SIR THOMAS LUNSFORD
Bio-Study
This information from :
http://hometown.aol.com/bonessgt/
This
site is owned by Terry Lunsford and is dedicated to the The
Lunsford (to include all variants) All-Time, World-Wide Family Tree.
GOMN Newsletters, back issues
http://hometown.aol.com/bonessgt/backissues.htm
compiled/researched/written by Michael
Terry Lunsford
This page is all about the most infamous/famous Lunsford of them all.
All sorts of legends, lies and myths -- along with fact -- exists
about Sir Thomas Lunsford. This misinformation continues to be perpetuated to
this day. One of the biggest is the belief that Sir Thomas is the patriarch of
the Lunsford lines in the
This page was last updated
PART
ONE: PREFACE
Portrait (color, measures 84.5 x 54 inches) from Audley End
Sir Thomas Lunsford is one of the most famous, infamous and clouded
figures of our clan -- all at once! His life, adventures and character are all
very much shrouded by lore, misinterpretation, misinformation, exaggeration and
-- it seems -- some purposeful misleading. At
long last, perhaps we now have the definitive article about this man!
Thanks to the input of D.
C. Davisson, P. Charles Lunsford and Warren Lunsford;
references, information and copies I have been sent from books like "People
of Hidden Sussex," "A History of Sussex," Neill's
"Virginia Carolorum," "Collectanea Topographica
et Genealogica, Volume 4," "Dictionary
of National Biography," Gentlemen's Magazine (1836), VA
Historical Magazine, William & Mary Quarterly, official papers
(wills, land deeds, etc.) and other sources (family trees, etc.) -- I feel
reasonably capable to make an interesting bio/profile -- that is (quite
possibly) as accurate as we may ever get!
I also need to thank my friend, Paul Kacharia, a resident of Lunsford's
Cross,
Keep in mind, we may never come to a total agreement on the speculations
each of us may have about Sir Thomas, his history and/or his lineage, as.even the above noted sources contradict one another --
as well as other sources -- to an extent. What I have decided to do here, is develop a time-line oriented profile that combines
the data from all available sources, with a few side steps. I will tell the
documented "facts" as well as the speculative theories. So, when
reading this profile, try to keep in mind what is "fact" and what is
speculation -- rather than taking it all as the gospel truth. Further, the
"facts" may also be taken with a grain of salt, as even the
historical sources sometimes conflict with each other!
NOTE: To prevent confusion, as I go along, I will refer to Sir
Thomas Lunsford as Sir Thomas, rather than calling him by his many
different titles.
LORE
There have been many tales passed down about Sir Thomas that have,
for the most part, only little basis in truth. Examples of these include:
-- He was a pirate, or a naval captain, known as Bloodybones
Lunsford (likely due to propaganda that referred to him as Bloodybones in the UK; that he did sail over to
the USA on a ship; and that he was your stereotype cavalier);
-- He was a hunchback (he was lame in one leg, not deformed in the back);
-- He fled England to avoid beheading (he did flee -- in a manner of
speaking (his side lost)and he also faced a possible death penalty at one
point, when he gave his famed speech of 1642 -- but he did not flee to avoid
execution);
-- He was a traitor that jumped ship (he did come over by ship and since his
side lost, it is easy to see why he could be called a traitor);
-- He was a cannibal with the taste for the flesh of children (propaganda of
his day, untrue);
-- He was an English nobleman who was exiled to
-- He was a "truculent one-eyed man." (truculent
means fierce, cruel and savage -- which he was -- to his enemies; all his
portraits clearly indicate he had two eyes);
-- And lastly, he was spendthrift (perhaps because of two situations where
he, or his children, were said to be destitute, plus the Lunsford estate had
crumbled).
I also feel that he may have spent a lot of his own funds for the Stuart
(King Charles I) cause.
As you can see, the tall tales have some root in truth, even if they are
usually far off base (convoluted), in most cases.
ROYAL
ROOTS
Another oft told tale is that Sir Thomas descends from a lot of
royalty. This is true, but you have to go off of the Lunsford surname
and into maternal lines to make connections into a myriad of royal ties -- plus
you have to go 400 years further back! Sir Thomas Lunsfords 5th
great-grandfather was John Lunsford (Jr.), c1391 - c1419. John
married Elizabeth Echingham. Her father was Thomas
Echingham. His mother was Joan Fitzalan. Her father was John Fitzalan.
