Discussion:
Insurmountable problems with lineage of gateway James Cudworth?
Add Reply
j***@gmail.com
2018-03-10 22:24:11 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Over at WikiTree, there has been a discussion regarding whether to break the Magna Carta lineage of gateway ancestor James Cudworth. The critical problem is the mother of Cudworth's mother Mary Machell.

The discussion is on this thread: https://www.wikitree.com/g2g/567199/is-james-cudworth-a-false-gateway-ancestor-?show=573671#a573671

My summary of the reasons to break this lineage is (currently) at the bottom of the thread. I will copy it here (but there are several useful embedded links at the original):

Mary (Lewknor) Machell as mother of Mary (Machell) Cudworth does not meet WikiTree's standards, even for UNCERTAIN parents, for the following reasons:

1. There is no primary source evidence naming the mother of Mary (Machell) Cudworth.

2. There appears to be no SECONDARY source evidence naming the mother of Mary (Machell) Cudworth for 300 years or so after Mary's birth.

3. The first source that I have seen mentioning Mary (Machell) Cudworth's mother is the pedigree chart at the end of "The Machells of Crackenthorpe" by Edward Bellasis (1886). Bellasis was the "Lancaster Herald," so genealogy was clearly part of his official business. Unfortunately, for this particular connection -- the parentage of Mary Machell Cudworth -- Bellasis doesn't list any sources.

4. Bellasis DOES indicate that Mary (Machell) Cudworth's alleged father had two wives, and that sources disagree about which which wife was the mother of Matthew Machell's children.

5. Douglas Richardson's books claim that Mary (Lewknor) Machell was the mother of Mary (Machell) Cudworth. Richardson provides no primary source evidence for this supposition, but he DOES mention Bellasis's work. However, Richardson doesn't acknowledge that Matthew Machell appears to have had two wives. Richardson does not mention Bellasis's comment about disagreement over which wife was the mother of Matthew Machell's children.

CONCLUSION: Because of this clearly-noted disagreement concerning the mother of Matthew Machell's children, combined with the total lack of primary source indicating that Mary was indeed one of Matthew's children (as opposed to the daughter of Matthew's brother John, who appears to have had a daughter Mary -- see below), we don't know who was the mother of Mary (Machell) Cudworth, and Mary (Lewknor) Machell should be detached as Mary's mother.

FURTHER DISCUSSION:

6. Richardson does mention the will of Matthew Machell's son John Machell of Tangley, which mentions Jane Cudworth as his "cosen" and "kinswoman." This would appear to be Jane, daughter of Mary (Machell) Cudworth by her second husband John Stoughton. Stoughton was of a lower social class, so Mary would have kept her widowed name (Cudworth) after marrying him, and her daughter would take her name (Cudworth), if the prevailing custom of earlier centuries still held in the early 17th century.

From this mention of Jane Cudworth in John Machell of Tangley's will, we can conclude that Jane's mother Mary was either John's sister (if Mary was a daughter of Matthew) or Mary's first cousin (if Mary was a daughter of Matthew's brother John Machell of Hackney).

It might be tempting to jump to the conclusion that "Jane Cudworth" must have been the niece of John Machell of Tangley, and not his first cousin once removed. But we should keep in mind that the Machells were part of a kinship network that included the Wroths and the Riches, so Jane Cudworth was part of this network whatever her precise relationship to John Machell.

For example, Margaret Wrothe, who witnessed Rev. Ralph Cudworth's will, was Margaret (Rich)(Bowdler) Wroth, a first cousin of Rev. Ralph Cudworth's wife Mary Machell. Margaret (Rich)(Bowdler) Wroth was the daughter of Richard Rich and Jane Machell. Jane was the sister of the two brothers John and Matthew Machell, and thus the aunt of Mary (Machell) Cudworth, no matter which brother was Mary's father. Margaret Wroth's second husband Thomas Wroth was the nephew of Dorothy (Wroth) Lewknor, mother of Mary Lewknor, one of the wives of Matthew Machell.

Thomas Wroth was also the grandson of Mary (Rich) Wroth, great-aunt of Margaret, and a daughter of the notorious Richard, 1st Baron Rich. This baron's grandson Robert, 3rd Baron Rich, was the patron of both Rev. Ralph Cudworth and Rev. John Stoughton, who married Cudworth's widow Mary Machell.

7. Mary (Machell) Cudworth could well be the Mary Mauchell baptized in 1584 at St. Johns, Hackney, apparently the daughter of Matthew Machell's brother John. This was discussed in Adrienne Boaz's "Specific Ancestral Lines of the Boaz, Paul, Welty & Fishel Families" (2014), p. 480 and following:

John Machell married his second wife Ursula Hynd on June 29, 1579 at Madingly, Cambridgeshire Then the following Manchell/Mauchell children (no parents' names) were baptized at St. John's, Hackney, London:
1) Joane (Mar. 9, 1580) -- perhaps 1581 Gregorian
2) Lettis (May 22, 1583)
3) Mary (May 15, 1584)
4) Martha (Dec. 25, 1585)
5) Robert (Oct. 7, 1587)
6) Anne and Ursuley (twins)(30 Oct. 1590)
7) Judith (Apr. 1592)

CONCLUSION: There is a plausible argument that Mary (Machell) Cudworth was the daughter of not Matthew Machell but rather Matthew's brother John of Hackney, so Matthew Machell should be detached as Mary (Machell) Cudworth's father.
JBrand
2018-03-11 15:55:02 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by j***@gmail.com
Over at WikiTree, there has been a discussion regarding whether to break the Magna Carta lineage of gateway ancestor James Cudworth. The critical problem is the mother of Cudworth's mother Mary Machell.
The discussion is on this thread: https://www.wikitree.com/g2g/567199/is-james-cudworth-a-false-gateway-ancestor-?show=573671#a573671
1. There is no primary source evidence naming the mother of Mary (Machell) Cudworth.
2. There appears to be no SECONDARY source evidence naming the mother of Mary (Machell) Cudworth for 300 years or so after Mary's birth.
3. The first source that I have seen mentioning Mary (Machell) Cudworth's mother is the pedigree chart at the end of "The Machells of Crackenthorpe" by Edward Bellasis (1886). Bellasis was the "Lancaster Herald," so genealogy was clearly part of his official business. Unfortunately, for this particular connection -- the parentage of Mary Machell Cudworth -- Bellasis doesn't list any sources.
4. Bellasis DOES indicate that Mary (Machell) Cudworth's alleged father had two wives, and that sources disagree about which which wife was the mother of Matthew Machell's children.
5. Douglas Richardson's books claim that Mary (Lewknor) Machell was the mother of Mary (Machell) Cudworth. Richardson provides no primary source evidence for this supposition, but he DOES mention Bellasis's work. However, Richardson doesn't acknowledge that Matthew Machell appears to have had two wives. Richardson does not mention Bellasis's comment about disagreement over which wife was the mother of Matthew Machell's children.
CONCLUSION: Because of this clearly-noted disagreement concerning the mother of Matthew Machell's children, combined with the total lack of primary source indicating that Mary was indeed one of Matthew's children (as opposed to the daughter of Matthew's brother John, who appears to have had a daughter Mary -- see below), we don't know who was the mother of Mary (Machell) Cudworth, and Mary (Lewknor) Machell should be detached as Mary's mother.
6. Richardson does mention the will of Matthew Machell's son John Machell of Tangley, which mentions Jane Cudworth as his "cosen" and "kinswoman." This would appear to be Jane, daughter of Mary (Machell) Cudworth by her second husband John Stoughton. Stoughton was of a lower social class, so Mary would have kept her widowed name (Cudworth) after marrying him, and her daughter would take her name (Cudworth), if the prevailing custom of earlier centuries still held in the early 17th century.
From this mention of Jane Cudworth in John Machell of Tangley's will, we can conclude that Jane's mother Mary was either John's sister (if Mary was a daughter of Matthew) or Mary's first cousin (if Mary was a daughter of Matthew's brother John Machell of Hackney).
It might be tempting to jump to the conclusion that "Jane Cudworth" must have been the niece of John Machell of Tangley, and not his first cousin once removed. But we should keep in mind that the Machells were part of a kinship network that included the Wroths and the Riches, so Jane Cudworth was part of this network whatever her precise relationship to John Machell.
For example, Margaret Wrothe, who witnessed Rev. Ralph Cudworth's will, was Margaret (Rich)(Bowdler) Wroth, a first cousin of Rev. Ralph Cudworth's wife Mary Machell. Margaret (Rich)(Bowdler) Wroth was the daughter of Richard Rich and Jane Machell. Jane was the sister of the two brothers John and Matthew Machell, and thus the aunt of Mary (Machell) Cudworth, no matter which brother was Mary's father. Margaret Wroth's second husband Thomas Wroth was the nephew of Dorothy (Wroth) Lewknor, mother of Mary Lewknor, one of the wives of Matthew Machell.
Thomas Wroth was also the grandson of Mary (Rich) Wroth, great-aunt of Margaret, and a daughter of the notorious Richard, 1st Baron Rich. This baron's grandson Robert, 3rd Baron Rich, was the patron of both Rev. Ralph Cudworth and Rev. John Stoughton, who married Cudworth's widow Mary Machell.
1) Joane (Mar. 9, 1580) -- perhaps 1581 Gregorian
2) Lettis (May 22, 1583)
3) Mary (May 15, 1584)
4) Martha (Dec. 25, 1585)
5) Robert (Oct. 7, 1587)
6) Anne and Ursuley (twins)(30 Oct. 1590)
7) Judith (Apr. 1592)
CONCLUSION: There is a plausible argument that Mary (Machell) Cudworth was the daughter of not Matthew Machell but rather Matthew's brother John of Hackney, so Matthew Machell should be detached as Mary (Machell) Cudworth's father.
I don't believe you have the part below stated accurately:

6. Richardson does mention the will of Matthew Machell's son John Machell of Tangley, which mentions Jane Cudworth as his "cosen" and "kinswoman." This would appear to be Jane, daughter of Mary (Machell) Cudworth by her second husband John Stoughton. Stoughton was of a lower social class, so Mary would have kept her widowed name (Cudworth) after marrying him, and her daughter would take her name (Cudworth), if the prevailing custom of earlier centuries still held in the early 17th century.

The differential in status which resulted in widowed women keeping their first married name was almost always at the level of knight or nobleman. The status difference between Cudworth and Stoughton, if indeed it existed, would not have led to the widow of Rev. Cudworth retaining the name Cudworth after marrying Rev. Stoughton.

Certainly any child born at the time would bear the actual surname of their father, no matter what the mother called herself.
j***@gmail.com
2018-03-11 19:22:53 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by j***@gmail.com
Over at WikiTree, there has been a discussion regarding whether to break the Magna Carta lineage of gateway ancestor James Cudworth. The critical problem is the mother of Cudworth's mother Mary Machell.
<snip>
Post by j***@gmail.com
5. Douglas Richardson's books claim that Mary (Lewknor) Machell was the mother of Mary (Machell) Cudworth. Richardson provides no primary source evidence for this supposition, but he DOES mention Bellasis's work. However, Richardson doesn't acknowledge that Matthew Machell appears to have had two wives. Richardson does not mention Bellasis's comment about disagreement over which wife was the mother of Matthew Machell's children.
I don't think D.R. has strong support for the line at all. In 1999, Douglas Richardson asked,

"The New England immigrant James Cudworth is supposed to descend from
Matthew Machell, of Hackney, who married by license dated 1 July 1568,
to Maria Lewknor, daughter of Edward Lewknor, of Kingston Bowsey,
Sussex. Dorothy Machell, daughter of Matthew and Maria, was named in
her grandmother Lewknor's will dated 1587. I'd appreciate it if someone would please comment on the validity of this descent. Is it sound or not?"

--Joe C
Paulo Canedo
2018-03-11 22:23:59 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by j***@gmail.com
Post by j***@gmail.com
Over at WikiTree, there has been a discussion regarding whether to break the Magna Carta lineage of gateway ancestor James Cudworth. The critical problem is the mother of Cudworth's mother Mary Machell.
<snip>
Post by j***@gmail.com
5. Douglas Richardson's books claim that Mary (Lewknor) Machell was the mother of Mary (Machell) Cudworth. Richardson provides no primary source evidence for this supposition, but he DOES mention Bellasis's work. However, Richardson doesn't acknowledge that Matthew Machell appears to have had two wives. Richardson does not mention Bellasis's comment about disagreement over which wife was the mother of Matthew Machell's children.
I don't think D.R. has strong support for the line at all. In 1999, Douglas Richardson asked,
"The New England immigrant James Cudworth is supposed to descend from
Matthew Machell, of Hackney, who married by license dated 1 July 1568,
to Maria Lewknor, daughter of Edward Lewknor, of Kingston Bowsey,
Sussex. Dorothy Machell, daughter of Matthew and Maria, was named in
her grandmother Lewknor's will dated 1587. I'd appreciate it if someone would please comment on the validity of this descent. Is it sound or not?"
--Joe C
According to https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/soc.genealogy.medieval/ZPJm_zsEDfk/MFyyTFKgMkAJ;context-place=forum/soc.genealogy.medieval, Paul Reed has studied this question.
John Higgins
2018-03-12 00:10:10 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by j***@gmail.com
Post by j***@gmail.com
Over at WikiTree, there has been a discussion regarding whether to break the Magna Carta lineage of gateway ancestor James Cudworth. The critical problem is the mother of Cudworth's mother Mary Machell.
<snip>
Post by j***@gmail.com
5. Douglas Richardson's books claim that Mary (Lewknor) Machell was the mother of Mary (Machell) Cudworth. Richardson provides no primary source evidence for this supposition, but he DOES mention Bellasis's work. However, Richardson doesn't acknowledge that Matthew Machell appears to have had two wives. Richardson does not mention Bellasis's comment about disagreement over which wife was the mother of Matthew Machell's children.
I don't think D.R. has strong support for the line at all. In 1999, Douglas Richardson asked,
"The New England immigrant James Cudworth is supposed to descend from
Matthew Machell, of Hackney, who married by license dated 1 July 1568,
to Maria Lewknor, daughter of Edward Lewknor, of Kingston Bowsey,
Sussex. Dorothy Machell, daughter of Matthew and Maria, was named in
her grandmother Lewknor's will dated 1587. I'd appreciate it if someone would please comment on the validity of this descent. Is it sound or not?"
--Joe C
DR may not have had "strong support" for the Cudworth line in 1999 when he wrote this post, but he apparently changed his mind subsequently - possibly around 2009.

The Cudworth descent did not appear in the 1st Richardson edition of PA in 2004. OTOH Gary Boyd Roberts had included the line in his RD500 as early as 1993 (with a caveat with regard to Mary Machell's maternity) and again in the 2004 edition of RD600 (without a caveat, and citing Paul Reed's research).

