Elizabeth Lawrence Smead Pedigree?

[Nicole Forsgren]

I have been trying to fill in/complete ELIZABETH LAWRENCE (m. WILLIAM SMEAD, d. 29 Feb 1704 Deerfield, MA). Unfortunately, I've hit a couple snags in my research. I have come across three different possible LAWRENCE lines Elizabeth could possible descend from:
1. There is no further information after her father THOMAS LAWRENCE (B. 1611 OR 1596).
2. The LAWRENCE name continues until the name changes to de LANCASTER with LAWRENCE de LANCASTER (b. abt 1250). Then, it changes again to FITZ-REINFRID (FITZ-REINFREY) with GILBERT FITZ-REINFRID (b. abt 1162). Then changes yet again to de BRUERE with RALPH(or possibly Fulk?) de BRUERE who's father is listed as REINFRID de BRUERE.
3. The LAWRENCE family starts out from Limpfield, Surrey (with Elizabeth and her father). Then, changes to the LAWRENCE family from St. Albans, Hertfordshire. Then, to the LAWRENCE family from Rumburgh, Suffolk. Then it changes yet again to the LAWRENCE family from Ashton Hall, Lancaster, Lancashire.

I'm at a loss of where to find the correct lineage for ELIZABETH LAWRENCE. I have tried lawrencefamhis.com, archive.org, ancestry.com, familysearch.org, and even wikitree and geni.com. Not to mention many online searches.
I'm hoping someone out there can point me in the right direction.
Nicole

[taf]

You can start by rejecting option 2. Someone is doing some creative storytelling, not genealogy, with that one.

I suspect that #1 is the correct one, but the third is hard to address without details. How about typing up the names that supposedly connect Lawrence of Limpfield with Lawrence of Ashton Hall.


taf

[Nicole Forsgren]

Thank you. Here's what I have. I've given you the wives names (if I have them) in case it helps any.
Elizabeth Lawrence
-Thomas Lawrence (Limpfield) m. Elizabeth Bates
-John Lawrence (b. 12 Jan 1562, St. Albans) m. Elizabeth Bull
-William Lawrence (b. c1532, St. Albans) m. Katherine Beaumont
-John II Lawrence (b. 1 Jan 1519, Rumburgh) m. Agnes Holmes
-John Lawrence (b. c1495, Rumburgh) m. Elizabeth Holt
-Robert Lawrence (b. c1474, Rumburgh) m. Elizabeth Hacker
-John Lawrence (b. c1450, Rumburgh) m. Margery ______
-Thomas Lawrence (b. c1440, Rumburgh) m. Alice?
-John Lawrence (b. c1422, Agercroft, Eng) m. Mary Welles
-Nicholas Lawrence (b. c1385, Ashton, Lancashire)
-Robert Lawrence (b. c1390, Ashton Hall, Lancaster, Lancashire) m. Amphibilis Longford

Nicole

[taf]

On Monday, April 17, 2017 at 3:57:56 PM UTC-7, Nicole Forsgren wrote:
> Thank you. Here's what I have. I've given you the wives names (if I have
> them) in case it helps any.

I don' see anything I recognize, but it does have some chronological red flags.

> Elizabeth Lawrence
> -Thomas Lawrence (Limpfield) m. Elizabeth Bates
> -John Lawrence (b. 12 Jan 1562, St. Albans) m. Elizabeth Bull
> -William Lawrence (b. c1532, St. Albans) m. Katherine Beaumont
> -John II Lawrence (b. 1 Jan 1519, Rumburgh) m. Agnes Holmes

William was born when his father was about 13?

> -John Lawrence (b. c1495, Rumburgh) m. Elizabeth Holt
> -Robert Lawrence (b. c1474, Rumburgh) m. Elizabeth Hacker
> -John Lawrence (b. c1450, Rumburgh) m. Margery ______
> -Thomas Lawrence (b. c1440, Rumburgh) m. Alice?

Again, a father at 10?

> -John Lawrence (b. c1422, Agercroft, Eng) m. Mary Welles
> -Nicholas Lawrence (b. c1385, Ashton, Lancashire)
> -Robert Lawrence (b. c1390, Ashton Hall, Lancaster, Lancashire) m. Amphibilis Longford
>

And this one is really bad - the father born after his son.

I see that variants of this claimed line have been kicking around for over 50 years, but I would recommend extreme caution.

taf

[peter...@yahoo.ca]

The Thomas Lawrence who married Elizabeth Bates is not a descendant of John Lawrence and Elizabeth Bull or of their son Thomas Lawrence, who married Joan Antrobus. There were two Thomas Lawrences on Long Island in the 1600s living at the same time. One was married Elizabeth Bates and the other, whom I descend from, was married to a Mary Unknown and a Mary Ferguson. There is some disagreement over whether or not John Lawrence's parents were William Lawrence and Katherine Beaumont. David L. Greene was supposed to publish an article on the Lawrences, but, so far as I know, never has. In any case the line further back there is no evidence for.

