Lawrence (Of Chelsea And London), Thomas

  General Notes:

Sir John and Sir Thomas are both buried IN Old Chelsea Church in Chelsea (formerly a suburb of London but now in the London metropolitan area. In February of this year, my wife had the good fortune to visit London and I spent a great deal of time at this church. There are wonderful old monuments in honor of Sir John and Sir Thomas (their original buriel monuments). I will send you pictures. This church was the parish church of Sir Thomas More. On one side of the Nave there is the More Chapel and on the other side the Lawrence Chapel. It was quite amazing to see. Info From Thomas Humphrey Lawrence <TH Lawrence @aol.com>.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I wanted to let all of you know (if you don't know already), that there appears to be quite some controversy in the texts I researched while in London about whether Sir Thomas Lawrence descends from the Lawrence s of Ashton Hall. I will do my best to set out the sources I found: The first source, from Jobes Journal, has apparently been circulated in the U.S. for some time. It traces the descent from Sir Rober Lawrence (accompanied Rirchard the Lion-hearted on a Crusade in 1191) as follows:

Sir Rober/Sir Thomas/William/John/Sir Edmund/Sir Robert/Sir Robert/Sir James/Sir Thomas/Arthur/Thomas/Thomas/Sir John

The second source, Thomas Faulkner's History of Chelsea, April 18, 1829, discusses the Lawrence Family, generally, in describing Lawrence Street in Chelsea:

" Lawrence Street derives its name from its site having been the residence of the Lawrence family for many ages. On this spot stood the Manor House, until Lord Sandys alienated the manor to Henry VIII, when that Monarch sold the ancient house to Sir Thomas Lawrence , and erected another farther to the eastward."

"The ancient and respectable family of Lawrence first came into England with William the Conqueror, and settled at Ashton Hall, in the county of Lancaster, where they resided for three hundred years,and possessed an immense property, which, in the year 1591, included thirty-four manors, the rental of which amounted to 60001 per anuum."

It all sounds okay so far, huh?? Well, in 1904, Randall Davies published Chelsea Old Church. I currently have one of the 320 copies in my possession--on loan from the church.

In this book, Davies takes issue with Faulkner and contends that Sir Thomas did not descend from the Lawrence s of Ashton Hall: Of the pedigree of Sir Thomas Lawrence , he cites a pedigree by Lilly in the Harleian MS., No. 1096, "that he was the son of Thomas Lawrence of Chelmarsh, near Bridgnorth, in the county of Salop; where also Thomas Lawrence , his grandfather resided."

Davies then launches into his criticism, which is largely--if not exclusively--based upon a paper by Walter Rye on " Lawrence of Iver and Chelsea" published in Vol IV of the "Herald and Genealogist."

Davies describes the Sir Thomas monument, which is in Chelsea Church (have you all visited this Church??) and then states: "It is noticeable that in the engraving of this monument in Faulkner's history of Chelsea, the "chief" is omitted from the Lawrence coat. Mr. Rye suggests that this omission was made in order to support Faulkner's attempts to establish the goldsmith's descent from the Lawrence 's of Lancashire . This "chief" is in itself enough to dispose of any such claim; and, indeed, in Gwillim's 'Display of Heraldry" it is stated that this coat was "given by William Dethick, Garter, A.D. 1594 to -- Lawrence of London, goldsmith."

Yet in the Visitation of Buckinghamshire made in 1634, Thomas Lawrence is actually stated to be "descended from Lawrence of Lancashire.""

At the end of the chapter on the Lawrence s, Davies concludes "Such are the records of the Lawrence s of Chelsea, a family remarkable for neither wealth, nor descent, nor any exceptional merit. . . ."

What do you all think of Davies' discussion? After reading these conflicting accounts, I visited The College of Arms and spoke with Henry Bedingfeld, York Herald. I showed him the Davies and Faulknermanuscripts and asked him how much it would cost for the College of Arms to conduct further research to attempt to resolve the possible discrepancy. We also discussed the substance of Davies' attack.

Mr. Bedingfeld stated that there are several possible explanations. First, Davies could simply be wrong. As I pointed out to him, Davies bases his (and Rye's) conclusion on the fact that Sir Thomas was issued a new coat of arms. Bedingfeld said this was not uncommon and does not necessarily mean that Sir Thomas did not descend from Sir Robert--he simply may have been unable to prove it to the satisfaction of the people who hand out coats of arms.

Also, his descent from Sir Robert is strengthened by his statement during the Visitation that he descended from Sir Robert (was it common to lie to make your pedigree sound more impressive??). Finally, Bedingfeld said that Rye was a famous and infamous debunker and that many of conclusions were simply wrong.

Do any of you know anything about this controversy??

Bedingfeld sent me a quote in March of this year of 125 pounds (about 200 dollars?) to research the issue and give me a report, along with a copy of Rye's paper.

  Noted events in his life were:

• Occupation: goldsmith.

Thomas married Martha Gage, daughter of Anthony Gage and Unknown. (Martha Gage was born in 1539 in England.)