In a post of 9/6/2009 titled "Royal Ancestry of James Cudworth" DR said the following: "At Merilyn Pedrick's urging, I've decided to included the immigrant, James Cudworth, Gent. (died 1682), of Scituate and Barnstable,
Massachusetts in the forthcoming 2nd editions of Plantagenet Ancestry
and Magna Carta Ancestry."
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!searchin/soc.genealogy.medieval/$20merilyn$20pedrick|sort:date/soc.genealogy.medieval/juzwRUGOwE0/Xju5n_SQvmgJ

And in a post of 12/4/2009 in a thread titled "Machells of Crackenthorpe" he noted that the detailed line had been published in the newsletter of The Order of the Crown of Charlemagne. Presumably this is the version that was subsequently published in the 2nd editions of PA and MCA.
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/soc.genealogy.medieval/TBoBNlKEE_8/KPxAFqwxyG4J;context-place=forum/soc.genealogy.medieval

The key evidence supporting Mary Machell's Lewknor maternity (and thus the royal descent) appears to be Paul Reed's research, first cited by GBR in 2004 as a "forthcoming article". As Paulo's separate post has indicated, in 2012 Paul indicated (with some degree of uncertainty) that there might be an article on at least some aspects of the Cudworth descent in Foundations, but this has so far not happened. It would certainly be useful, for the Cudworth descendants as well as other interested parties, if this research could somehow be made available.

In my mind, this also points outs the danger of citing "unpublished research" or "forthcoming articles" as evidence in published works such as those of Roberts and Richardson. The reader has no way of verifying such information and thus should rightly be skeptical - as in the WikiTree thread cited at the beginning of this discussion.
d***@aol.com
2018-03-12 16:06:15 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
It seems to appear that James Cudworth of Scituate, MA could very well be a “false” gateway ancestor. Unfortunately, he is listed as an “approved” gateway ancestor on the websites of all the medieval royal lineage societies.

This would mean that many individuals who used James Cudworth as their gateway ancestor were admitted to these royal lineage societies based on a "bogus" royal ancestry. Many of whom are still very much active members. Declaring James Cudworth a “false” gateway ancestor would surely have far-reaching consequences for many of these royal lineage societies and its members.
Paulo Canedo
2018-03-12 17:08:09 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by d***@aol.com
It seems to appear that James Cudworth of Scituate, MA could very well be a “false” gateway ancestor. Unfortunately, he is listed as an “approved” gateway ancestor on the websites of all the medieval royal lineage societies.
This would mean that many individuals who used James Cudworth as their gateway ancestor were admitted to these royal lineage societies based on a "bogus" royal ancestry. Many of whom are still very much active members. Declaring James Cudworth a “false” gateway ancestor would surely have far-reaching consequences for many of these royal lineage societies and its members.
I don't think the likelihood of James Cudworth being a “false” gateway ancestor is very high. To me, it seems to be a low likelihood.
j***@gmail.com
2018-03-14 12:39:50 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
A couple further points: First of all, is there any reason not to suppose that the Jane Cudworth mentioned in the will of John Machell was the wife (or widow) of a Cudworth, rather than the daughter of a Cudworth?

Second, regarding Paul Reed's promised article on the medieval origin of the Machell family, perhaps Reed's effort ran aground on the problem of identifying John and Matthew Machell's grandfather John Machell, who married a Leybourne, per the 1634 Essex Visitation at https://archive.org/stream/visitationsofess13metc#page/440/mode/2up

Regarding the origin of this branch of the Machell family:

1. A pedigree appended to Bellasis's "The Machells of Crackenthorpe" (1886) shows this family (starting with John Machell and wife --- Leybourne) as the "Machells of Kendall, etc.," without directly linking them to the Crackenthorpe Machells.

2. John Machell's Leybourne wife was presumably a daughter of Thomas Leybourne of Cunswick, Westmorland. John Machell's son John, the London alderman (who named his second son Thomas), bought Burneside, near Cunswick, in 1551. Thomas Leybourne, according to Nicolson's "The history and antiquities of the counties of Westmorland and Cumberland," p. 144, was the grandson of Katherine Bellingham, daughter of Henry of Burnshead (Burneside). See https://books.google.com/books?id=zeEuAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA144&lpg=PA144&dq=thomas+leybourne+pennington&source=bl&ots=J6zVohw8aW&sig=eTE1Ptdm7rZFDEWA4_S7AGcjY7w&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwirr9u53OvZAhXDMGMKHezNDeI4ChDoAQhPMAw#v=onepage&q=thomas%20leybourne%20pennington&f=false

The Bellinghams sold Burneside in the 1530s, so it appears that in 1551 John Machell was buying back his mother's mother's family property. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burneside_Hall

3. Bellasis's "Machell of Kendal" pedigree quotes a 1551 letter from Harry Machell of Crackenthorpe to "his singular and especial good Brother John M., dwelling in Fleet St., &c." So here is a clear connection of the Kendall Machells to Crackenthorpe. But who is this Harry Machell?

4. Bellasis shows, in his pedigree of the Machells of Crackenthorpe, a Rev. Henry Machell whose brother Hugh witnessed his (apparently undated) inventory. This Henry Machell mediated a dispute involving Guy Machell in 1515. The pedigree does not link these two brothers to the rest the family; it apparently places them in the wrong generation. However,

Guy and Hugh Machell were the joint lords of Crackenthorpe in the early 16th century.

To summarize, John Machell the London alderman, son of John Machell by --- Leybourne, had a brother "Harry" (Henry). Rev. Henry Machell had a brother Hugh. Hugh Machell and his brother Guy were sons of John Machell of Crackenthorpe, who must have been the father of both Rev. Henry and his brother John the London alderman.
r***@yahoo.com
2018-03-14 15:28:19 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by j***@gmail.com
A couple further points: First of all, is there any reason not to suppose that the Jane Cudworth mentioned in the will of John Machell was the wife (or widow) of a Cudworth, rather than the daughter of a Cudworth?
Second, regarding Paul Reed's promised article on the medieval origin of the Machell family, perhaps Reed's effort ran aground on the problem of identifying John and Matthew Machell's grandfather John Machell, who married a Leybourne, per the 1634 Essex Visitation at https://archive.org/stream/visitationsofess13metc#page/440/mode/2up
1. A pedigree appended to Bellasis's "The Machells of Crackenthorpe" (1886) shows this family (starting with John Machell and wife --- Leybourne) as the "Machells of Kendall, etc.," without directly linking them to the Crackenthorpe Machells.
2. John Machell's Leybourne wife was presumably a daughter of Thomas Leybourne of Cunswick, Westmorland. John Machell's son John, the London alderman (who named his second son Thomas), bought Burneside, near Cunswick, in 1551. Thomas Leybourne, according to Nicolson's "The history and antiquities of the counties of Westmorland and Cumberland," p. 144, was the grandson of Katherine Bellingham, daughter of Henry of Burnshead (Burneside). See https://books.google.com/books?id=zeEuAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA144&lpg=PA144&dq=thomas+leybourne+pennington&source=bl&ots=J6zVohw8aW&sig=eTE1Ptdm7rZFDEWA4_S7AGcjY7w&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwirr9u53OvZAhXDMGMKHezNDeI4ChDoAQhPMAw#v=onepage&q=thomas%20leybourne%20pennington&f=false
The Bellinghams sold Burneside in the 1530s, so it appears that in 1551 John Machell was buying back his mother's mother's family property. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burneside_Hall
3. Bellasis's "Machell of Kendal" pedigree quotes a 1551 letter from Harry Machell of Crackenthorpe to "his singular and especial good Brother John M., dwelling in Fleet St., &c." So here is a clear connection of the Kendall Machells to Crackenthorpe. But who is this Harry Machell?
4. Bellasis shows, in his pedigree of the Machells of Crackenthorpe, a Rev. Henry Machell whose brother Hugh witnessed his (apparently undated) inventory. This Henry Machell mediated a dispute involving Guy Machell in 1515. The pedigree does not link these two brothers to the rest the family; it apparently places them in the wrong generation. However,
Guy and Hugh Machell were the joint lords of Crackenthorpe in the early 16th century.
To summarize, John Machell the London alderman, son of John Machell by --- Leybourne, had a brother "Harry" (Henry). Rev. Henry Machell had a brother Hugh. Hugh Machell and his brother Guy were sons of John Machell of Crackenthorpe, who must have been the father of both Rev. Henry and his brother John the London alderman.
Since a marriage record exists for Ralph Cudworth + Mary Machell, when we find a Machell mentioning "cousin Jane Cudworth," it is reasonable to suppose Jane is the daughter of the same Ralph and Mary. I suppose it wouldn't be impossible that a Jane Machell married some other Cudworth, but (I think) there are no extant marriage records showing that that actually happened.

It is not reasonable to suppose "cousin Jane Cudworth" was really the daughter of Mary (Machell) Cudworth by her second husband, Rev. John Stoughton. The status difference was not such that Mary would have retained the name Cudworth after her marriage to Stoughton. And anyway, children almost always bore their father's surname, as long as the parents were married, and whatever their mother was calling herself.

However, you do bring up the point about how we know this Mary Machell was daughter of Matthew and Dorothy, rather than daughter of Matthew's brother John Machell. I'm unsure about that. It would be possible for John Machell to mention a more remote relation than a niecce under the same general term of "cousin" or "kinswoman."

Ralph Cudworth was a famous divine, and early biographies of him mention his wife Mary Machell as a former wetnurse or governess to Prince Henry or Prince Charles. Would records of the royal household mention the identity of her father?
j***@gmail.com
2018-03-14 18:06:46 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by r***@yahoo.com
Since a marriage record exists for Ralph Cudworth + Mary Machell, when we find a Machell mentioning "cousin Jane Cudworth," it is reasonable to suppose Jane is the daughter of the same Ralph and Mary. I suppose it wouldn't be impossible that a Jane Machell married some other Cudworth, but (I think) there are no extant marriage records showing that that actually happened.
My reply: It appears reasonable at first glance, but a difficulty emerges upon further reflection. First of all, if "cousin Jane Cudworth" was the daughter of Ralph and Mary (Machell) Cudworth, the question of birth order affects the possible year of birth. There isn't much room, without a tight squeeze, for the birth of a daughter Jane before 1620 (Mary's last known child Mary seems to have been born around 1619, but perhaps that's just somebody's guesstimate). This would make it appear that Mary Machell had a daughter Jane by her second husband when she already had a young daughter Jane by her first husband.

This seems very unlikely, which inclines me to look "outside the box" for overlooked possibilities. I have seen two cases of non-noble families in the 15th century where a daughter takes the name of her mother, who was clearly of a "better" family than the father. (I apologize for not having an example ready at hand.) Perhaps such a custom could have lasted into the early 17th century. In the case of Mary Cudworth and John Stoughton, not only was Stoughton a step lower socially, he was also several years younger than his wife, the widow of a prominent man. We can imagine mother and daughter sharing a sense of elevated status with the mother's kinsman John Machell, who uses their privately preferred "Cudworth" surname in his will, even if others would have used "Stoughton." (Maybe his using "Cudworth" reflected a private little joke, or a light put-down of Aunt Mary's second husband.) Once again, I'm trying to think outside the box, to get around the problem of Mary Machell having two daughters named Jane.
Post by r***@yahoo.com
Ralph Cudworth was a famous divine, and early biographies of him mention his wife Mary Machell as a former wetnurse or governess to Prince Henry or Prince Charles. Would records of the royal household mention the identity of her father?
My response: Regarding Mary being a nurse for Prince Henry, I suppose we should go through the exercise of banishing the common pitfall of supposing in this case that nurse meant "wetnurse." If Mary was Prince Henry's wetnurse, then we would have to imagine that she was old enough to have wandered from England to Stirling Castle by 1594, still lactating because of her recent childbirth (?!?), and then got picked up by the Scottish royal household to suckle the infant Prince Henry. I suppose it's impossible to prove that this didn't happen, but this seems to me to be in the "Maybe pigs really can fly" category of imaginative speculation.

But we do have a source of sorts at hand for the "nurse to Prince Henry" story: Thomas Birch's 1744 introduction to the works of Rev. Ralph Cudworth (the younger, Cambridge Platonist), in using the word "nurse," follows the introduction to Johann Lorentz Mosheim's Latin translation of Cudworth's works, first published in Leiden in 1733. (The online google edition is from 1773, page xxvi.) Mosheim described Mary Machell as Prince Henry's "nutrix deligeretur." Nutrix means nurse, and deligeretur is the third-person singular imperfect passive subjunctive form of a verb (deligo) that can mean "bind" or "bandage." So presumably Mary was in charge of first aid, patching up the adolescent prince when he fell off his horse or got bonked on the side of the head with a wooden sword. With this particular choice of verb, Mosheim could have also been evoking a similar-sounding verb, diligo, which means respect or esteem (that is, the respected nurse).

My Latin is close to non-existent, but I got enough French, German and Spanish to figure out how to figure out new grammar rules and muddle around with google translate. Of course there are often special meanings of particular tenses of particular verbs, which might be the case here, so perhaps someone else might be able to give a precise translation.

Flower's 1744 introduction to Cudworth is here: http://archive.org/stream/worksralphcudwo01bircgoog#page/n15/mode/2up

Mosheim's 1733 Latin introduction to Cudworth is here: https://books.google.com/books?id=OnLlReefqOIC&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false
Paulo Canedo
2018-03-15 00:35:24 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Dear John Schmeeckle, the status difference between Cudworth and Stoughton was virtually nonexistent. Both were members of the lower gentry. The fact that Stoughton had a fishmonger ancestor in 15th century hardly matters. Stoughton lived in the late 16th-early 17th century, it's extremy dubious that him, or anyone else, for that matter, were aware of such. Not that Cudworth has a very interesting ancestry, either.
j***@gmail.com
2018-03-15 17:05:52 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Paulo Canedo
Dear John Schmeeckle, the status difference between Cudworth and Stoughton was virtually nonexistent. Both were members of the lower gentry. The fact that Stoughton had a fishmonger ancestor in 15th century hardly matters. Stoughton lived in the late 16th-early 17th century, it's extremy dubious that him, or anyone else, for that matter, were aware of such. Not that Cudworth has a very interesting ancestry, either.
Thank you Paulo, for playing devil's advocate against my supposition, which is intended to get around the difficulty of supposing that Mary Machell had a daughter named Jane by each of her two husbands. My supposition is that Mary had a sole daughter Jane (by second husband John Stoughton), who was the "Jane Cudworth" mentioned in the will of John Machell (son of Matthew). This leads to the further supposition that Mary kept her Cudworth surname after re-marrying, and that this was emulated by daughter Jane and followed by their kinsman John Machell when writing his will, because the Stoughtons were clearly of a lower social class than the Machells. Does such a supposition pass the plausibility test?

Imagine this situation from the perspective of Mary Machell. Mary, about 20 years old in 1604, daughter of a cavalry officer who had risen to a station in the royal household of Queen Elizabeth, is tapped to take care of the contusions, sprains, abrasions and lacerations of newly-coronated King James's 10-year-old son as the child goes about the business of being a boy and learning horsemanship and the rudiments of armed combat.