I did a quick Google search and came up with what I believe is a credible genealogy. It is on We Relate and can be found here: http://www.werelate.org/wiki/Person:Elizabeth_Lawrence_%284%29 It has decent sources. It puts Elizabeth's parents as being Thomas Lawrence and Elizabeth Unknown.

[P J Evans]

On Monday, April 17, 2017 at 5:59:42 PM UTC-7, peter...@yahoo.ca wrote:
> The Thomas Lawrence who married Elizabeth Bates is not a descendant of John Lawrence and Elizabeth Bull or of their son Thomas Lawrence, who married Joan Antrobus. There were two Thomas Lawrences on Long Island in the 1600s living at the same time. One was married Elizabeth Bates and the other, whom I descend from, was married to a Mary Unknown and a Mary Ferguson. There is some disagreement over whether or not John Lawrence's parents were William Lawrence and Katherine Beaumont. David L. Greene was supposed to publish an article on the Lawrences, but, so far as I know, never has. In any case the line further back there is no evidence for.
>
> I did a quick Google search and came up with what I believe is a credible genealogy. It is on We Relate and can be found here: http://www.werelate.org/wiki/Person:Elizabeth_Lawrence_%284%29 It has decent sources. It puts Elizabeth's parents as being Thomas Lawrence and Elizabeth Unknown.

Thomas Lawrence m Elizabeth Bate wasn't the Thomas of Long Island, either. He was in Hingham, Massachusetts. Elizabeth's father seems to have been James Bate of Lydd, Kent, who married Alice Glover. (_The Great Migration_ and _The Great Migration Begins_).

[Jordan Vandenberg]

On Leo's site he had some of the ancestry for Alice Glover. I haven't checked to verify it, but it would be a good starting point for your research.

The link below is to Elizabeth Lawrence's page on his site.

http://genealogics.org/pedigree.php?personID=I00663399&tree=LEO

Jordan.

[Jordan Vandenberg]

Sorry I meant to say ancestry of Elizabeth Bates (mother of Elizabeth Lawrence). Alice Glover was the mother of Elizabeth Bates.

[Nicole Forsgren]

I have seen several sources (books from archive.com) that list Elizabeth Lawrence's parents as Thomas Lawrence and Elizabeth Bates. Not 100% sure how accurate all the books are that are published, but I will keep digging.
Thank you for your help.

[Nicole Forsgren]

Thank you all for your help with this Lawrence confusion. It looks like I have some more digging to do on the Lawrence end of things. It's hard to know what sources to believe, when even some books that state Thomas Lawrence's family, Elizabeth's father, dates back 700 years. In spite of that, we can't seem to connect him to the correct Lawrence family.
I did recognize that some of the dates were off, but was hoping that at least the names would be accurate. I was also hoping that since Elizabeth Lawrence (and her family) played such a big role in the Deerfield Massacre, she lost a large number of family members and her own life that night, that maybe her pedigree had been worked on more than it appears to have been.
I know this may seem like a silly question, but I am fairly new to the modern genealogy world. Worked with my father a lot as a child/teen (when there wasn't computers), but haven't since (until now).
Can anyone give me a list of reputable (accurate) sites for British Genealogy or Genealogy in general? It seems that nearly all this side of my family lead to England, Wales or Scotland. Also, any reputable books that are helpful for finding information?
I have been using Plantagenet Ancestry (Douglas Richardson) which has been extremely helpful. Any recommendations would be appreciated.
Nicole

[joe...@gmail.com]

On Wednesday, April 19, 2017 at 12:02:28 AM UTC-4, Nicole Forsgren wrote:
> Thank you all for your help with this Lawrence confusion. It looks like I have some more digging to do on the Lawrence end of things. It's hard to know what sources to believe, when even some books that state Thomas Lawrence's family, Elizabeth's father, dates back 700 years. In spite of that, we can't seem to connect him to the correct Lawrence family.

The Elizabeth Lawrence who married Sneade was the daughter of Thomas Lawrence (of unknown parentage). This Thomas Lawrence married Elizabeth Bate, but it has been suggested for various reasons that she was a second wife who was not the mother of Elizabeth. However, Elizabeth's original marriage record states that she was "daughter of the widow Lawrence" however which is evidence that she was possibly the daughter of Elizabeth the surviving wife.

The Lawrence family is a fun one with multiple intentional fraudulent medieval ancestries concocted for various branches, including most famously by Somerby.