His mother was Eleanor Plantagenet. Her father was Henry Plantagenet.
His father was Edmund Plantagenet. His father was King Henry III,
c1207 - c1272. Therefore, although you must wend your way through a maze of
paternal and maternal lines, King Henry III was Sir Thomas Lunsfords 12th
great-grandfather!
It is also said that Royal connections can be made though Mary Sackville
(to Edward I) who married John Lunsford (Sir Thomas'
great-grandfather); as well as Margaret Fynes/Fiennes
(also to Henry III), who married William Lunsford, Sir
Thomas' 2nd great-grandfather.
COAT
OF ARMS/CREST
Quartered
Arms
First off, lets clear up some confusion. The Coat
of Arms and the Crest are two different things. The Coat of Arms is the shield
we are most familiar with. The crest is an adornment worn on the helmet of
a Knight (like plumage) unique to that person.
Secondly, Coats of Arms were not awarded to entire families. They were
awarded to individuals. However, these Arms were inheritable.
Another topic of confusion is that many believe that the Lunsford
Coat of Arms is because of, or derived from, Sir Thomas. This is not the
case. The Lunsford Coat of Arms (that we are all most familiar with)
seem to originate around the year 1547 with Sir John Lunsford -- Sir
Thomas' great-grandfather -- known as the Arms of Lunsford of Sussex
(UK).
The Coat of Arms that Sir Thomas likely used was a version that was
quartered, meaning it had representations on it from not only the Lunsford
line, but maternal lines as well. There is a surviving impression of his crest
on a letter to
The Lunsford arms, according to Bolton's Armory, includes the
Quartering indicates that the Lunsford line was carrying on the arms
of three other lines (meaning the families had no sons to inherit them).
Most
commonly known Lunsford Arms
It also seems clear that Coat of Arms for our surname may have existed as
far back as one of our oldest known ancestors: John de Lundresford
(c1109). This is evidenced by a reference from Battle Abbey, said to be
on a stained glass window there. It is said to display the Coat of Arms and
reads (in Latin): "Haec multis
anni Lunsford sunt arma Johannis." This
roughly translates to something like, "In honor of Johns
years of service, the arms of Lunsford."
My friend Paul Kacharia went to Battle
Abbey and could not locate such a window -- nor did the caretakers there
seem to have any knowledge of such a window. He notes that many of the windows
have been replaced in the last 100 to 200 years, as many were damaged/broken
through the years (re: weather, age, war).
While heraldic societies declare the Lunsford crest
"extinct," because Sir Thomas had no male heirs, it is
certainly possible that we can still petition a claim to the arms if we can
trace back beyond Thomas, through another line (like the descendants of
an uncle/cousin/brother of Sir Thomas).
Another small version of
Lunsford arms
OUR AMERICAN ROOT?
Sir Thomas is commonly recognized as the "father" of all Lunsfords
in the
SURNAME
SPELLING
Sir Thomas is variously referred to as Luntsford,
Lunceford, Lunesford,
Lunsford and so forth, based on the source and/or the researcher.
However, it is clear, from his signature, taken from a letter he wrote to
Sir
Thomas Lunsford's Actual Signature
PART
TWO: FAMILY AND HOME
Propagandic
drawing/print from the Sutherland Collection at the Hodleian
Library
NOT
A TWIN
Sir Thomas is commonly believed to have been a twin to Sir Herbert
Lunsford (both said to have been born in 1610). However, this was only
related by one of his adversaries relying on memory ("...a contemporary
authority speaks of him as being the twin son with his brother Herbert...").
This was many years after the English Civil War. Perhaps it was just
a comparison of Sir Thomas' and Sir Herbert's military
prowess and the fact that they were brothers who both served under King
Charles I. This sole reference has been the basis for the belief that Sir
Thomas and Sir Herbert were twins. It is also the basis that people
use to assign his birth year as 1610, the same as Sir Herbert's recorded
birth. They do this because all of Sir Thomas' siblings were born in
Sir Thomas was, in fact, christened,
One source says he is a third son (pedigree in the College of Arms), while another says he is son and heir (i.e. first son,
pedigree in the British Museum).