During the following seven years, Mary becomes acquainted with the Rev. Ralph Cudworth, D.D., who has become closely associated with King James, involved in translating the King James Bible and eventually (perhaps after marriage) becoming the king's personal counsellor. Cudworth is a scion of the Cudworths of Wernton, a manor held by the family for at least six generations, as shown in the 1563 Lancashire Visitation. Furthermore: "In the reign of Henry III, the manor of Oldham was held by Alwardus de Aldholme who held land in Werneth (Vernet) and lived at Werneth Hall, the manor passed to the Cudworths by marriage..."

In other words, the Cudworths of Wernith and Oldham were descended from a long line of country gentlemen, as were the Machells with their origin at Crackenthorpe.

For the unknown origin of Thomas Stoughton, fifteenth-century London fishmonger, see Ethel McLaughlin, "The English ancestry of Thomas Stoughton, 1588-1661, and his son Thomas Stoughton, 1624-1684, of Windsor, Conn., his brother Israel Stoughton, 1603-1645, and his nephew William Stoughton, 1631-1701, of Dorchester, Mass." (1958), pp. 49 and following. The book's previous chapter discusses the various armigerous Stoughton families in England, one of which got grafted onto the ancestry of John Stoughton, second husband of Mary (Machell) Cudworth. Online at https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=wu.89066287962;view=1up;seq=53

In addition to the difference in social class between the Cudworths and Machells (on the one hand) and the lower Stoughtons (on the other), Mary (Machell) Cudworth was around ten years older than her second husband John Stoughton. However, Stoughton was an able cleric who was patronized (as was Mary's first husband) by the Earl of Warwick, who was the nephew of Mary's aunt Jane Machell's husband. Mary, a widow with five children, needed a husband, and the accomodating John Stoughton knew his place and didn't pretend to be her social equal.

I do want to share my thoughts on a point of disagreement. You write, "The fact that Stoughton had a fishmonger ancestor in 15th century hardly matters. Stoughton lived in the late 16th-early 17th century, it's extremly dubious that him, or anyone else, for that matter, were aware of such."

It seems to me that people of that day and age were extremely conscious of such issues, even if they didn't write them into their visitation pedigrees. The society as a whole paid close attention to social rank, and family origin was a very important element of that. In addition, the common arrangement of marrying third cousins (closer unions being barred by the Church) required careful attention to genealogy. I have come across 15th-century families with several descents from early Plantagenet Kings of England, but every such descent is from a bastard child. It seems clear that knowledge of the social station of one's ancestors was a common part of family memory at the time, and it was a constant temptation to *ahem* "elevate" the status of one's ancestors.

If somebody "didn't know" his origin, then he didn't have an origin worth talking about. John Stoughton had two fishmonger ancestors -- father and son. And then the grandson got away from London and lived on a family estate in Kent. And later on, when the Visitation Heralds came to Kent in 1619, the family forgot their "fishy" ancestry and fabricated a descent from a different Stoughton, Lord Mayor of London. See https://books.google.com/books?id=o79MAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA18&lpg=PA18&dq=stoughton+dartford+kent&source=bl&ots=GMgm5mb-rp&sig=2LFT7kJswOXNqMAk2YHopPzz9kk&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwje7L7l4-7ZAhVQ7mMKHUQ_C3gQ6AEIVTAJ#v=onepage&q=stoughton%20dartford%20kent&f=false
Paulo Canedo
2018-03-16 00:43:52 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Dear John Schmeeckle, while Mary Machell Cudworth might have kept Cudworth as her surname after she married Stoughton, I find it very farfecthed to believe her daughter by Stoughton would have used Cudworth as her surname and that Stoughton would even have allowed such to happen.
r***@yahoo.com
2018-03-16 16:17:53 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by j***@gmail.com
Post by Paulo Canedo
Dear John Schmeeckle, the status difference between Cudworth and Stoughton was virtually nonexistent. Both were members of the lower gentry. The fact that Stoughton had a fishmonger ancestor in 15th century hardly matters. Stoughton lived in the late 16th-early 17th century, it's extremy dubious that him, or anyone else, for that matter, were aware of such. Not that Cudworth has a very interesting ancestry, either.
Thank you Paulo, for playing devil's advocate against my supposition, which is intended to get around the difficulty of supposing that Mary Machell had a daughter named Jane by each of her two husbands. My supposition is that Mary had a sole daughter Jane (by second husband John Stoughton), who was the "Jane Cudworth" mentioned in the will of John Machell (son of Matthew). This leads to the further supposition that Mary kept her Cudworth surname after re-marrying, and that this was emulated by daughter Jane and followed by their kinsman John Machell when writing his will, because the Stoughtons were clearly of a lower social class than the Machells. Does such a supposition pass the plausibility test?
Imagine this situation from the perspective of Mary Machell. Mary, about 20 years old in 1604, daughter of a cavalry officer who had risen to a station in the royal household of Queen Elizabeth, is tapped to take care of the contusions, sprains, abrasions and lacerations of newly-coronated King James's 10-year-old son as the child goes about the business of being a boy and learning horsemanship and the rudiments of armed combat.
During the following seven years, Mary becomes acquainted with the Rev. Ralph Cudworth, D.D., who has become closely associated with King James, involved in translating the King James Bible and eventually (perhaps after marriage) becoming the king's personal counsellor. Cudworth is a scion of the Cudworths of Wernton, a manor held by the family for at least six generations, as shown in the 1563 Lancashire Visitation. Furthermore: "In the reign of Henry III, the manor of Oldham was held by Alwardus de Aldholme who held land in Werneth (Vernet) and lived at Werneth Hall, the manor passed to the Cudworths by marriage..."
In other words, the Cudworths of Wernith and Oldham were descended from a long line of country gentlemen, as were the Machells with their origin at Crackenthorpe.
For the unknown origin of Thomas Stoughton, fifteenth-century London fishmonger, see Ethel McLaughlin, "The English ancestry of Thomas Stoughton, 1588-1661, and his son Thomas Stoughton, 1624-1684, of Windsor, Conn., his brother Israel Stoughton, 1603-1645, and his nephew William Stoughton, 1631-1701, of Dorchester, Mass." (1958), pp. 49 and following. The book's previous chapter discusses the various armigerous Stoughton families in England, one of which got grafted onto the ancestry of John Stoughton, second husband of Mary (Machell) Cudworth. Online at https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=wu.89066287962;view=1up;seq=53
In addition to the difference in social class between the Cudworths and Machells (on the one hand) and the lower Stoughtons (on the other), Mary (Machell) Cudworth was around ten years older than her second husband John Stoughton. However, Stoughton was an able cleric who was patronized (as was Mary's first husband) by the Earl of Warwick, who was the nephew of Mary's aunt Jane Machell's husband. Mary, a widow with five children, needed a husband, and the accomodating John Stoughton knew his place and didn't pretend to be her social equal.
I do want to share my thoughts on a point of disagreement. You write, "The fact that Stoughton had a fishmonger ancestor in 15th century hardly matters. Stoughton lived in the late 16th-early 17th century, it's extremly dubious that him, or anyone else, for that matter, were aware of such."
It seems to me that people of that day and age were extremely conscious of such issues, even if they didn't write them into their visitation pedigrees. The society as a whole paid close attention to social rank, and family origin was a very important element of that. In addition, the common arrangement of marrying third cousins (closer unions being barred by the Church) required careful attention to genealogy. I have come across 15th-century families with several descents from early Plantagenet Kings of England, but every such descent is from a bastard child. It seems clear that knowledge of the social station of one's ancestors was a common part of family memory at the time, and it was a constant temptation to *ahem* "elevate" the status of one's ancestors.
If somebody "didn't know" his origin, then he didn't have an origin worth talking about. John Stoughton had two fishmonger ancestors -- father and son. And then the grandson got away from London and lived on a family estate in Kent. And later on, when the Visitation Heralds came to Kent in 1619, the family forgot their "fishy" ancestry and fabricated a descent from a different Stoughton, Lord Mayor of London. See https://books.google.com/books?id=o79MAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA18&lpg=PA18&dq=stoughton+dartford+kent&source=bl&ots=GMgm5mb-rp&sig=2LFT7kJswOXNqMAk2YHopPzz9kk&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwje7L7l4-7ZAhVQ7mMKHUQ_C3gQ6AEIVTAJ#v=onepage&q=stoughton%20dartford%20kent&f=false
Doug's books show that Rev. John Stoughton's daughter Jane was by a different wife than Mary Machell (his last wife, Jane Browne of Frampton). So that removes that problem.

You're making too big a deal about the status difference. There was virtually no difference in their social standing. Personally I would say Stoughton was of slightly higher status than Cudworth.
j***@gmail.com
2018-03-17 15:39:41 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by r***@yahoo.com
Doug's books show that Rev. John Stoughton's daughter Jane was by a different wife than Mary Machell (his last wife, Jane Browne of Frampton). So that removes that problem.
You're making too big a deal about the status difference. There was virtually no difference in their social standing. Personally I would say Stoughton was of slightly higher status than Cudworth.
I'm surprised by your assertion that Stoughton was of slightly higher status than Cudworth. I gave an explanation for my assessment, and I would welcome one for why you disagree. I am inclined to agree that this Stoughton status question is not directly relevant to the question of Mary (Machell) Cudworth's parentage. However, I think discussing it is an interesting exercise in itself, and people closely connected to the royal family had to be acutely concerned with fine points of social status; and in general, considering status when weighing the rationale for marriages is part of the genealogist's toolkit.

You say "Douglas Richardson's books show that Rev. John Stoughton's daughter Jane was by a different wife than Mary Machell ... So that removes that problem."

I think there are two separate issues here that need to be considered. First of all is the two primary sources for Jane's existence: the will of Rev. John Stoughton, published in Waters' "Genealogical Gleanings in England," online at https://archive.org/stream/genealogicalglea01byuwate#page/178/mode/2up , and the will of John Machell (son of Matthew), which mentions his cousin Jane Cudworth.

Does "Jane" in these two wills refer to one and the same person? Richardson interprets them in a way that implies two separate Janes, but this is a question where the ambiguity in the primary sources invites more than one interpretation. I would like to suggest that John Stoughton didn't have any children by either of his two wives, and that both of the daughters mentioned in his will "Jane" (no surname given) the elder daughter and "Mary Stoughton" the younger daughter were both daughters of his wife Mary Machell by her first husband Ralph Cudworth.

As I observed when I co-founded WikiTree's Magna Carta Project, the great value in Richardson's books is that they cite sources for every generation, so others can check for themselves regarding Richardson's conclusions. I am firmly in favor of the Magna Carta Project continuing to use Richardson's books as its principal source, while recognizing that other evidence might come up, forcing WikiTree to reconsider and perhaps reject some of Richardson's conclusions. That is the way of genealogical research. Richardson, despite his recognized authority, is not infallible, and in a work of such broad scope a few errors and ambiguities are bound to creep in.

For example, the common ancestor that I share with Richardson, Philippa Bonville: I have changed her parentage (as shown at WikiTree) from what Richardson shows, after protracted discussion on several individual WikiTree profiles and on two discussion threads. I know that Richardson has stated that he has an open mind on this question. As I mentioned at WikiTree, it appears that Richardson erred on the side of caution, including a clear Magna Carta descent from Philippa's grandfather (or father, as Richardson presents), while omitting a whole fistful of Magna Carta descents from Philippa's mother (if her "brother" was actually her father.)

For anyone who is interested, Philippa Bonville's WikiTree profile, with explanation of why the change was made, is here:https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Bonville-4
Much of the underlying discussion at WikiTree, which forced an evolution in my own assessment of this question, is at these two forum threads, started by an opinionated now-"aonymous" British genealogist: https://www.wikitree.com/g2g/485257/there-errors-bonville-grenville-family-genealogies-wikitree
and https://www.wikitree.com/g2g/493603/could-philippa-bonville-been-daughter-elizabeth-fitzroger

A separate issue where Richardson's assessment of the underlying primary sources has been challenged, is the Woodhull ancestry of gateway ancestor Grace (Chetwood) Bulkeley. The WikiTree threads discussing this problem are here: https://www.wikitree.com/g2g/394723/how-best-to-resolve-nicholas-de-wodhull?show=395880#a395880
and here: https://www.wikitree.com/g2g/432975/does-this-trail-need-removed-from-malet-through-woodhull-44?show=433069#a433069

It seems that, per Joe Cochoit's answer in the second thread, this is a similar case to that of Philippa Bonville, where the ambiguity in the lineage doesn't break the Magna Carta lineage of a gateway ancestor.

The Cudworth lineage is different. At this point I have to consider the Magna Carta lineage of James Cudworth to be decisively broken, and, unless a totally different lineage can be developed, he should be removed as a gateway ancestor.

The insurmountable question, in my mind, is how could Mary Machell have become the "first aid nurse" to Prince Henry? Her alleged father Matthew Machell had no known connections to the royal household. On the other hand, Matthew's elder brother John Machell was a cavalry officer whom Bellasis described as the "Master of the Horse" under Queen Elizabeth. This presumably means that he fulfilled the responsibilities of the office as the deputy of the nobleman who actually held the title, as was common practice. If Mary's father was a cavalier, then it is easy to imagine Mary learning to help her mother deal with her father's occasional scrapes, cuts and bruises, which would qualify her to become the first-aid nurse for Prince Henry.

Furthermore, the uncle of John Machell's second wife Ursula Hynde, Francis Verney, became the falconer to Prince Henry. Here is a clear and logical Machell family connection to the royal household, reinforcing the conclusion (supported by Mary's 1584 baptism record) that Mary was the daughter of John Machell, and not his brother Matthew. For Francis Verney as Prince Henry's falconer, see the Dictionary of National Biography, ed. Sidney Lee, vol. LVIII, p. 260 at https://books.google.com/books?id=gmVIAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA260&lpg=PA260&dq=francis+verney+falconer&source=bl&ots=cJT5im-VNR&sig=OMV6fiFh8x-nHFWxjQiTs_AuJIQ&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwieguWVjvLZAhUW52MKHTM_AeEQ6AEIRzAG#v=onepage&q=francis%20verney%20falconer&f=false
This is also stated at the Wikipedia article on Ursula Hynde's father Francis Hynde, at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_Hynde

I have gone ahead and changed Mary Machell's parentage at WikiTree, showing her as the daughter of John Machell by his second wife Ursula Hynde. I have done a lot of other work on Mary's ancestry, showing the Leybourne/Bellingham connection: Mary's grandfather John Machell bought the Burneside/Burneshead estate -- the property of his presumed maternal grandmother's family -- in 1551. A five-generation chart (click on any name for the individual's profile) for Mary (Machell)(Cudworth) Stoughton is here: https://www.wikitree.com/genealogy/Machell-Family-Tree-1

That whole effort is a work-in-progress (which also includes profiles created by others), so if anybody notices any bloopers in this Machall ancestry, please let me know and I will make corrections. I connected this lineage to the existing profiles for Ursula Hynde's mother's mother's mother's ancestry, showing descent from Magna Carta barons Robert de Vere and the Bigods. I have no idea if this extended ancestry is accurate, but maybe it provides a way to salvage James Cudworth as a gateway ancestor.
c***@gmail.com
2018-03-23 19:45:48 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Dear Newsgroup ~

This thread is entitled "Insurmountable problems with the lineage of gateway James Cudworth." The title is surely a misnomer, as few genealogical problems are ever "insurmountable." Such is the case with the Cudworth lineage which can be easily vouched by contemporary records. Without getting into a lengthy discussion, I can certify that the Cudworth-Machell-Lewknor connection is sound.