--Joe C

[Nicole Forsgren]

What's with my ancestors and faking ancestries?! This is the second line I've come across well known for it. I also have a Spencer line that "connects to the DeSpencers." Of course, I now know this is false as well.
Didn't they realize that one day their descendants might want to know where they came from?

[taf]

On Thursday, April 20, 2017 at 11:51:14 AM UTC-7, Nicole Forsgren wrote:
> What's with my ancestors and faking ancestries?! This is the second line I've
> come across well known for it. I also have a Spencer line that "connects to
> the DeSpencers." Of course, I now know this is false as well.
> Didn't they realize that one day their descendants might want to know where
> they came from?

In some cases this was exactly the motivation, but an unfortunate combination of over-enthusiasm, naivite and incompitence resulted in a less-than-satisfactory result. Others likewise wanted their descendants to 'know' where they came from, but were more intersted in the big picture (important and interesting people, with fun stories) than the precise accuracy. Between the two, the genealogical literature is rife with unsupported nonsense, and now the internet era, with any pedigree at the tips of your fingers and downloadable easily-merged GEDCOMs, the whole concept of scholarly genealogy is in danger of being swamped by the deluge of nonsense.

taf

[Peter Stewart]

This leaves out the factor that motivated many falsifiers, or at any
rate their clients - willful credulity. They wanted a fiction to be
true, so they willed themselves to believe it.

You can observe a gross example of this in Lindsey Graham's recent
gushing - "I am like the happiest dude in America right now. We have got
a president and a national security team that I’ve been dreaming of for
eight years." He is talking about the same president who has been his
nightmare until around eight days ago, but what does a little detail
such as truth matter when threats and bombs are being dropped where you
want them?

Peter Stewart

[D. Spencer Hines]

More to the specific point...

The American, et al., upper classes and upper-middle bourgeoisie in the
latter 19th Century - not all of them, but many - thought it was important
to show descent from William The Conqueror.

..."For The Family's Social Standing".

It's hard for the Modern Western "Liberal" Mind to grasp that simple fact --
but it is a truism.

So ------ they would PAY SIGNICANT SUMS to someone who could "find the
links" and "verify" them with some impressive "documentation" -- trumped up,
or otherwise.

Where there is a NEED and GELD to pay for it...

MARKETS WILL ARISE...

Read Thorstein Veblen. It's a form of _CONSPICUOUS CONSUMPTION_.

"FAMILY HERITAGE"...WRIT LARGE...

Very Important In Arranging MARRIAGES.

...And with a connection to William The Conqueror all sorts of other goodies
come attached -- CHARLEMAGNE, e.g., et al.

'Nuff Said.

DSH

"Peter Stewart" wrote in message
news:mailman.379.14927264...@rootsweb.com...

On 21/04/2017 6:29 AM, taf wrote:
> On Thursday, April 20, 2017 at 11:51:14 AM UTC-7, Nicole Forsgren wrote:

>> What's with my ancestors and faking ancestries?! This is the second line
>> I've
>> come across well known for it. I also have a Spencer line that "connects
>> to
>> the DeSpencers." Of course, I now know this is false as well.
>> Didn't they realize that one day their descendants might want to know
>> where
>> they came from?

> In some cases this was exactly the motivation, but an unfortunate
> combination of over-enthusiasm, naivite and incompitence resulted in a
> less-than-satisfactory result. Others likewise wanted their descendants
> to 'know' where they came from, but were more intersted in the big picture
> (important and interesting people, with fun stories) than the precise
> accuracy. Between the two, the genealogical literature is rife with
> unsupported nonsense, and now the internet era, with any pedigree at the
> tips of your fingers and downloadable easily-merged GEDCOMs, the whole
> concept of scholarly genealogy is in danger of being swamped by the deluge
> of nonsense.
>

This leaves out the factor that motivated many falsifiers, or at any
rate their clients - willful credulity. They wanted a fiction to be
true, so they willed themselves to believe it.

[...]

[Gordon Banks]

And how many kings and other nobles paid genealogists to prove their descent from Mohamed, Solomon, Abraham or even Wotan? Wotan appears in many of the family trees on Ancestry.com or FamilySearch.org.

> -------------------------------
> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to GEN-MEDIEV...@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

[wjhonson]

As far as the question of descend from a God, we do have sources... wrong clearly, which are both ancient, and make these sort of claims.

That's a different kind of *wrong* however to modern day or even 19th century claims of these sorts of descent. The modern day claims having no sources at all, and the 19th century ones having claims that may have been created for money.

[taf]

Yeah, most of the claims to descent from Gods and biblical patriarchs were already fully formulated by the 14th century. Their creation had a motivation that was in some senses different, but in others entirely similar, to the Tudor and 19th century eras of genealogical 'innovation'.

taf