16th C Two Rev. John Lawrences father and son born 5 years before father.

Question

Rev. John Lawrence (Lawrence-3776) born abt 1520 in Sussex is listed as the son of Rev. John Lawrence (Lawrence-163) born in 1525.  Does anybody have any information which would clear this up?

Answer 1

I've researched and made changes to some of the dates and the relationships per the sources.  I think I have the information right for now.  There are other Lawrences that should connect, but more research and analysis needs to be done.  If you locate something or see something grossly out of place, please let me know.

Mary, my connection to John is the same as yours, i.e. through Ann Peck-78.

Comments

Thank you for your work on this, Cousin!

Answer 2

1525 might be a tyop for 1555, which is the BD on his bio.

Comments

Lawrence-163 listed as b 1525 is listed as the father of Lawrence-3776 so if his birth is a typo for 1555 that means the father was born 35 years before the son.

---

What I mean to say is that someone might have switched the generations.

---

That's a possibility.  What could be done to remedy the problem?  And is only the birthdate inverted or is it the whole profiles.  I'm not a manager on either of these profiles but I am a descendant of both when I run my relationship status.

---

As far as I can tell, Lawrence-3776 is the one who doesn't belong in this sequence.

The apparently original source  [https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=hvd.hn33fn&view=2up&seq=24&size=300]   has it going from L-163 to L-305.

That source doesn't seem very reliable. It's one of those English Ancestor things.  It mentions a few Wills but has almost no birthdates.  These have been inserted and altered by various hands.

If I were going to investigate this thoroughly, I'd look for the sources cited from NEHGS and The American Genealogist, which are reliable, but I've dropped my subscription to NEHGS.

---

Another problem here is that there are two profiles of "John Lawrence III", one being L-305, son of L-163.  The other is L-162, son of L-3776.

These are not duplicates, having different birthplaces and spouses, but they are both suspiciously listed as dying 1607.

The eventual solution, I think, would be to detach L-3776 from L-163 and look for the real father of L-3776.  This of course would require research, which is needed here anywayhow, the current situation being untenable.