I do wish to address a couple of points. Burke (who is not entirely reliable) has alleged in print that Matthew Machell, Esq. (died 1593) married a Miss Cotton, by whom he had his son and heir, John Machell [see my citation below]. However, Matthew Machell appears to have had only one wife, Mary Lewknor, who he married by license in 1568. Mary Lewknor was subsequently the mother of all of Matthew's children, including his son and heir, John Machell, who was born about 1581 [minor in 1598, of age in 1602] and his daughter, Dorothy, who was specifically named in her grandmother Lewknor's will dated 1587. Also, as John Brandon has noted to me privately, it was Matthew Machell's brother, John Machell, whose first wife was a Cotton.

Next: It has been claimed that there is no contemporary evidence that Mary Machell, wife of Rev. Ralph Cudworth, was the daughter of Matthew Machell and Mary Lewknor. That claim appears to be false. The marriage record of Mary Machell and Rev. Ralph Cudworth has been located in recent time, which confirms her maiden name. Also Edward Bellasis, Lancaster Herald, wrote a full length book on the Machell family in 1886. In a pedigree found in this book, Mr. Bellasis indicated that Mary Machell, wife of Rev. Ralph Cudworth, was duly recorded as a daughter of Matthew Machell and Mary Lewknor in manuscript sources found in the College of Arms, which he styled "C. 21, C. 26, etc." Such manuscripts typically consist of genealogical pedigrees recorded by earlier heralds. While we lack the precise date of these manuscript sources, they are likely contemporary or near contemporary to the lifetime of Mary (Machell) Cudworth.

Furthermore, it is known that Mary Machell's first husband, Rev. Ralph Cudworth [died 1624], left her certain monies in trust to be used as legacies for their children. This is proven by a contemporary diary entry dated 1635, recorded shortly after Mary Machell married her 2nd husband, Rev. John Stoughton:

Green, Diary of John Rous (Camden Soc. 66) (1856): 79–80 (sub 1635: “In Oct., Doctor Stoughton, of Aldermanbury, in London, who married Cudworth’s widow, of Emm[anuel] and had the same living given by the colledge in the West country, from when a carrier bringing some monyes for his wives children’s portions, he was traduced (as it seemeth) to be a favourer of New England, and a collector of contributions for those ministers there, &c.”). END OF QUOTE.

On Mary Machell's death c.1636 and Rev. John Stoughton's death in 1639, the portions for the Cudworth children appear to have passed to her only brother, John Machell, Gent., who in turn left a sizeable bequest (£125) in his will dated 1646 for the marriage of his niece, Jane Cudworth. It is likely this bequest was not John Machell's own money. Rather, it was presumably part of the monies which had been left by Rev. Ralph Cudworth for his children's portions. The assertion that Jane Cudworth was not the daughter of Mary Machell is simply not sustainable.

For interest's sake, I've copied my current Cudworth-Machell-Lewknor file account in its entirety. This greatly expands the account of this line which I published in my book, Royal Ancestry (5 volume set), in 2014.

Sincerely, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

+ + + + + + + + +

15. EDWARD LEWKNOR (or LEWKENOR, LEWKENOUR), Esq., of Kingston Bowsey (in Kingston by Sea) and Hamsey, Sussex, London, etc., Groom Porter to King Edward VI and Queen Mary I, Burgess (M.P.) for Horsham, Sussex, 1553, son and heir, born about 1518 (aged 11 in 1529). He was a legatee in the 1527 will of his father. He married after 8 May 1535 (date of his wife’s father’s will) and before 1542 DOROTHY WROTH, daughter of Robert Wroth, Esq., of Durants (in Enfield), Middlesex, by Jane, daughter of Thomas Haute, Knt. [see WROTH 14 for her ancestry]. They had four sons, Edward, Knt. (of Denham, Suffolk), Thomas, Gent., Stephen, and William, and six daughters, Jane (wife of William Larke, Esq. [will proved 1582], and John Pascall, Esq.), Mary, Elizabeth, Anne, Dorothy [died before 1590] (wife of Benjamin Pellatt, Knt.), and Lucrecie (or Lewcreys) (wife of William Jackson). In 1546 John Slewright, of Westham, Sussex sued Edward Lewkenour, Gent., of London in the Court of Common Pleas regarding a debt of £100. In 1550 he sold the manor of Ham, Sussex to Thomas Wolder for ₤80. In 1551 the king and Council recommended him for the packership of London, but the City refused on the ground that the yield of the office had been allocated to the poor. In 1553 he was granted the manor of King’s Barns (in Upper Beeding) and an estate called New Park (in Lower Beeding), Sussex by the king. In Feb. 1556 he and his cousin, William West, the disabled heir of the 9th Lord la Warre, were informed by Henry Peckham of the conspiracy being hatched by Henry Dudley, Knt., against Queen Mary I, and asked to procure a copy of the will of King Henry VIII as proof of the queen’s ineligibility to wear the crown. Lewknor sent the document to West’s house in St. Dunstan’s, Farringdon Without, where it was handed over to Peckham. Lewknor was also said to have had meetings with sympathizers both at his house in Sussex and in London, and more vaguely to have been privy to a plot to kill the Queen during a card game. On 6 June 1556 he was taken to the Tower of London and on 15 June following he was tried at Guildhall and sentenced to death for treason. EDWARD LEWKNOR, Esq., died a prisoner in the Tower of London 6 Sept. 1556. Following his attainder in 1556, the Crown granted the manors of Kingston Bowsey (in Kingston by Sea) and Hamsey, Sussex to his widow, Dorothy. Sometime after 1557 his widow, Dorothy, purchased the manor of Charlton, Sussex from Thomas Pellate. In 1559 a private act was passed in Parliament for the restitution in blood of the children of Edward Lewknor, Esq. The same year his widow, Dorothy, and his brother, Anthony Lewknor, appear to have broken the entail on the manor of Kingston Bowsey, Sussex. She was a legatee in the 1573 will of her brother, Thomas Wroth, Knt. In 1573 Dorothy, widow of Edward Lewkenor, Sir Thomas Wroth, and William Wroth, Citizen and mercer of London, granted the rectory of Margaretting, Essex, the advowson of the vicarage, and certain lands to William Larke for life, with remainder to Jane Lewknor (daughter of Edward and Dorothy) for life, and thence to William Larke’s heirs. In 1588 Dorothee Lewknor, of Kingston Bowsey, Sussex, subscribed to the loan raised by Queen Elizabeth at the time of the expected invasion by the Spanish Armada. Dorothy left a will dated 1 October 1587, proved 26 August 1589 (P.C.C. 68 Leicester).

References:
D’Ewes, Journals of All the Parliaments During the Reign of Queen Elizabeth (1682): 25, 51. Strype, Eccl. Mems. 3(1) (1822): 494. Minutes of Evidence ... The Petition of Sarah Otway Cave (1836): 249 (“An act to restore in blood the Sons and Daughters of Edward Lewknor, Esquire. Anno Primo Elizabeth, No. 32 ... Edward Lewknor, Thomas Lewknor, Steven Lewknor, and William Lewknor, Jane Lewknor, Maria Lewknor, Elizabethe Lewknor, Anne Lewknor, Dorothie Lewknor, and Lucrecie Lewknor, Sonnes and Daughters to Edward Lewknor, late of Kyngeston Bowsey in the Countie of Sussex, Esquier....”). Gurney, Rec. of the House of Gournay 2 (1848): 469–470 (Lewknor ped.). Nichols, Diary of Henry Machyn (Camden Soc. 42) (1848): 108, 114. Sussex Arch. Colls. 3 (1850): 89–102. Lower, Worthies of Sussex (1865): 287–288 (biog. of Sir Edward Lewknor). Hervey Vis. of Suffolke 2 (1872): 261–271 (Lewkenor ped.: “Edward Lewkenor, of Kingston Bowsey, Sussex, attainted of high treason. = Dorothie, daur. of Sir Robt. Wrathe, of Dureaunce in Enfield, co. Midd’x, Knt.”). Clark & Finnelly, Rpt. of Cases heard & decided in the House of Lords 1838 & 1839 6 (1873): 567–568, 606. Campkin, Sussex Arch. Colls. General Index to Vols. 1 to 25 (1874): 230. Elwes, Hist. of the Castles, Mansions & Manors of Western Sussex (1876): 130–131. Hawley et al., Vis. of Essex 1552, 1558, 1570, 1612 & 1634 1 (H.S.P. 13) (1878): 260–262 (1612 Vis. Essex) (Pascall ped.). Benolte, Vis. of Somerset 1531, 1573 & 1591 (1885): 91–93 (Wrothe ped.: “Dorothy [Wrothe] = Sir Edw. Lewknor.”). Waller Loughton in Essex Pt. 2 (1889–1900): 19–21 (will of Sir Thomas Wroth). East Anglian n.s. 4 (1891–92): 230. Sussex Arch. Colls. 38 (1892): 111, 116–118. English Rpts.: House of Lords 7 (1901): 895–924 (Camoys Peerage). Denham Parish Regs.: 1539–1850 (1904): 86–93, 198–219. Benolte et al., Vis. of Sussex 1530 & 1633–4 (H.S.P. 53) (1905): 25–30 (Lewknor ped.: “Edward Lewknor of Kingston Bewsey. = Dorathey d. of Sr Rob. Wroth of Enffeild knight.”). Comber, Sussex Gens. 3 (1933): 148–162. Davis, Anc. of Mary Isaac (1955): 177–178. Sussex Notes & Queries 16 (1964): 114–121. VCH Sussex 6(1) (1980): 132–138; 6(3) (1987): 34–37; 7 (1940): 83–87. Bindoff, House of Commons 1509–1558 2 (1982): 528–529 (biog. of Edward Lewknor). Wilkinson, Cal. of Patent Rolls 25 Elizabeth I (1582–1583) (List & Index Soc. 286) (2001): 109–110. Court of Common Pleas, CP40/1127, image 2327d (available at http://aalt.law.uh.edu/AALT1/H8/CP40no1127/bCP40no1127dorses/IMG_2327.htm). East Sussex Rec. Office: Archive of Drake & Lee of Lewes, solicitor, SAS-D/105 (available at http://discovery. nationalarchives. gov. uk). Parliamentary Archives: House of Lords, HL/PO/PB/1/1558/E1n32 (available at http://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk). West Sussex Rec. Office: Holmes, Campbell & Co MSS, Holmes, Campbell & Co/983, 984, 985, and 1087 (available at http://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk).

16. MARY LEWKNOR, married by license dated 1 July 1568 MATTHEW MACHELL (or MAUCHELL), Esq., of St. Michael Queenhithe, London, Hatfield, Hertfordshire, and Shacklewell (in Hackney) and Tottenham, Middlesex, Citizen and haberdasher of London, younger son of John Machell, Citizen and haberdasher of London, Sheriff of London, 1555–6, Alderman of London, 1556–8, by Jane (or Joan), daughter of Henry Luddington, Gent. He was born after 1545. They had one son, John, Gent. (born c.1581 [minor in 1598, of age in 1602]), and five daughters, Dorothy, Jane (wife of Henry Walsh), Elizabeth (wife of John Cave), Ann (wife of _____ Gibbs), and Mary. Sometime the period, 1558–1603, Matthew Machell, Esq. sued James Walton in Chancery to recover rights as lord of the manor; a tenement holden of the manor of Guilden Sutton, Cheshire late the estate of John Machell, plaintiff Matthew Machell’s father, and which on his death descended to plaintiff Matthew Machell. In the period, 1558–1603, Matthew Machell, Esq., sued [John] Machell, Esq., and Elizabeth Bowyer, widow, in Chancery regarding a claim under a will; a messuage at Hackney and land there, holden of the manor of Hackney, Middlesex; also the manor of Guilden Sutton, Cheshire and lands in Sandbach Goserye and Holme, Cheshire, with the tenths of grain, in the parish of Sandbach Goserye, late the estate of John Machell, the plaintiff’s father. In 1570 Queen Elizabeth I sued Matthew Machell regarding money lent by the said Matthew to Thomas Lord Wentworth for the supposed sale of sugar to Lord Wentworth agreed upon by the defendant and Robert Savadge to escape the penalties of the statute of usury. In 1572 Ralph Woodcock sued him in Chancery to protect the plaintiff's title by lease; a messuage and lands in Guilden Sutton, Cheshire, demised by John Machell deceased, father of the defendant, to the plaintiff and others for their life. Their daughter, Dorothy Machell, was a legatee in the 1587 will of her grandmother, Dorothy (Wroth) Lewknor. In the period, 1587–91, John Machell (son of John Machell, citizen and Alderman of London and Jone Machell his wife) sued Matthew Machell regarding the manors of Guilden Sutton, Cheshire, and Burneside [Burnside],Westmorland; and property in London; Tottenham, Middlesex; Hatfield, Hertfordshire; Hinton Admiral, Hampshire; Sandbach, Holmes Chapel and Goostrey, Cheshire; and Dorset. In the period, 1587–92, Henry Masham had a dispute with Matthew Machell, John Machell, and Elizabeth Bowyer. MATTHEW MACHELL, Esq., died 23 August 1593. On 1 Feb. 1598 Francis Harvy was granted the wardship and marriage of John Machell, son and heir of Matthew Machell; with an annuity of 10 from 23 August 1593 when Matthew died, to be assigned from lands in Tottenham, Middlesex, in the parish of St. Michael in Quenehithe within the City of London, and in Hatfield, Hertfordshire. On 3 June 1602 license was granted for John Machell, son and heir of Matthew Machell, to enter his lands, he receiving issues from the time he had attained age 21.

