pre-1500 profile still in need of clean-up

+5 votes
181 views

Richard Leigh of Walington in Shropshire (son of John Leigh and grandson of Sir Peirs Leigh of Lime in Cheshire) was the father of Roger Leigh of Walington.

Among Roger's children (possibly his only son), was:
1. William Leigh of Walington who married an unknown Trafford (in turn, they had two sons, one Usher to Henry VIII, one User to Queen Mary, and a third son, [[Leigh-1582|Thomas Leigh (abt.1504-1571)]], Lord Mayor of London)

Citation: Camden, William; Fetherston, John; College of Arms, Great Britain. [https://archive.org/details/visitationcount01britgoog/page/n106/mode/1up The Visitation of the county of Warwick in the year 1619. Taken by William Camden, Clarenceaux king of arms]. 1877, p. 81. London: Harleian Society.

Thus, Sir Thomas Leigh was his grandson, not his son. I was able to remove the parent-child relationship, but I don't have certification to add in the missing generation that can link Sir Thomas Leigh appropriately.

WikiTree profile: Roger Leigh
in Genealogy Help by Porter Fann G2G6 Mach 5 (56.5k points)

3 Answers

+9 votes
 
Best answer
I have been researching this line. There is some conflict about whether Roger or William was Sir Thomas Leigh's father. That was why I had not disconnected them yet.

Roger Leigh's profile will take some work to untangle. It has combined the Leigh, Lee, and Leighton's. Currently, Richard Lee is attached as the father of Roger Leigh. There were some marriages between these families. They were separate families, but at times have been conflated. If you have any sources to help sort this family out please let me know.
by Laura DeSpain G2G6 Pilot (366k points)
selected by Traci Thiessen
Thanks, Laura.

Camden is one of the few sources that is more complete in terms of an ancestral pedigree, but when compared to others, Roger does appear to be the father of Sir Thomas Leigh.
Hi Fann,

I agree, I believe that he is too. One of the sources that name's William comes from a compilation that includes the first source that names him. As John and Jack have pointed out more sources with better dates need to be located. I have started looking for more sources for Roger, that may help sort this out. It would be great if you would help locate some reliable sources and let me know if you find any that are reliable.
More notoriety is showing up for Sir Thomas Leigh, and I stopped working through the list of added sources on one that names Roger and gave the Dugdale citation, until I can carefully document that.

I plan to come back to work on Roger and son, once I see what more, if anything, Dugdale might tell us. Fingers-crossed that Roger's origins might also be mentioned.

Meanwhile, I ran across two collateral men of the same name among close ancestors in a direct Autry line, mostly unrelated to Leigh, so I have been working to at least good stopping points, and dividing time between these laborious tasks.

Eventually, I'll check the topmost person that shows up for this Leigh line, and see if that scares up a source or additional lead,  too...

I'm also been attempting to find a source, particularly a primary source, that confirms that Roger Leigh was the father of Sir Thomas Leigh, but not found anything yet.

However I am becoming sceptical that Sir Thomas Leigh was a descendant of Sir Piers or Peter Leigh of Lyme.  The Complete Peerage, 2nd ed., vol. 7, p. 566 in the article about Barons Leigh of Stoneleigh, at second hand cites Price Collier, England and the English from an American point of view, where a number of English nobles including the Leighs are stated to have had more humble backgrounds.

The history of the county palatine and city of Chester by George Ormerod, has a pedigree of the Legh of Ridge and although it has a Richard Legh, the son of John Legh of Ridge (younger son of Sir Peter Legh of Lyme), there is no indication that Richard married or had descendants.

It certainly wouldn't be the first time that the Heralds, completing the Visitations, either mistakenly or fraudulently gave a Peer a more exalted ancestry than was actually the case.

 

+12 votes
Sorry Fann, but there is a major problem with the chronology of this family group.  If Roger Leigh was born about 1483 then there isn't enough time for 3 generations if Sir Thomas Leigh born about 1504/05 was his grandson.

Presumably these dates are estimates, but still they would have to out by quite a few years, to fit an extra generation in there.

Part of the problem appears to be relying on a Visitation as the main source.  Although they are perhaps more accurate for this time period, I would still attempt to confirm the details with other sources where ever possible.
by John Atkinson G2G6 Pilot (486k points)
+4 votes
The referenced profile as it stands has no biography.  Therefore there is nothing for the information in the data field to be based on, and one has little idea what the list of sources references.  The profile is orphaned.  It would seem like a lot of groundwork is needed before any relationship changes are made.
by Jack Day G2G6 Pilot (367k points)

Related questions

+6 votes
3 answers
+2 votes
1 answer
+2 votes
3 answers
+4 votes
2 answers
+2 votes
1 answer

WikiTree  ~  About  ~  Help Help  ~  Search Person Search  ~  Surname:

disclaimer - terms - copyright

...