In a message dated 5/16/04 1:52:26 PM, [email protected] writes in part: << Hugh's response was to send me Internet links where one of the Lelands (claiming descent from Lucy Smith) repeated claims made by Ludwell Lee Montague regarding Lucy Smith as last child of Richard and Judith This claim and was rejected by Edmund Jennings Lee and again by Casanave Lee.(genealogist Society of Lees) Every thing changed after the death of Casanave Lee. Ludwell Lee Montague gained control as president of the Society of Lees; Lucy Smith, of course, became Lucy Lee, daughter of Judith and Richard Lee. Hugh wanted me to know that primogeniture did not apply somehow in the case of a son. Stephen Lee couldn't be the seventh child of Judith and Richard because Richard would have divided property between sons. Perhaps, it is best not to comment further re. the Seven Children of Ditchley-Richard and Judith, their children and numerous claimants. An examination of sources and the claims made has resulted also in an examination of the Lee pedigree and includes discovery that the Bible which was used a proof was a forgery (result claim and counterclaim) I make no claims except I think that whatever we accept should be based on sound criteria. >> __________ Dear Lee, How can anyone disagree with your final sentence? The problem is getting to acceptance of the sound criteria. Of course, some discourse of other known work is part of understanding the whole of the problem. I am sure that reiteration of various points of view is boring and for those who have listened several times, it must almost be irritating. But that's the way newbys learn. Apparently the work of Mrs. Merillat Moses which I sent to you made presentation of old information which was turned down by the LEEs of VA Society initially. Subsequent leadership in the Society apparently approved the work or the conclusion of the work. I don't see a problem with this, unless the system is corrupt. The initial turndown was for reasons not explained, so perhaps they were cleared up. To take a stand based on someone else's work is a precarious endeavor. That person could be terribly wrong for whatever reason. For that reason I was showing you Mrs. Merillat Moses' work as a possible solution to eliminate Thomas LEE (1729-1816) and Stephen LEE as candidate sons of Richard and Judith (Steptoe) LEE. To my eye it is obvious that no one has done other than make a claim/assertion about the paternity of Thomas LEE. The work of Mrs. Moses that shows that Thomas and Stephen LEE were not sons, shows diligence and meticulous attention to documentation. If she has defrauded us with bogus data I think she should be exposed, otherwise we should seriously consider her work. Because Casanova LEE and the LEE Soc. at one time refuted the view Mrs. Moses presents doesn't invalidate it. LEE research did not end with Casanova LEE and Will Franke, and I am sure both fine gentlemen would be the first to agree. Hope this finds you well, Hugh