References:
D’Ewes, Journals of All the Parliaments During the Reign of Queen Elizabeth (1682): 25, 51. Cals. of the Procs. in Chancery in the Reign of Queen Elizabeth 2 (1830): 247. Sussex Arch. Colls. 3 (1850): 89–102. Burke, Gen. & Heraldic Hist. of the Landed Gentry of Great Britain & Ireland 2 (1871): 851 (sub Machell) (“John (Sir), who m. Jane Luddington, and by her (who m. 2ndly, Sir Thomas Chamberlain) he had, with other issue, three sons, viz., 1 John, of Hatfield, master of the horse to Queen Elizabeth; 2 Thomas, of Tunstead; and 3 Matthew, of Hatfield, who m. twice, 1st, Miss Cotton, and 2ndly, Mary, dau. of Edward Leukner, Esq. This last named Matthew Machell, of Hatfield, had, by Miss Cotton, his wife, an only son, John Machell, of Tangley ...”). Hervey, Vis. of Suffolke 2 (1872): 261–271 (Lewkenor ped.: “Mary [Lewkenor], mar. to Mathew Machell, of Hackney, in com. Midd’x.”). Hawley et al., Vis. of Essex 1552, 1558, 1570, 1612 & 1634 1 (H.S.P. 13) (1878): 441–442 (1634 Vis. Essex) (Machell ped.: “Mathew Machell. = Mary d. of Edward Lewknor of Sussex.”) (Machell arms: Sable, three greyhounds courant in pale argent, collared or, a bordure of the second). Bellasis, Machells of Crackenthorpe (1886): Machell of Kendal ped. at end (author states Matthew Machell married “..... dau. of Sir Wm. Cotton. 1st wife. Some make her the mother of the issue below.” There is no evidence for this marriage. The author further states, however, that Matthew Machell married “Mary dau. of Edward Leukner, of Kingston Bewsey, Sussex, and relict of John Caryll (S.P. according to some authorities), or the mother of the children below, i.e., Coll. Arms, C. 21, C. 26, &c.”). Chester, Allegations for Marr. Lics.: London 1 (H.S.P. 25) (1887): 39 (Marriage license dated July 1 [1568]. Matthew Machell, of City of London, Gent., & Mary Lewckenare, of Broxborne, Spinster; General Licence.). Sharpe, Cal. Wills proved & enrolled in the Court of Husting, London 2 (1890): 655–668 (will of Sir William Laxton, step-father of Joan Luddington). Fry, Abs. of IPMs Rel. London 1 (Index Lib. 15) (1896): 173–174 (inquisition of John Machell). Denham Parish Regs., 1539–1850 (1904): 37 (Date: 22 Oct. 1608. Marriage of John Cave & Elizabeth Machell), 200–204 (author assigns Mary, wife of Matthew Machell, as the daughter of Edward Lewknor and his wife, Dorothy Wroth), 213–215 (Funeral certificate of Sir Edward Lewknor of Denham, Suffolk dated 1605 indicates the standard was borne at his funeral by “Mr. John Machell”; the author supposes John Machell was the son of the deceased’s sister). Benolte et al., Vis. of Sussex 1530 & 1633–4 (H.S.P. 53) (1905): 25–30 (Lewknor ped.: “Mary [Lewknor] ux. Mathew Machell of Hackney.”). Beaven, Aldermen of the City of London (1908): 18, 207. Index of Chancery Procs. (Ser. II) 2 (PRO Lists and Indexes 24) (1908): 68. Philipot et al., Vis. of Buckingham 1634 & 1566 (H.S.P. 58) (1909): 88 (Matchell ped.: “Mathew Matchell of Hatfield in Hartfordshire 2d son. = Mary da: of Edward Lewknor of Okeington Bewsey Com. Sussex.”). Mundy, Middlesex Peds. (H.S.P. 65) (1914): 7 (Machell ped.: “Mathew Machell hath yssue as in Buckinghamshire.”). Walker Yorkshire Peds. 2 (H.S.P. 95) (1943): 279–280 (Luddington ped.: “Matthew [Machell] = … dau. of …. Cotton”) (modern ped.). Boyd, Peds. with index of London Citizens (1954): #9845 [John Machell] & #9846 [Matthew Machell] [found on FHL Microfilm 94550]. Sussex Notes & Queries 16 (1964): 114–121. VCH Middlesex 10 (1995): 51–59. Belcher et al., Sutton House: A Tudor Courtier’s House in Hackney (2004). C.P.R. Elizabeth I (1597–1598) (2009): 30. Hackney Archives: Tyssen Transcript, Copy & Extracted Hackney Recs., D/F/TYS/43/1 (available at http://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk). Neal & Leighton, Cal. of Patent Rolls 44 Elizabeth I (1601–1602) Pt. 1 (Calendar) (List & Index Soc. 349) (2013): 184. National Archives, C 2/Eliz/M2/38; C 2/Eliz/M6/54; C 2/Eliz/M14/61; C 2/Eliz/W1/54; C 2/Eliz/W14/31; C 3/227/10; C 4/152/6; E 133/1/94; E 133/10/1588 (available at http://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk).

17. MARY MACHELL, nurse to Prince Henry, eldest son of King James I of England. She married (1st) at St. Mary, Newington, Surrey 18 June 1611 [REV.] RALPH CUDWORTH, D.D., Fellow of Emmanuel College, Cambridge. They had three sons, [Major] James, Gent., Ralph, D.D. [Fellow of Emmanuel College, Master of Clare College, Master of Christ’s College], and John, and three daughters, Elizabeth (wife of [Rev.] Josias Beacham/Beachamp), Mary, and Jane. He was born in 1572. He matriculated at Emmanuel College, Cambridge, Lent, 1588–9, where he obtained the following degrees: B.A., 1592–3, M.A., 1596, B.D., 1603, and D. D., 1619. He served as Curate of Westley Waterless, Cambridgeshire c.1600, and was also a minister of St. Andrew’s, Cambridge. He was instituted Vicar of Coggeshall, Essex in 1604. He was appointed Rector of Aller, Somerset in 1609. He was appointed Rector of Aller, Somerset in 1609. [REV.] RALPH CUDWORTH, D.D. was buried at Aller, Somerset 30 Aug. 1624. He left a will dated 17 Aug. 1624, proved 29 October 1624 (P.C.C. 116 Byrde). His widow, Mary, married (2nd) [REV.] JOHN STOUGHTON, D.D., Fellow of Emmanuel College, younger son of [Rev.] Thomas Stoughton, of Naughton, Suffolk and Coggeshall, Essex, by his 1st wife, Katherine. He was baptized at Naughton, Suffolk 23 Jan. 1592/3. He was admitted sizar of Emmanuel College, Cambridge in 1607, where he obtained the following degrees: B.A., 1610–11, M.A., 1614, B.D., 1621, and D.D., 1626. He was appointed Rector of Aller, Somerset 24 Aug. 1624. In 1632 he was appointed curate of St. Mary, Aldermanbury, London. His wife, Mary, was living in December 1634. He married (2nd) at Frampton, Dorset in 1637 JANE BROWNE, widow of [Rev.] Walter Newburgh (will proved 7 Nov. 1632), of Symondsbury, Dorset, and daughter of John Browne, Esq., of Frampton, Dorset. They had two daughters, Jane and Mary. He was prosecuted in the high commission at the instigation of Archbishop Laud. [REV. DR.] JOHN STOUGHTON died 4 May 1639, and was buried 9 May 1639. He left a will dated 4 May 1639, proved 20 May 1639 (P.C.C. 69 Harvey).

References:
Brook, Lives of the Puritans 3 (1813): 527 (“Dr. John Stoughton, D.D. was fellow of Emmanuel college, Cambridge … He is classed among the learned writers and fellows of that college, and is denominated a pious and learned divine.”). Chalmers, Gen’l Biog. Dict. 11 (1813): 104–111 (biog. of Ralph Cudworth [the younger]: “[He] was son of Dr. Ralph Cudworth, and born 1617, at Aller, Somerset, of which place his father was rector. His mother was of the family of Machell, and had been nurse to prince Henry, eldest son of James I. His father dying when he was only seven years of age, and his mother marrying again, his education was superintended by his father-in-law, Dr Stoughton”). Hutchins, Hist. & Antiqs. of Dorset (1815). Chauncy, Hist. Antiqs. of Hertfordshire 1 (1826): 77–78. Coll. Top. et Gen. 1 (1834): 172–173 (re. Beacham fam.). Green, Diary of John Rous (Camden Soc. 66) (1856): 79–80 (sub 1635: “In Oct., Doctor Stoughton, of Aldermanbury, in London, who married Cudworth’s widow, of Emm[anuel] and had the same living given by the colledge in the West country, from when a carrier bringing some monyes for his wives children’s portions, he was traduced (as it seemeth) to be a favourer of New England, and a collector of contributions for those ministers there, &c.”). Notes & Queries 2nd Ser. 7 (1859): 230. NEHGR 14 (1860): 101–104 (letter of James Cudworth dated 1634 addressed to his “very Louinge & Kinde ffather Dr. Stoughton at his howse in Aldermanbury”); 21 (1867): 249–250; 30 (1876): 464; 40 (1886): 306–307 (will of John Stoughton, D.D.); 53 (1899): 433 (will of John Cudworth, Esq.); 64 (1910): 85–86. Bellasis, Machells of Crackenthorpe (1886): Machell of Kendal ped. at end (author assigns Mary Machell, wife of Rev. Ralph Cudworth, as the daughter of Matthew Machell, of Hackney and Hatfield, and of London, and his wife, Mary Leukner). Weaver, Somerset Incumbents (1889): 4. Notes & Queries for Somerset & Dorset 7 (1901): 143–144. D.N.B. 5 (1908): 271–272 (biog. of Ralph Cudworth). Bartlett, Newberry Genealogy (1914): 24–26. Holman, Scott Gen. (1919): 259–262. Burghill et al., Vis. of Rutland 1681–2 (H.S.P. 73) (1922): 19 (Beacham ped.). Venn & Venn, Alumni Cantabrigiensis to 1751 1 (1922): 431 (sub Ralph Cudworth); 4(1) (1927): 171 (sub John Stoughton). Calder & Cudworth, Recs. of the Cudworth Fam. (1974). Emerson, Letters from New England (1976): 138–139, 142–143. Spear, Search for the Passengers of the Mary & John 1630 18 (1992): 39–43; 26 (1997): 101–104 (sub Stoughton). Boaz, Specific Ancestral Lines of the Boaz, Paul, Welty & Fishel Fams. (2014): 480. London Metropolitan Archives online in Ancestry.com, Southwark St Mary Newington 1561-1611, image 55 on r.h. (recto) page (Parish Recs. of St. Mary, Newington, Surrey, England sub June 1611:”Rodolphe Cudworthe minist[e]r, maried to Mrs. Marie Machell ye xviiith day by lisence.”). Parish Regs. of Aller, Somerset [FHL Microfilm 1517680]. Registered will of John Machell, Gent., of Wonersh, Surrey dated 17 Oct. 1646, codicil dated 14 Jan. 1646/7, proved 16 July 1647, P.C.C. 163 Fines [FHL Microfilm 92165] — brother of Mary Machell, wife of Ralph Cudworth; testator bequeaths his cousin/kinswoman [i.e., niece], Jane Cudworth, £125 at her marriage.

18. [MAJOR] JAMES CUDWORTH, Gent., salter, Deputy Governor Plymouth Colony, 1640, 1642; Assistant, 1656–7, 1674–80, Plymouth commissioner to New England Confederation, 1655, 1657, 1678, 1681, Deputy to Plymouth General Court for Barnstable, 1640, 1642, and for Scituate, 1649–56, 1652, son and heir, baptized at Aller, Somerset 2 Aug. 1612. He married at Northam, Devon 1 Feb. 1633/4 MARY PARKER. They had five sons, James, Jonathan [1st of name], Israel, unnamed, and Jonathan [2nd of name], and two daughters, Mary (wife of Robert Whitcomb) and Joanna (wife of _____ Jones). He and his wife, Mary, immigrated to New England in 1634, where they initially settled at Scituate, Massachusetts. He was admitted freeman of Plymouth Colony 1 Jan. 1634/5. He and his wife, Mary, joined the Scituate, Massachusetts church 18 Jan. 1634/5. In 1639 he and his family removed to Barnstable, Massachusetts, but in 1646, they returned to Scituate, Massachusetts. He was sent by Scituate as a Deputy to the Plymouth General Court in 1659, but was not approved by the Court. In 1660 he was disenfranchised of his freedom of the Plymouth Colony, being found a “manifest opposer of the laws of the government” owing to his support of the Quakers. He was readmitted to freemanship 4 July 1673, and on the same day was made magistrate for Scituate. In 1673 he was authorized to solemnize marriages, grant subpoenas for witnesses, and to administer oaths to witnesses. In Dec. 1673 he was chosen to lead a military expedition against the Dutch. In 1675 he was chosen to take charge of the Plymouth Colony military forces. His wife, Mary, was living 17 Dec. 1673. [MAJOR] JAMES CUDWORTH left a will dated 15 Sept. 1681, proved 7 July 1682.

References:
Deane, Hist. of Scituate, Massachusetts (1831): 245–249. NEHGR 14 (1860): 101–104 (letter of James Cudworth dated 1634 names his cousin, [Zachariah] Symmes, of Charlestown, Massachusetts). Pope, Pioneers of Massachusetts (1900): 125 (biog. of James Cudworth). Holman, Scott Gen. (1919): 259–262. Pratt, Early Planters of Scituate (1929): 210–235. Calder & Cudworth, Recs. of the Cudworth Fam. (1974). Spear, Search for the Passengers of the Mary & John 1630 18 (1992): 39–43. Anderson, Great Migration 2 (2001): 249–258 (biog. of James Cudworth). Parish Regs. of Aller, Somerset [FHL Microfilm 1517680].
r***@yahoo.com
2018-03-23 20:39:30 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
I agree with Doug's assessment that the amount bequeathed by John Machell to Jane Cudworth tends to indicate she would be his niece, rather than a remoter kinswoman, like his first-cousin-once-removed.

Also, remember that Rev. Ralph Cudworth's will of the mid-1620s, made in Somersetshire, was witnessed by Margaret Wroth (did her husband Sir Thomas Wroth, also witness?). This is apparently Sir Thomas Wroth of Petherton, Somersetshire, an M.P., who married Margaret Rich.

http://www.historyofparliamentonline.org/volume/1604-1629/member/wrothe-sir-thomas-1584-1672

He was "bap. 5 May 1584, 1st s. of Thomas Wrothe of Blendon Hall, Bexley, Kent and Joan, da. and coh. of Thomas Bulman, of London. educ. Gloucester Hall, Oxf. 1600; I. Temple, 1607. m. c.1614, (with £3,000) Margaret (d. 14 Oct. 1635), da. of Richard Rich of Leez Priory, Essex, 1 ch. d.v.p. suc. fa. 1610. kntd. 11 Nov. 1613; d. 11 July 1672."

His wife, Margaret Rich, was apparently a daughter of John and Matthew Machell's sister Jane (Machell) Rich, as claimed by John Schmeekle.

This should hint that Rev. Cudworth's wife, a known Machell, was daughter of either John or Matthew Machell.

I lean towards Matthew, as his mother-in-law was nee Wroth (Dorothy Wroth, wife of Edward Lewknor).