BROTHER,
SIR HERBERT
Sir Herbert, c1610 - after 1664, married a Margaretta
Engham and they had two daughters (Frances
and Margaret) and a son (Thomas). The son is not believed to have
survived, nor left issue. Sir Herbert served abroad in mainland
FATHER,
THOMAS (SR)
Sir Thomas' father was Thomas Lunsford (Sr.), c1575 - burial
There was also a Thomas Lunsford (of
Thomas Sr. was imprisoned "in the Fleet" from about 1633
until the time of his death. He was convicted for conspiring with his son, and
his half-brother Herbert (an uncle to Sir Thomas, not to be
confused with his brother, Sir Herbert), to kill kinsman Sir Thomas
Pelham (explained later).
According to one source, one of his cell mates was Alexander Leighton,
who had been a physician. Leighton diagnosed Thomas Sr. with a
kidney stone, and a putrid fever. Leighton noted that the stale air was
a danger to his health. Thomas Sr. died in prison, kept there at the
urging of Pelham, depsite several petitions
for his release. Pelham saw to it that Thomas Sr. would not be
released by keeping the required security at a high level. Another source says
that he was released, with the influence of Pelham, only to die shortly
thereafter, but this is not likely the case.
MOTHER,
KATHERINE
Sir Thomas' mother was Katherine Fludd,
c1582 - burial
BROTHER,
SIR HENRY
Sir
Henry Lunsford
Sir Thomas and Herbert also had a third brother, Sir Henry
Lunsford, christened
THREE
MUSKETEERS
All three of these cavalieric Lunsford
brothers, were loyal to the King, protectors of the King and military leaders
for the King. The King being Charles I. For
this reason, some believe that these three were the true-life inspiration for Alexandre Dumas' classic novel, THE THREE
MUSKETEERS. Sir Thomas' two brothers, at one time or another, if not
continuously, both served in Sir Thomas' regiment and held rank therein.
Further -- there was even a 4th brother, William, just like in the
novel. If Mr. Dumas had a true-life inspiration for the Musketeer's, the
Lunsford brothers certainly fit the bill!
I often wonder how Sir Thomas would feel, were he alive today, if he
knew his reputation was being used to promote a candy bar?
Or that his legacy has lived on and is the topic of much debate, lore and
misinformation? In any case, I heard a "Rest of the Story" (Paul Harvey) clip on the radio that
discussed the insipration for the Three Musketeers --
and it was not the Lunsford Brothers.
BROTHER,
WILLIAM
The lesser known of the Lunsford brothers was William Lunsford,
christened Nov. 6, 1608 - burial
SISTERS
Sir Thomas also had three sisters: Lisle (or Cicely),
born c1607 - burial Nov. 17, 1610; Ann, born c1609, who married Capt.
Thomas Cooper/Cupper; and Sarah christened March 3, 1618, who
married Thomas Price.
1602/3
Wilegh
Thomas (Sr.) and his wife, Katherine, seem to have resided at Milgate (a home that belonged to Katherine's father
in the parish of
HOME
PLACES
Left, wide shot of Lunsford
Manor; Right Entrance and sign to "Lunsford Manor"
Lunsford's Cross, UK was not where Sir Thomas' line
flourished. In fact, while Lunsford's Cross most certainly was named for
our family surname, it is not clear as to who it was named for. It was,
it seems, named for Lunsford's from a different branch than that of Sir
Thomas. As for Lunsford Manor, it seems it is not a true manor at
all. It is a simply a development that the builder decided to name "Lunsford
Manor" -- which is located in Lunsford's Cross (see pictures
above).
The Lunsford family we speak of here, centered around Wilegh (now called Old Whyly ), located in East
Hoathly, UK. The Manor itself seems to have a
history predating Lunsford possession, which dates back as far as 1170.
It was not called a "Manor" until 1545 when John Lunsford
(grandfather to Thomas, Sr.) was in possession of it. The present home
is built around a farm dwelling of the 17th century. There are no other houses
or apartments on the property.
One source claims that Lunsford manor is a hamlet, not a manor, and
all though it was named for a Lunsford, no Lunsford has actually
lived there since the 14th century. This information probably refers to Wilegh, all though I am not sure. It could be a
reference to the place also known as Woodknowle
(see below).
As it turns out, the Lunsford family was no longer in "Lunsford
Manor" by the time Sir Thomas was born. As noted, Thomas Sr.
and his wife, Katherine Fludd, first resided
at Milgate and then Wilegh.
