Thank you, B. Rehling, for posting the info on the LDS film; it is now high on my priority list. Following is from book "Lea Families in Caswell & Person Counties North Carolina, and in Virginia before 1800" authored by Ben L Rose; published 1995 by Anundsen Publishing Co. I have found this book to be an excellent reference, not just author's opinions. If an opinion or conjecture, he makes that very clear, unlike many writing about the Lea/Leigh/Lee surname. By the way, I have not seen anything in any documents connecting the LAY surname to the early Lea/Leigh lines of VA/NC, but that certainly does not rule it out as there are many, many items I've not yet seen. One of Mr. Rose's firm contentions is the following (excerpted from his book, page 124-125): "It is unquestionably true that in early Virginia records, since the names of Lea and Leigh are pronounced the same, record keepers occasionally wrote one name when the other spelliing would have been correct. For example, in Amherst Co, Va there is recorded a bond given Dec 19, 1796 by Ferdinand Leigh for his marriage to Elizabeth Cash. The signature is clearly 'Ferdinand Leigh', but on the back of the bond the groom's name is spelled 'Lea' and elsewhere it is spelled 'Lee'. While clerks and other record keepers occasionally made such errors, there is absolutely no evidence that the two names were used interchangeably or that any son ever deliberately changed his name from Leigh to Lea (or vice versa) adopting a different spelling from that of his father." (underline is mine). Elsewhere in the book, Rose gives further reasons for his stance on this issue. He paticularly takes issue with author, Albert E Casey ("Amite County Mississippi 1699-1890) who states several times that "in early records Leigh and Lea were used somwhat interchangeably" and "Lea and Leigh were interchangeable spellings, and have been for five hundred years....." Mr. Rose says that Casey: 1) gives no reference to support his position offering no documented examples to show that this was true in colonial Virginia records and 2) that Casey's position was (and that of many more recent generations) taken to connect up the Leigh/Lea surname to the ancestry of General Robert E Lee. Rose feels that a great deal of misleading and bad information has resulted from those efforts. Rose writes of clear and distinct families of Leas & Leighs established in both Virginia and North Carolina and provides evidence that some of the Virginia Leas were also directly connected to the North Carolina lines (and vice versa); he establishes his case fairly well through record citations. I have absolutely no connection with Mr. Rose, but for anyone interested in purchasing this book, I do have an address for him. I purchased my copy at a genealogical history book fair and paid $30.00. With the permission of the listowner would be willing to send more excerpts to the list. Also will address the William Lea/Leigh b 1623 and House of Burgess issue in separate post as this is too long. Gloria (RAGLADY@aol.com)