Also, note that one of Mary (Lewknor) Machell's brothers, Thomas Lewknor, was married to a Bulman, surely a maternal kinswoman of Sir Thomas Wroth (son of Joan Bulman).

https://books.google.com/books?id=8QhBAQAAMAAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=%22john+cave%22+lewknor&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiOjuG5o4PaAhWM2VMKHSXOCII4FBDoAQhJMAY#v=onepage&q=lewknor&f=false

While John and Matthew would both share the connection via Margaret's mother Jane (Machell) Rich, Matthew would have two further connections, via both Lewknor and Bulman.
j***@gmail.com
2018-03-24 20:20:00 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
It appears that Douglas Richardson made a few hasty errors in his discussion of my presentation of the evidence that Mary (Machell) Cudworth was actually the daughter of John Machell by Ursula Hynde (whose mother Jane Verney appears in Richardson's books with descents from Magna Carta barons Robert FitzWalter, Hugh and Roger le Bigod, Henry de Bohun, Richard de Clare, Saher de Quincy, and Robert de Vere--as well as that shaky descent from Geoffrey de Say.
Post by c***@gmail.com
This thread is entitled "Insurmountable problems with the lineage of gateway James Cudworth." The title is surely a misnomer, as few genealogical problems are ever "insurmountable."
Please note that the thread's title comes complete with a QUESTION-MARK, which Richardson omitted. Furthermore, it would appear that, in the course of ongoing discussion and accompanying research, this problem has indeed been surmounted, with the identification of Ursula Hynde, and not Mary Lewknor, as the mother of Mary (Machell) Cudworth.
Post by c***@gmail.com
Such is the case with the Cudworth lineage which can be easily vouched by contemporary records. Without getting into a lengthy discussion, I can certify that the Cudworth-Machell-Lewknor connection is sound.
Richardson's "certification" of the dubious Cudworth-Machell-Lewknor lineage is without value unless it is backed by contemporary records. Richardson says that his claimed lineage can be "easily vouched," but a search through all the verbiage that he appended fails to produce any such records to bolster his claim. Richardson appears to be making the best he can of a bad argument. If I am wrong in this, I will be pleased to acknowledge my error.
Post by c***@gmail.com
I do wish to address a couple of points. Burke (who is not entirely reliable) has alleged in print that Matthew Machell, Esq. (died 1593) married a Miss Cotton, by whom he had his son and heir, John Machell [see my citation below]. However, Matthew Machell appears to have had only one wife, Mary Lewknor, who he married by license in 1568. Mary Lewknor was subsequently the mother of all of Matthew's children, including his son and heir, John Machell, who was born about 1581 [minor in 1598, of age in 1602] and his daughter, Dorothy, who was specifically named in her grandmother Lewknor's will dated 1587. Also, as John Brandon has noted to me privately, it was Matthew Machell's brother, John Machell, whose first wife was a Cotton.
My reply: That John Machell's first wife was a Cotton has been publicly noted in the Machell pedigree in the 1634 Essex Visitation, so there is no revelation there. For Matthew Machell to marry (as his second wife) a kinswoman of his brother's first wife, is not all that unusual. Furthermore, Richardson's assertion that Mary Lewknor was the mother of ALL of Matthew Machell's children is simply groundless, except for the provisional assignment in the pedigree of the Machells of Kendall (attached to Bellasis's 1886 "The Machells of Crackenthorpe," which Richardson cites), a source that clearly states that various sources disagree on WHICH OF MATTHEW MACHELL'S WIVES was the mother of Matthew Machell's children. Richardson ignores this. In other words, if Matthew Machell (and not his brother John) was the father of Mary (Machell) Cudworth, we simply don't know about her mother, unless we are inclined to accept Bellasis's 1886 supposition at face value and ignore (as Richardson does) Bellasis's acknowledgement of conflicting claims about the maternity of Matthew Machell's children. Bellasis specifically mentions the claim that Mary Lewknor died s.p. (without children), although of course the mention of Matthew Machell's daughter Dorothy as a god-daughtor in Mary Lewknor's mother's will would seem to prove that Mary Lewknor was the mother of at least one of Matthew's children.
Post by c***@gmail.com
Next: It has been claimed that there is no contemporary evidence that Mary Machell, wife of Rev. Ralph Cudworth, was the daughter of Matthew Machell and Mary Lewknor. That claim appears to be false. The marriage record of Mary Machell and Rev. Ralph Cudworth has been located in recent time, which confirms her maiden name. Also Edward Bellasis, Lancaster Herald, wrote a full length book on the Machell family in 1886. In a pedigree found in this book, Mr. Bellasis indicated that Mary Machell, wife of Rev. Ralph Cudworth, was duly recorded as a daughter of Matthew Machell and Mary Lewknor in manuscript sources found in the College of Arms, which he styled "C. 21, C. 26, etc." Such manuscripts typically consist of genealogical pedigrees recorded by earlier heralds. While we lack the precise date of these manuscript sources, they are likely contemporary or near contemporary to the lifetime of Mary (Machell) Cudworth.
My reply:
First of all, there has never been any doubt that Mary Machell's maiden name was indeed Machell. The central question is: Who was her mother?
Richardson's sole documentary evidence for his preferred answer to that question is the pedigree attached to Bellasis's 1886 work on the Machells of Crackenthorpe. In particular, Richardson cites Bellasis's citation of "C. 21, C. 26, etc." as the source for Bellasis's assignment of Mary Lewknor (and not Matthew Machell's other wife) as the mother of all of Matthew's children. Richardson here makes a supposition about a document that he has never seen, while failing to mention that Bellasis, in citing this document, also that Mary (Lewknor) Machell died "S.P., according to some authorities." Whatever is stated in "C. 21, C. 26, etc." is an excellent question for further research, as is the question of WHEN such documents were drafted and BY WHOM -- as well as the question of whether Mary Machell, wife of James Cudworth, was even mentioned in any of those documents and wasn't just a speculative assumption by Bellasis based on the reference to "cousin" Jane Cudworth in the will of Matthew Machell's son John. At this point, there is no reason to assume that the documents that Bellasis refers to were drafted within the lifetime of Mary (Machell) Cudworth or of any of her siblings or nephews, although it is conceivable. To make Bellasis's cryptic reference the sole basis of a claimed Cudworth Magna Carta lineage through Mary Lewknor seems to be a very thin reed, indeed, and (for whatever it's worth) not the way that I learned how to do genealogical research. Richardson is arguing beyond his evidence.

Furthermore, Richardson's reply to my discussion fails to engage with the contrary evidence, that Mary Machell, nurse to Prince Henry, and with an existing baptism record (unfortunately not naming parents, who however can be deduced per Adrienne Boaz), was the daughter of Ursula (Hynde) Machell, from an extended family of royal courtiers including a first cousin who was Prince Henry's falconer.
Post by c***@gmail.com
Green, Diary of John Rous (Camden Soc. 66) (1856): 79–80 (sub 1635: “In Oct., Doctor Stoughton, of Aldermanbury, in London, who married Cudworth’s widow, of Emm[anuel] and had the same living given by the colledge in the West country, from when a carrier bringing some monyes for his wives children’s portions, he was traduced (as it seemeth) to be a favourer of New England, and a collector of contributions for those ministers there, &c.”). END OF QUOTE.
My reply: Richardson makes the questionable assertion that "a carrier bringing some monyes for his [John Stoughton's] wives children’s portions" means that Ralph Cudworth left money in trust for his children. This isn't impossible or even implausible, but Richardson here -- as with his assignment of Mary (Lewknor) Machell as the mother of Mary (Machell) Cudworth -- is arguing beyond his evidence.
Post by c***@gmail.com
On Mary Machell's death c.1636 and Rev. John Stoughton's death in 1639, the portions for the Cudworth children appear to have passed to her only brother, John Machell, Gent., who in turn left a sizeable bequest (£125) in his will dated 1646 for the marriage of his niece, Jane Cudworth. It is likely this bequest was not John Machell's own money. Rather, it was presumably part of the monies which had been left by Rev. Ralph Cudworth for his children's portions. The assertion that Jane Cudworth was not the daughter of Mary Machell is simply not sustainable.
My reply:
While it certainly makes sense that John Machell's bequest to "Jane Cudworth" was actually money that Machell had held in trust from her parents, Richardson errs when he refers to my "assertion" that Jane Cudworth was not the daughter of Mary Machell. If Richardson (and/or anyone else) reviews what I actually wrote, (1) I IMAGINED THE POSSIBILITY (rather than "asserted") that Jane Cudworth could have been a wife or widow of a Cudworth; and then (2) I suggested that the daughters Jane and Mary, mentioned in the will of Rev. John Stoughton, were actually his step-daughters and daughters of his wife Mary Machell by her first husband Ralph Cudworth. (This suggestion is strengthened by the letter from James Cudworth in New England to his "father" John Stoughton.) Richardson's claim that I "asserted," together with his ignoring the fact of the question mark in the title of this thread, and Richardson's ignoring Bellasis's acknowledgment of conflicting claims regarding the maternity of Matthew Machell's children, all seem to be cut from the same cloth.

In summary: There is not a shred of contemporary evidence supporting the supposition that Mary (Machell) Cudworth was the daughter of Mary (Lewknor) Machell. Such a claim depends on the SUPPOSITION that (1) Matthew Machell did not have another wife who was the mother of at least some of his children; and (2) that Matthew Machell, and not his brother John, was the father of Mary (Machell) Cudworth. As I noted above, the combination of a baptism record for Mary "Mauchell/Manchell" (as part of a series of baptisms clearly pertaining to the family of John Machell by his second wife Ursula Hynde), together with the fact that Ursula Hynde came from an extended family with numerous court connections, including a cousin who served Prince Henry as did Mary (Machell) Cudworth, points clearly toward the conclusion that Mary (Machell) Cudworth was NOT the daughter of Mary (Lewknor) Machell, but rather the daughter of Ursula (Hynde) Machell.

p.s. I have been doing a lot of work improving the WikiTree profiles of the Cudworth/Machell/Hynde/Verney lineage. Here is a five-generation ancestry chart for Mary (Machell) Cudworth; you can click on any of the names to see the individual profiles: https://www.wikitree.com/genealogy/Machell-Family-Tree-1
JBrand
2018-03-25 16:18:33 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by c***@gmail.com
16. MARY LEWKNOR, married by license dated 1 July 1568 MATTHEW MACHELL (or MAUCHELL), Esq., of St. Michael Queenhithe, London, Hatfield, Hertfordshire, and Shacklewell (in Hackney) and Tottenham, Middlesex, Citizen and haberdasher of London, younger son of John Machell, Citizen and haberdasher of London, Sheriff of London, 1555–6, Alderman of London, 1556–8, by Jane (or Joan), daughter of Henry Luddington, Gent.
I wonder if Matthew Machell's mother's name wasn't Alice, rather than Joan. Various pedigrees show that widow "Joan" Machell remarried to Thomas Chamberlaine. There is, however, a late 1558 marriage license for Thomas Chamberlayne, Esq., and ALICE Machyll, widow, in the London area.

https://books.google.com/books?id=Wn0_AQAAMAAJ&pg=PA19&dq=%22alice+machyll%22&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwic6crD74faAhVj34MKHTJ_B8AQ6AEIKTAA#v=onepage&q=%22alice%20machyll%22&f=false

Perhaps a will could be located under the name of ALICE, which would give further information on her descendants.
JBrand
2018-03-25 17:27:07 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by JBrand
Post by c***@gmail.com
16. MARY LEWKNOR, married by license dated 1 July 1568 MATTHEW MACHELL (or MAUCHELL), Esq., of St. Michael Queenhithe, London, Hatfield, Hertfordshire, and Shacklewell (in Hackney) and Tottenham, Middlesex, Citizen and haberdasher of London, younger son of John Machell, Citizen and haberdasher of London, Sheriff of London, 1555–6, Alderman of London, 1556–8, by Jane (or Joan), daughter of Henry Luddington, Gent.
I wonder if Matthew Machell's mother's name wasn't Alice, rather than Joan. Various pedigrees show that widow "Joan" Machell remarried to Thomas Chamberlaine. There is, however, a late 1558 marriage license for Thomas Chamberlayne, Esq., and ALICE Machyll, widow, in the London area.
https://books.google.com/books?id=Wn0_AQAAMAAJ&pg=PA19&dq=%22alice+machyll%22&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwic6crD74faAhVj34MKHTJ_B8AQ6AEIKTAA#v=onepage&q=%22alice%20machyll%22&f=false
Perhaps a will could be located under the name of ALICE, which would give further information on her descendants.
"...for London, where the real background of the groom must have been well known. The widow Machyll was Joan [Alice] Luddington , 20 whose first husband John Machell, citizen, cloth maker and sheriff of London, died in August 1558. 2i Their descendants quartered the arms of Luddington,22 though it is not clear why, as Joan's brother Nicholas Luddington (1521-95) also left issue. Probably the marriages in April 1559 at St. Mary Magdalen of Katherine Machil to Adam Hutchinson ..."

https://books.google.com/books?id=qLpnAAAAMAAJ&q=%22adam+hutchinson%22+london&dq=%22adam+hutchinson%22+london&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjxzP75_ofaAhUD9YMKHS4sAQo4FBDoAQgtMAE
John Higgins
2018-03-25 18:32:38 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by c***@gmail.com
Dear Newsgroup ~
Also Edward Bellasis, Lancaster Herald, wrote a full length book on the Machell family in 1886. In a pedigree found in this book, Mr. Bellasis indicated that Mary Machell, wife of Rev. Ralph Cudworth, was duly recorded as a daughter of Matthew Machell and Mary Lewknor in manuscript sources found in the College of Arms, which he styled "C. 21, C. 26, etc." Such manuscripts typically consist of genealogical pedigrees recorded by earlier heralds. While we lack the precise date of these manuscript sources, they are likely contemporary or near contemporary to the lifetime of Mary (Machell) Cudworth.
Sincerely, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
It's a misrepresentation to say that Edward Bellasis "wrote a full length book on the Machell family in 1886". He read a paper at the Sept. 24, 1885 meeting of the Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society. The paper was printed in the Transactions of that society in its volume 8 in 1886. The article, of some 50 pages plus pedigree charts, was then reprinted as a book (or more properly a pamphlet) with a notation of the journal from which it was reprinted. This is all very clear from the OCLC entry for the "book" and also in the entry in the FHL catalog, which presumably describes the copy that you accessed. Given this background, it's rather disingenuous - and misleading - to attempt to assert greater authority for the Bellasis work by describing the work as "a full length book".

With respect to the manuscripts in the College of Arms, you note that these manuscripts appear to support Mary Lewknor as the mother of Mary Machell. But you overlook the other College of Arms manuscripts cited by Bellasis for Matthew Machell, which MAY be the ones that make Mary the daughter of Matthew's supposed Cotton wife (and perhaps also say that Mary Lewknor died sp). (Incidentally, the fact that Matthew's brother John married a Cotton doesn't preclude Matthew from also marrying a Cotton). Bellasis clearly indicates that he was uncertain about the maternity of Matthew Machell's children - a fact that's overlooked in the augmented Royal Ancestry account of this descent. Under the circumstances, it's probably unwise to infer simply from the placement on the pedigree chart that he concluded that they were the children of Mary Lewknor.

In addition, without actually looking at the manuscript sources, there is no reason at all to assume that "they are likely contemporary or near contemporary to the lifetime of Mary (Machell) Cudworth". That's just a judgment that happens to conveniently support the desired conclusion.

I have no particular interest in whether or not there is a royal descent for the immigrant James Cudworth. And I don't necessarily support the alternative parentage for Mary Machell from the Boaz book that John Schmeeckle has been supporting. I do think that, based on the evidence we've seen, the Lewknor connection has not yet been fully proven and perhaps suffers from efforts to make the evidence fit the desired conclusion. A not uncommon trap in royal descents...
j***@gmail.com
2018-05-03 22:03:36 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by c***@gmail.com
Without getting into a lengthy discussion, I can certify that the Cudworth-Machell-Lewknor connection is sound.
My response, after lengthy discussion both at Wikitree and on SGM's "Machell of London" thread:
Richardson's "certification" was premature at the very least.