Milgate has been converted into apartments
in modern day. Wilegh is now a private residence, is said to be well maintained. Sir Thomas
might still recognize it, even today. The Lunsford crest, dated 1547,
still hangs proudly over the mantle. Old Whyly
or Wilegh, was never of manorial status, but was a "messuage held of the manor of
Other home place references you may see are Woodknowle
(Wokenolle or similar), which is a Manor in Burwash that came into the Lunsford family in
the 14th century, by marriage.
Then there is Catsfield, which is the
name of a Parish where a branch of Lunsfords settled (not the Sir
Thomas branch). These Lunsfords never held lordship of a manor,
there.
Lunsford was a Manor held of the Lord of Manor Echingham
and was a Manor long before 1547. I am not clear as to how this one ties in
with our family, unless it is Wokenolle or Wilegh by a different name.
Wilegh was passed down to Sir Thomas
around 1615, who sold it off in 1649 (to a James Thynne)
"when he was fined for delinquency" -- and was returned as having
"no personal estate but much indebted." Sir Thomas was fined
for his delinquency and petitioned the Commonwealth to reduce the fine.
He sold Lunsford (I believe this to be a reference to Wilegh) to pay it. He had all ready sold other
family lands to pay debts.
Thus, it seems, by 1649, the Lunsfords' had no manor to call their
own.
PART
THREE: EUROPEAN YEARS
1625
- 1631, POACHING AND FEUDING
Sir Thomas is said to have had been -- in his youth -- of lawless
disposition and possessing of a violent temper. The first event that most
people know about Sir Thomas,
is of an attack on Sir Thomas Pelham. However, there is more to the tale
than is commonly shared and told. The events of this feud, with kinsman Pelham,
goes on back a number of years -- and the facts of this feud have been
convoluted.
The kinship of the Lunsford's and Pelham's derives through Sir
Thomas Lunsfords g3-grandfather, William (born c1448) who married Cecelia
Pelham. It can also be traced through the Sackvilles,
as sister's Mary (Sir Thomas' great-grandmother) and Anna
married into the Lunsford and Pelham families, respectively --
making Sir Thomas and Sir Pelham, 2nd cousins.
A letter from Thomas Sr., complaining of an insult suffered
from a Pelham servant, survives. The letter, not dated (probably c1623),
reads, in part, as follows: "Your man Constable, was busie to know of John Germond,
how I stood affected to his difference he hath with Mr
Jefferay; he told him altogether disallowed of
his bynding Mr
Jefferay, being a Gent., to his good behaviour; He contablie answered,
Tut, if Mr
Lunsford sh serve him as Jefferay
had done, he wd do to the High way; rayled at him detestablie; dared him, with his sword half drawn, to
fight, revilith him in all places he cometh
into, calleth him base, & despiseth
him, as one much worse than himself."
There was much strife between the Lunsfords and their powerful and
litigious Pelham neighbors, kinsman and landlords. It seems that the Lunsford
fortune was much decayed. It did not help matters when Thomas Sr.
was fined for non-attendance at the coronation of James I (where he
would have been forced to make a payment to receive knighthood, which is likely
why he did not attend).
Sir Thomas' violent energies were not
directed only at the Pelhams. In October 1625 Sir
Thomas illegally challenged Thomas Whatman (a
distant cousin, son of Thomas Whatman of the Inner
Temple and Cicely Sackville, of the Sackvilles
of Dorking) to a duel at St. Pancras,
Middlesex. Thomas Whatman,
Sr complained to the Earl Marshall where the record survives.
The complaint, reads, in part, "...he was now provoked by Thomas
Lunsford, gent., by many wrongs and disgraces to
fight."
In spite of this, Sir Thomas was admitted to Grays' Inn on
It also seems that the Lunsfords hunted on the grounds of the Pelhams, without permission -- but this may have simply
been a fabricated contention of Sir Thomas Pelham (explained below).
1632,
PELHAM INCIDENT (FAMILY FUED)
An early event that most people know of Sir
Thomas Lunsford, is the fact that he shot and killed a
deer (or a hound in some accounts) of Sir Thomas Pelham (or more
accurately, on the grounds belonging to Pelham), on
This is not exactly factual. The serious problems
with the Pelhams, that were to be so
disastrous for the fortunes of the old
Sir Thomas
was fined 1,000 pounds by the Star Chamber, plus 750 pounds restitution
to Pelham. The senior Thomas was not to see liberty again, as he
was required to raise security for his own -- and his family's
-- good behavior (he would eventually and tragically die in prison). It is
unclear as to what became of Uncle Herbert (record is mute).
