the facts and evidence of our genetic relationships, not opinion.
Thanks to public DNA collective sites that give the DNA donor the control over their own DNA results, matches, and verification the process has become more transparent.
As we may have opinion and different interpretations of documents, records and historical evidence: comprehensive DNA comparisons with significant segment matches do not lie to us.
Especially true when our DNA family trees and GEDCOMs can tell us EXACTLY what generation the DNA ancestral matches exist when we run DNA Generational Match reports.
Because this DNA evidence is so overwhelmingly present and by a great quantity of Lee descendant DNA donor contributions, it is hard to fathom the arguments that these DNA confirmations are not credible. Especially taking into account the real limitations to Y-DNA studies and the potential of NPE's existing in many of the documented male Lee lines they use in these Lee Y-DNA projects.