Richardson appears to have made three separate errors here.

1) Richardson appears unaware that there were TWO marriages of two separate women named Mary Machell: In addition to the well-known marriage 1611 of Mary Machell to Ralph Cudworth just outside of London (where the family of John and Ursula Machell was located), there was the 1617 marriage of Mary "Mashall" of Kingston Bowsey, the Lewknor estate far from London where Mary (Lewknor) Machell was buried in 1604.

2) Richardson falsely assumes that, in the 1646 will of John Machell (son of Mathew), that cosen/kinswoman can ONLY mean niece.

3) Richardson falsely states that "Mr. Bellasis indicated that Mary Machell, wife of Rev. Ralph Cudworth, was duly recorded as a daughter of Matthew Machell and Mary Lewknor in manuscript sources found in the College of Arms, which he styled 'C. 21, C. 26, etc.'"

This statement appears to be a rather gross error. Bellasis indicates sources at various places on his pedigree, including "C.21, C. 26, etc.", but at the location of Mary Machell and Ralph Cudworth his source is NOTHING AT ALL. (Bellasis DOES give specific sources for some of the children of Mathew and Mary Machell, but not for Mary.) Bellasis gives no indication to support Richardson's thin-air supposition that Bellasis had some sort of document indicating that Mathew and Mary (Lewknor) Machell had a daughter Mary who married Ralph Cudworth. However, perhaps one of Bellasis's sources DID indicate that Mathew and Mary had a daughter Mary, whom Bellasis mistakenly assumed was the wife of Ralph Cudworth, because Bellasis was unaware of the 1617 marriage record of "Marie Mashall" to Rev. James Harrison in Kingston Bowsey, one of the homes of the Lewknors.

With that said, Richardson does usefully write that
Post by c***@gmail.com
Green, Diary of John Rous (Camden Soc. 66) (1856): 79–80 (sub 1635: “In Oct., Doctor Stoughton, of Aldermanbury, in London, who married Cudworth’s widow, of Emm[anuel] and had the same living given by the colledge in the West country, from when a carrier bringing some monyes for his wives children’s portions, he was traduced (as it seemeth) to be a favourer of New England, and a collector of contributions for those ministers there, &c.”). END OF QUOTE.
On Mary Machell's death c.1636 and Rev. John Stoughton's death in 1639, the portions for the Cudworth children appear to have passed to her only brother, John Machell, Gent., who in turn left a sizeable bequest (£125) in his will dated 1646 for the marriage of his niece [sic], Jane Cudworth. It is likely this bequest was not John Machell's own money. Rather, it was presumably part of the monies which had been left by Rev. Ralph Cudworth for his children's portions."
This of course brings up the question of why this John Machell, and not somebody else, was delegated to pass on the legacy of Jane Cudworth -- not his niece, but his first cousin once removed. The easy answer is that there was no other Machell relative of his generation in the London area who was alive at the time. It seems clear that he was the head of the extended Machell family, and not the uncle of Jane Cudworth.

Supporting evidence for John and Ursula (Hynde) Machell as the parents of Mary (Machell) Cudworth is the fact that TWO of Ursula's younger Verney first cousins (including the disreputable Francis Verney) were on the payroll as part of Prince Henry's household in 1610, dovetailing nicely with the story (which Richardson has published without comment) that Mary (Machell) Cudworth was a nurse to Prince Henry before her marriage. (This contrasts with the lack of Lewknor connections to the royal household.)

In addition, there is the set of Hackney baptism records presented by Adrienne Boaz -- including a daughter Mary in 1584 -- with a clear circumstantial case that they were all the children of John Machell and Ursula Hynde.
d***@aol.com
2018-05-13 17:43:32 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by j***@gmail.com
Post by c***@gmail.com
Without getting into a lengthy discussion, I can certify that the Cudworth-Machell-Lewknor connection is sound.
Richardson's "certification" was premature at the very least.
Richardson appears to have made three separate errors here.
1) Richardson appears unaware that there were TWO marriages of two separate women named Mary Machell: In addition to the well-known marriage 1611 of Mary Machell to Ralph Cudworth just outside of London (where the family of John and Ursula Machell was located), there was the 1617 marriage of Mary "Mashall" of Kingston Bowsey, the Lewknor estate far from London where Mary (Lewknor) Machell was buried in 1604.
2) Richardson falsely assumes that, in the 1646 will of John Machell (son of Mathew), that cosen/kinswoman can ONLY mean niece.
3) Richardson falsely states that "Mr. Bellasis indicated that Mary Machell, wife of Rev. Ralph Cudworth, was duly recorded as a daughter of Matthew Machell and Mary Lewknor in manuscript sources found in the College of Arms, which he styled 'C. 21, C. 26, etc.'"
This statement appears to be a rather gross error. Bellasis indicates sources at various places on his pedigree, including "C.21, C. 26, etc.", but at the location of Mary Machell and Ralph Cudworth his source is NOTHING AT ALL. (Bellasis DOES give specific sources for some of the children of Mathew and Mary Machell, but not for Mary.) Bellasis gives no indication to support Richardson's thin-air supposition that Bellasis had some sort of document indicating that Mathew and Mary (Lewknor) Machell had a daughter Mary who married Ralph Cudworth. However, perhaps one of Bellasis's sources DID indicate that Mathew and Mary had a daughter Mary, whom Bellasis mistakenly assumed was the wife of Ralph Cudworth, because Bellasis was unaware of the 1617 marriage record of "Marie Mashall" to Rev. James Harrison in Kingston Bowsey, one of the homes of the Lewknors.
Thank you for shining a spotlight on the obvious errors in Douglas Richardson's false assumptions (or false certifications) regarding this parentage issue. You didn't mention it here, but it should be pointed out how he compounds the problem even more when Richardson puts his errors into print with his self-published books.

The question of Douglas Richardson's errors and how he obsessively defends them was commented on recently in another SGM thread. That contributor stated, "And Katherine Keats-Rohan is one of the leading scholars who has taken the trouble to be well-equipped to engage in this kind of debate. Of course she has made mistakes, as has everyone else. But she does not make a practice of digging massive earthworks around her errors in order to defend them, as Richardson has done habitually."

This is quite evident as Douglas Richardson supporters on this newsgroup have added to the "digging of massive earthworks" by defending his errors for him. I believe Richardson has only posted once to this thread and once in the "Machell of London" thread. We shall see if Richardson will continue to defend his errors with the obvious error the in assignment of parentage that he has so conveniently "certified" for Mary (Machell) Cudworth.
d***@aol.com
2018-05-13 17:45:43 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by j***@gmail.com
Post by c***@gmail.com
Without getting into a lengthy discussion, I can certify that the Cudworth-Machell-Lewknor connection is sound.
Richardson's "certification" was premature at the very least.
Richardson appears to have made three separate errors here.
1) Richardson appears unaware that there were TWO marriages of two separate women named Mary Machell: In addition to the well-known marriage 1611 of Mary Machell to Ralph Cudworth just outside of London (where the family of John and Ursula Machell was located), there was the 1617 marriage of Mary "Mashall" of Kingston Bowsey, the Lewknor estate far from London where Mary (Lewknor) Machell was buried in 1604.
2) Richardson falsely assumes that, in the 1646 will of John Machell (son of Mathew), that cosen/kinswoman can ONLY mean niece.
3) Richardson falsely states that "Mr. Bellasis indicated that Mary Machell, wife of Rev. Ralph Cudworth, was duly recorded as a daughter of Matthew Machell and Mary Lewknor in manuscript sources found in the College of Arms, which he styled 'C. 21, C. 26, etc.'"
This statement appears to be a rather gross error. Bellasis indicates sources at various places on his pedigree, including "C.21, C. 26, etc.", but at the location of Mary Machell and Ralph Cudworth his source is NOTHING AT ALL. (Bellasis DOES give specific sources for some of the children of Mathew and Mary Machell, but not for Mary.) Bellasis gives no indication to support Richardson's thin-air supposition that Bellasis had some sort of document indicating that Mathew and Mary (Lewknor) Machell had a daughter Mary who married Ralph Cudworth. However, perhaps one of Bellasis's sources DID indicate that Mathew and Mary had a daughter Mary, whom Bellasis mistakenly assumed was the wife of Ralph Cudworth, because Bellasis was unaware of the 1617 marriage record of "Marie Mashall" to Rev. James Harrison in Kingston Bowsey, one of the homes of the Lewknors.
Thank you for shining a spotlight on the obvious errors in Douglas Richardson's false assumptions (or false certifications) regarding this parentage issue. You didn't mention it here, but it should be pointed out how he compounds the problem even more when Richardson puts his errors into print with his self-published books.

The question of Douglas Richardson's errors and how he obsessively defends them was commented on recently in another SGM thread. That contributor stated, "And Katherine Keats-Rohan is one of the leading scholars who has taken the trouble to be well-equipped to engage in this kind of debate. Of course she has made mistakes, as has everyone else. But she does not make a practice of digging massive earthworks around her errors in order to defend them, as Richardson has done habitually."

This is quite evident as Douglas Richardson supporters on this newsgroup have added to the "digging of massive earthworks" by defending his errors for him. I believe Richardson has only posted once to this thread and once in the "Machell of London" thread. We shall see if Richardson will continue to defend his errors with the obvious error in the assignment of parentage that he has so conveniently "certified" for Mary (Machell) Cudworth.
Andrew Lancaster
2018-05-13 20:14:42 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by d***@aol.com
Post by j***@gmail.com
Post by c***@gmail.com
Without getting into a lengthy discussion, I can certify that the Cudworth-Machell-Lewknor connection is sound.
Richardson's "certification" was premature at the very least.
Richardson appears to have made three separate errors here.
1) Richardson appears unaware that there were TWO marriages of two separate women named Mary Machell: In addition to the well-known marriage 1611 of Mary Machell to Ralph Cudworth just outside of London (where the family of John and Ursula Machell was located), there was the 1617 marriage of Mary "Mashall" of Kingston Bowsey, the Lewknor estate far from London where Mary (Lewknor) Machell was buried in 1604.
2) Richardson falsely assumes that, in the 1646 will of John Machell (son of Mathew), that cosen/kinswoman can ONLY mean niece.
3) Richardson falsely states that "Mr. Bellasis indicated that Mary Machell, wife of Rev. Ralph Cudworth, was duly recorded as a daughter of Matthew Machell and Mary Lewknor in manuscript sources found in the College of Arms, which he styled 'C. 21, C. 26, etc.'"
This statement appears to be a rather gross error. Bellasis indicates sources at various places on his pedigree, including "C.21, C. 26, etc.", but at the location of Mary Machell and Ralph Cudworth his source is NOTHING AT ALL. (Bellasis DOES give specific sources for some of the children of Mathew and Mary Machell, but not for Mary.) Bellasis gives no indication to support Richardson's thin-air supposition that Bellasis had some sort of document indicating that Mathew and Mary (Lewknor) Machell had a daughter Mary who married Ralph Cudworth. However, perhaps one of Bellasis's sources DID indicate that Mathew and Mary had a daughter Mary, whom Bellasis mistakenly assumed was the wife of Ralph Cudworth, because Bellasis was unaware of the 1617 marriage record of "Marie Mashall" to Rev. James Harrison in Kingston Bowsey, one of the homes of the Lewknors.
Thank you for shining a spotlight on the obvious errors in Douglas Richardson's false assumptions (or false certifications) regarding this parentage issue. You didn't mention it here, but it should be pointed out how he compounds the problem even more when Richardson puts his errors into print with his self-published books.
The question of Douglas Richardson's errors and how he obsessively defends them was commented on recently in another SGM thread. That contributor stated, "And Katherine Keats-Rohan is one of the leading scholars who has taken the trouble to be well-equipped to engage in this kind of debate. Of course she has made mistakes, as has everyone else. But she does not make a practice of digging massive earthworks around her errors in order to defend them, as Richardson has done habitually."
This is quite evident as Douglas Richardson supporters on this newsgroup have added to the "digging of massive earthworks" by defending his errors for him. I believe Richardson has only posted once to this thread and once in the "Machell of London" thread. We shall see if Richardson will continue to defend his errors with the obvious error in the assignment of parentage that he has so conveniently "certified" for Mary (Machell) Cudworth.
For accuracy's sake, the recent post you cite was part of a longer thread where the same person later said that Richardson has improved over the years, and now seems to be better at taking at advice etc.
d***@aol.com
2018-05-13 20:22:00 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Andrew Lancaster
For accuracy's sake, the recent post you cite was part of a longer thread where the same person later said that Richardson has improved over the years, and now seems to be better at taking at advice etc.
The post cited was word-for-word. We can only hope that Richardson has become "better at taking at advice etc."
Andrew Lancaster
2018-05-13 20:36:27 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by d***@aol.com
Post by Andrew Lancaster
For accuracy's sake, the recent post you cite was part of a longer thread where the same person later said that Richardson has improved over the years, and now seems to be better at taking at advice etc.
The post cited was word-for-word. We can only hope that Richardson has become "better at taking at advice etc."
Word for word, maybe, but things should be read in context. A good thing to remember for anybody interested in genealogy. That thread can supply all kinds of amazing statements, if that is all you want to do, but why would you? For example the original complaint about why even citing Richardson would qualify you as stupid was that he does not have inline citations. This was switched to a different complaint when it was pointed out that this does not distinguish him from Keats-Rohan who was being given as an example of a better author for genealogists to cite. Quoting from those types of statements in isolation does not seem useful. The point about Richardson having changed over the years was eventually repeated several times though, and was clearly not a passing aside.
Peter Stewart
2018-05-14 00:57:39 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by d***@aol.com
Post by Andrew Lancaster
For accuracy's sake, the recent post you cite was part of a longer thread where the same person later said that Richardson has improved over the years, and now seems to be better at taking at advice etc.
The post cited was word-for-word. We can only hope that Richardson has become "better at taking at advice etc."
I have no idea if Douglas Richardson has become better at taking advice, since lately I haven't seen him responding to advice. I think he has got better at working from his own initiative, while over the same timeframe this has become easier anyway with the increase in online resources at his fingertips.

In the past he received a great deal of this gratis - surely a part of his motive for exposing himself to the public embarrassment of needing it. Sometimes he accepted it, usually pretending that it was his own idea in the first place, and sometimes he rejected it - either from obtuseness or from deliberate craft, trying to get more free research assistance.

The impression that he has mellowed somewhat with the completion of his latest edition is rather vague. I suppose he has less need to cadge help here without a major work in progress, if that is the case. But then the brains he could hope to tap are mostly gone from the newsgroup, so that he has less opportunity to misuse the forum as he did in the past.