Pelham was
a man of prominence and he wrote a letter to the Earl of Dorset (a Sackville
-- also a 2nd cousin of Sir Thomas), relating that the Council
should take into consideration the account of that "...young outlaw, Mr.
Lunsford who fears neither God, nor man." The Earl wrote
back on
The next thing most people say happened,
was that Sir Thomas Lunsford stopped Pelham while he was on his
way to church. Sir Thomas is said to have fired two musket balls at Pelham,
outside of
The mark, center of the top
picture -- just right of the doorway, is said to be the mark left by a bullet
fired by Sir Thomas Lunsford at Sir Thomas Pelham. The bottom picture is of the
Lunsford Arms above the same doorway.
In actuality, it seems that the correct date of
this incident was in August of 1633 (not 1632), on a Sunday morning. Sir
Thomas and manservant (Morris Lewis), fired
two musket balls at Sir Thomas Pelham, who was arriving at church (Hoathly) in his coach. He was accompanied by his
wife, two children and Anthony Stapley (the
future Regicide -- one of the people who signed King Charles I's death warrant in 1648).
Considering Thomas' military prowess, I am
left to wonder if he did not miss intentionally (or if -- in fact -- it was he,
and not the manservant, that fired one or both of the shots). Perhaps it was
all a set-up to put fear into the heart of Pelham (rather than to kill
him). Keep in mind that Sir Thomas, at this time, all though called
"young," would have been about 30 years old! By some accounts, he had
all ready begun his military career and was likely a Colonel, at this point!
In everything I have seen about Sir Thomas,
this assault is the one true "crime" he is said to have committed.
Even so, I feel he was fighting for his father and family, as Pelham was
doing everything in his power to keep Thomas Sr. imprisoned.
All the other crimes that Sir Thomas was
charged with and imprisoned for, were politically
generated. It also seems that his father and his half-uncle Herbert (Herbert
and Thomas Sr. had different mothers) were co-conspirators in this
attack.
1633
In any case, Sir Thomas was fined 8,000
pounds and committed to Newgate prison, by
warrant, on
On September 30, Thomas Sr. was ordered at
liberty, but bound 2,000 lbs., for his own and his family's good behavior. The
sum was later reduced, but Thomas Sr. was never able to pay it and thus,
was never able to get out of prison.. In May 1635, in
one of several of Thomas Sr.'s petitions, he states that he had
been imprisoned above four years and since September 30, 1634 -- and only
because he could not secure his bond. Several petitions and hearings were held
over the ensuing years, but he never regained his freedom. While he
succeeded in having bond set, then setting his own bond -- bondsmen were not
willing to assist and he never saw the light of day again.
WIFE, MARY (NOT ANN) HUDSON
Sir Thomas may have married to Mary
(mistakenly listed as Ann in some sources)
1634
Sir Thomas escaped Newgate
on
Sir Thomas was said to be "so lame he can
hardly go in a coach." I am not sure what that terminology means, but
clearly he had -- at this point -- suffered wounds that caused him to be lame
in one leg (the left leg). There is no reference to indicate it was a birth
defect, but I have found one that said he was injured escaping prison and
another that said it was from attacking Pelhams'
coach. None-the-less, it did not serve to slow him down, nor
to make him any less formidable!
Sir Thomas promptly fled to
INFANT SON
Sir Thomas' son has two possible birth
dates that I have seen, with the mother being Mary Hudson in both cases.
This marriage is not documented and there is only one known reference to this
son having been born. It seems clear that Mary bore him a son, but this
son, born c1634 or c1638, did not survive and was unnamed. This is
further evidenced by a pedigree that Sir Thomas, himself,
had drawn up in 1647 -- which failsed to mention any
son.
A baby son, that did not survive, was born to Mary
and Sir Thomas circa 1634 (Mormon
Church). I also have information that a son was born to them in 1638. The
latter date could be more accurate, as it is the year that Mary was
buried and it could indicate that she and the baby both died
during childbirth. Then again, there is record of her burial.
Return to Southern Roots Home Page
Last updated Thursday, September 06, 2001 10:23:49 PM CST