In 1969, in the Virginia Genealogist magazine, Grace McLean Moses, who had successfully identified the Welsh lineage of John Lewis of Warner Hall and the seventh child of Richard Lee of Ditchley (m. Judith Steptoe), tackled the problem of the parentage of Colonel Richard Lee. She started with the assumption that the “Morton Regis” on the John Lee cup was correct, and found in the parish records for Morton, Oswestry, Shropshire, a baptismal record for a Richard Lee, son of Thomas Lee “corser” (or possibly “corviser”), on January 19, 1608/9. Her additional supporting evidence was, however, rather weak, consisting primarily of a close match in age between this Richard Lee and the Richard Lee who deposed in Lower Norfolk County in 1641 that he was 32 years of age or thereabouts.
This finding was greeted with immediate dismissal and derision, on the grounds that 1) Morton, Oswestry, was not and had never been a “Regis”; 2) no connection with Coton Hall was shown; and 3) there was insufficient evidence to identify Richard Lee of Morton with Col. Richard Lee. (However, this did not stop various fancifully-minded people from puffing up the status of Thomas Lee from corser (horse trader) or corviser (shoemaker) to knight(!) and attaching a glamorized pedigree.)
The public consensus reverted to “Colonel Richard Lee was undoubtedly a Lee of Coton”.
Then, in the more prestigious National Genealogical Society Quarterly, volume 76, number 4, December 1988, William Thorndale published his own findings that Colonel Richard Lee was most likely the son of John Lee of Worcester, clothier, and his wife Jane Hancock. Again there was a baptismal record, this one for 22 March 1617/18. Thorndale pinned his argument mainly on two pieces of evidence, 1) an Admiralty deposition on 5 September 1654 by a Richard Lee, Gent. Of London, age 34 or thereabouts, given at a time when Colonel Richard Lee was reasonably assumed to be in London on business, and 2) the 1667 will of John Best of Twyning, Gloucestershire, who (among many other bequests to Bests and Hancocks and so forth) included Richard and Francis “Lea”, sons of “Collonel Richard Lea”. Additional circumstantial evidence was provided in heaps and mounds, including flat statements that the facts had been found – before they were even presented.
This finding was greeted with immediate approval and acceptance in most quarters, despite the problems that 1) no connection to Coton Hall was shown (Thorndale was convinced that one would be forthcoming – but it never has been); 2) insufficient care was taken to exclude any other possible Richard Lees who might have deposed to the Admiralty in 1654; 3) the age match was not exact (Richard Lee of Worcester would have been 36, not 34); and 4) once again there was insufficient evidence to identify Richard Lee of Worcester with Colonel Richard Lee of Virginia.
To date only one Richard Lee has been positively identified as shipping out *from* England, but 1) his antecedents are unknown, 2) his age is given as 22 (too young for the 1641 deponent and too old for the 1654 Admiralty deponent), 3) he was headed to Barbados, not Virginia, and 4) he was shipmates with a Robert Lee, age 33, not otherwise accounted for. No one has ever found the conclusive missing link between a Richard Lee in England and Colonel Richard Lee of Virginia. Perhaps no one ever will.