Peter Stewart
Andrew Lancaster
2018-05-14 10:12:02 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter Stewart
Post by d***@aol.com
Post by Andrew Lancaster
For accuracy's sake, the recent post you cite was part of a longer thread where the same person later said that Richardson has improved over the years, and now seems to be better at taking at advice etc.
The post cited was word-for-word. We can only hope that Richardson has become "better at taking at advice etc."
I have no idea if Douglas Richardson has become better at taking advice, since lately I haven't seen him responding to advice. I think he has got better at working from his own initiative, while over the same timeframe this has become easier anyway with the increase in online resources at his fingertips.
In the past he received a great deal of this gratis - surely a part of his motive for exposing himself to the public embarrassment of needing it. Sometimes he accepted it, usually pretending that it was his own idea in the first place, and sometimes he rejected it - either from obtuseness or from deliberate craft, trying to get more free research assistance.
The impression that he has mellowed somewhat with the completion of his latest edition is rather vague. I suppose he has less need to cadge help here without a major work in progress, if that is the case. But then the brains he could hope to tap are mostly gone from the newsgroup, so that he has less opportunity to misuse the forum as he did in the past.
Peter Stewart
So it is both a good and bad thing to take advice? I would say it is only a good thing. Also, you can not plagiarize from a public forum, but if perhaps you are saying he does not give credit to people who have helped this would appear be yet another *change* of criticism. (I believe however that his books do contain such references sometimes at least. I don't recall any in any publication of Keats-Rohan FWIW.) I think in any case the original point I made was about caution being advisable when citing parts of that thread in isolation, because some positions varied, as is indeed confirmed here.
Peter Stewart
2018-05-14 11:02:58 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Andrew Lancaster
Post by Peter Stewart
Post by d***@aol.com
Post by Andrew Lancaster
For accuracy's sake, the recent post you cite was part of a longer thread where the same person later said that Richardson has improved over the years, and now seems to be better at taking at advice etc.
The post cited was word-for-word. We can only hope that Richardson has become "better at taking at advice etc."
I have no idea if Douglas Richardson has become better at taking advice, since lately I haven't seen him responding to advice. I think he has got better at working from his own initiative, while over the same timeframe this has become easier anyway with the increase in online resources at his fingertips.
In the past he received a great deal of this gratis - surely a part of his motive for exposing himself to the public embarrassment of needing it. Sometimes he accepted it, usually pretending that it was his own idea in the first place, and sometimes he rejected it - either from obtuseness or from deliberate craft, trying to get more free research assistance.
The impression that he has mellowed somewhat with the completion of his latest edition is rather vague. I suppose he has less need to cadge help here without a major work in progress, if that is the case. But then the brains he could hope to tap are mostly gone from the newsgroup, so that he has less opportunity to misuse the forum as he did in the past.
Peter Stewart
So it is both a good and bad thing to take advice? I would say it is only a good thing. Also, you can not plagiarize from a public forum, but if perhaps you are saying he does not give credit to people who have helped this would appear be yet another *change* of criticism. (I believe however that his books do contain such references sometimes at least. I don't recall any in any publication of Keats-Rohan FWIW.) I think in any case the original point I made was about caution being advisable when citing parts of that thread in isolation, because some positions varied, as is indeed confirmed here.
Rubbish - it's your comprehension that is all over the place, as before. I never said anything about Richardson's taking advice or not in the earlier thread and I have not said anything to suggest this might be a bad thing now. You keep spewing up your own inventions and misunderstandings as if your mental indigestion was someone else's fault.

Anyone can check my posts for themselves. Anyone who takes your word for what I have said is a fool.

Peter Stewart
Andrew Lancaster
2018-05-14 12:55:02 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter Stewart
Post by Andrew Lancaster
Post by Peter Stewart
Post by d***@aol.com
Post by Andrew Lancaster
For accuracy's sake, the recent post you cite was part of a longer thread where the same person later said that Richardson has improved over the years, and now seems to be better at taking at advice etc.
The post cited was word-for-word. We can only hope that Richardson has become "better at taking at advice etc."
I have no idea if Douglas Richardson has become better at taking advice, since lately I haven't seen him responding to advice. I think he has got better at working from his own initiative, while over the same timeframe this has become easier anyway with the increase in online resources at his fingertips.
In the past he received a great deal of this gratis - surely a part of his motive for exposing himself to the public embarrassment of needing it. Sometimes he accepted it, usually pretending that it was his own idea in the first place, and sometimes he rejected it - either from obtuseness or from deliberate craft, trying to get more free research assistance.
The impression that he has mellowed somewhat with the completion of his latest edition is rather vague. I suppose he has less need to cadge help here without a major work in progress, if that is the case. But then the brains he could hope to tap are mostly gone from the newsgroup, so that he has less opportunity to misuse the forum as he did in the past.
Peter Stewart
So it is both a good and bad thing to take advice? I would say it is only a good thing. Also, you can not plagiarize from a public forum, but if perhaps you are saying he does not give credit to people who have helped this would appear be yet another *change* of criticism. (I believe however that his books do contain such references sometimes at least. I don't recall any in any publication of Keats-Rohan FWIW.) I think in any case the original point I made was about caution being advisable when citing parts of that thread in isolation, because some positions varied, as is indeed confirmed here.
Rubbish - it's your comprehension that is all over the place, as before. I never said anything about Richardson's taking advice or not in the earlier thread and I have not said anything to suggest this might be a bad thing now. You keep spewing up your own inventions and misunderstandings as if your mental indigestion was someone else's fault.
Anyone can check my posts for themselves. Anyone who takes your word for what I have said is a fool.
Again, even here, you are saying that Richardson has both benefited from assistance and criticism here (advice), implying this was somehow bad, and you are also saying, or maybe now just implying, that he was at least historically over-defensive, which means the exact opposite, though you also say this was a bad thing. Both accusations can be true, in different specific cases, but the two accusations can not logically both be examples of things which are generally/always bad.

Example of your words from the previous thread: "I hesitate to name them together in this way, since Richardon's mistakes are not as frequent or as foolish as Cawley's. In large part that is because they have been filtered out here, in the days when he consistently posted half-baked ideas and played even dumber in order to elicit free research assistance."

I think if your point only comes down to my use of the word "advice" it is rather an unclear one, surely. What is the *relevant* difference, if the assistance is given voluntarily, between using (or you say mis-using) "free research assistance" and accepting "advice"?

In any case my question remains open and relevant. Is it a good thing or bad thing to read what others have to say and be open to learning from it? I think from the perspective of good progress in any modern field of research, the answer would normally be clear.
j***@gmail.com
2018-05-14 13:25:19 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Andrew Lancaster
In any case my question remains open and relevant. Is it a good thing or bad thing to read what others have to say and be open to learning from it? I think from the perspective of good progress in any modern field of research, the answer would normally be clear.
Andrew, what is your point in continuing this effort to try and parse out some sort of binary truth out of Peter's words, instead of just letting them lie in the context they sit? There is no need served for you to try and summarize or coalesce the conclusions you are drawing about another lister's opinions. We can all do that equally well.

Look at this latest question. You are asking if it is (good/bad) to be open to learning? What sort of inane question is that? Can we drop this pursuit that seems driven just by the need or desire to argue? Take it off list if so.

--JC
Andrew Lancaster
2018-05-14 15:03:15 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by j***@gmail.com
Post by Andrew Lancaster
In any case my question remains open and relevant. Is it a good thing or bad thing to read what others have to say and be open to learning from it? I think from the perspective of good progress in any modern field of research, the answer would normally be clear.
Andrew, what is your point in continuing this effort to try and parse out some sort of binary truth out of Peter's words, instead of just letting them lie in the context they sit? There is no need served for you to try and summarize or coalesce the conclusions you are drawing about another lister's opinions. We can all do that equally well.
Look at this latest question. You are asking if it is (good/bad) to be open to learning? What sort of inane question is that? Can we drop this pursuit that seems driven just by the need or desire to argue? Take it off list if so.
--JC
Well to be clear, this post was a reaction to yet another case of ad hominem "world is not fair" whining nonsense about Richardson dressed up as authoritative wisdom.

I'm afraid that people clearly do not all see through that in context, and I am sure you realize that. And a reason for trying to get clear "binary" definitions is because Peter consistently tries to imply that Richardson does something not simply imperfect, but *improper* with respect to this forum.

I also think you might underestimate how negative (not positive) some people are about learning from others (at least the wrong others) and admitting mistakes. It is a big subject IMHO, connected to many problems and challenges in this field and several other history-related fields, such as trying to find better ways for groups to cooperate online. In scientific fields people get over this (to some extent) because they force themselves to follow a methodical approach that makes them work more neutrally, as a specialist community, not a status-obsessed hierarchy with people constantly trying to set themselves up as self-assigned gate-keepers against everyone they don't like.
Peter Stewart
2018-05-14 23:22:37 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by j***@gmail.com
Post by Andrew Lancaster
In any case my question remains open and relevant. Is it a good thing or bad thing to read what others have to say and be open to learning from it? I think from the perspective of good progress in any modern field of research, the answer would normally be clear.
Andrew, what is your point in continuing this effort to try and parse out some sort of binary truth out of Peter's words, instead of just letting them lie in the context they sit? There is no need served for you to try and summarize or coalesce the conclusions you are drawing about another lister's opinions. We can all do that equally well.
Look at this latest question. You are asking if it is (good/bad) to be open to learning? What sort of inane question is that? Can we drop this pursuit that seems driven just by the need or desire to argue? Take it off list if so.
Thanks for taking the trouble to offer Andrew Lancaster sensible advice. I'm afraid this will be wasted on him, as on past form he will read it as some kind of fuzzy agreement with whatever he has said, or as an ad hominem attack if the difference of opinion can't be reconciled even in his blurry mind.

Schools and universities are institutions of learning, and so in its way is this forum. I have never heard anyone described them as institutions of giving and/or taking advice, as this is not the same process as teaching and learning. Information or opinion can be perfectly taught, learned and understood without being accepted and followed, which is what happens when advice is taken.

Language makes distinctions that are evidently too fine for Andrew Lancaster's comprehension. I have stopped reading his posts except where someone else's reply draws attention to them. I have no intention of wasting my time by entering any discussion with him again if I can avoid it, with the exception of pointing out when he has blatantly misrepresented my own statements. Obviously others have the same right, though I note that some have chosen to keep quiet when he twists their posts back at them into nonsense. That, of source, is also their right.

Peter Stewart
Andrew Lancaster
2018-05-15 07:57:54 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter Stewart
Post by j***@gmail.com
Post by Andrew Lancaster
In any case my question remains open and relevant. Is it a good thing or bad thing to read what others have to say and be open to learning from it? I think from the perspective of good progress in any modern field of research, the answer would normally be clear.
Andrew, what is your point in continuing this effort to try and parse out some sort of binary truth out of Peter's words, instead of just letting them lie in the context they sit? There is no need served for you to try and summarize or coalesce the conclusions you are drawing about another lister's opinions. We can all do that equally well.
Look at this latest question. You are asking if it is (good/bad) to be open to learning? What sort of inane question is that? Can we drop this pursuit that seems driven just by the need or desire to argue? Take it off list if so.
Thanks for taking the trouble to offer Andrew Lancaster sensible advice. I'm afraid this will be wasted on him, as on past form he will read it as some kind of fuzzy agreement with whatever he has said, or as an ad hominem attack if the difference of opinion can't be reconciled even in his blurry mind.
Schools and universities are institutions of learning, and so in its way is this forum. I have never heard anyone described them as institutions of giving and/or taking advice, as this is not the same process as teaching and learning. Information or opinion can be perfectly taught, learned and understood without being accepted and followed, which is what happens when advice is taken.
Language makes distinctions that are evidently too fine for Andrew Lancaster's comprehension. I have stopped reading his posts except where someone else's reply draws attention to them. I have no intention of wasting my time by entering any discussion with him again if I can avoid it, with the exception of pointing out when he has blatantly misrepresented my own statements. Obviously others have the same right, though I note that some have chosen to keep quiet when he twists their posts back at them into nonsense. That, of source, is also their right.
Peter Stewart
But I do clearly agree with you that there *should be* a difference in the meanings represented by "taking advice" and "cadging" of "free research assistance" (your terms). The second one is clearly meant as an accusation of improper conduct somehow, as I indeed wrote. My point has clearly been that it is not clear to me how the implied accusation can be justified. And that should be both a valid concern, given that it is an accusation against a person using this forum, for using this forum, and also clearly not some simple wording issue.

...As explained in my previous post your posts do not appear to me to be an example of "learning" (your word) at all, but actually rather basic and of a type we all see every day. If any learning were to be involved it would be ethical not genealogical. Frankly, your new implied accusation that Richardson perhaps used to pretend to be obsessively defending errors as part of a cunning plan basically makes me feel that my judgement of the kinds of basic emotions behind your constant knee-jerk attacks is the correct one.

In any case, the original topic you quite voluntarily intervened upon, as always, was whether Richardson "obsessively defends" his "errors", and funnily enough you still appear to agree with my interpretation of you on that point, which is that you indicated that you saw this as something in the past, and something has at least apparently "changed" or "improved" (my actual original words, but trying to describe your posts) in your opinion. (The terminology concerning taking advice came in as an opposite to the obsessive defence terminology.)

I suppose the correction or refinement I should make is that you have now several times pointed out that whether something is improved is not something you feel 100% confident of, because Richardson now posts less, or posts in areas you are less interested in, but you keep saying that it at least seems so. You might say this is all obvious for anyone who reads your posts themselves, but apparently in this case it was not. That is what started this discussion.

Along with many others, your posts of the 29th and 30th of April concerning the "gold standard" 8 contributors have been consulted in writing this.
Paulo Canedo
2018-03-25 20:07:46 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
My personal conclusion: Mary Machell, wife of James Cudworth and John Stoughton, was daughter of either Matthew Machell and Mary Lewknor or daughter of John Machell and Ursula Hynde. Both ideas have evidence, and it's difficult to decide between them. Both give royal descents, though.
JBrand
2018-03-25 21:51:51 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Paulo Canedo
My personal conclusion: Mary Machell, wife of James Cudworth and John Stoughton, was daughter of either Matthew Machell and Mary Lewknor or daughter of John Machell and Ursula Hynde. Both ideas have evidence, and it's difficult to decide between them. Both give royal descents, though.
There could also be a Machell-based royal line, independent of Lewkenor and Hynde, assuming that Schmeeckle gives the correct generations between Bellingham and Machell:

John "Lackland," King of England, d. 1216

(illegit. son) Richard FitzRoy = Rohese of Dover

Lorette de Dover = Sir William Marmion

John Marmion, 1st Baron Marmion = Isabel ___

John Marmion, 2nd Baron Marmion = Maud Fernival

Avice Marmion = John Grey, 1st Baron Grey de Rotherfield

Sir Robert Grey als Marmion = Lore St. Quentin

Elizabeth Marmion = Henry FitzHugh, 3rd Lord FitzHugh

Eleanor FitzHugh = Sir Thomas Tunstall

Elizabeth Tunstall = Sir Robert Bellingham

Isabell Bellingham = James Leybourne

[dau.] Leybourne = John Machell

John Machell = Jane [? or Alice] Luddington/ Loddington

(sons include) John Machell, Matthew Machelll
John Higgins
2018-03-26 01:05:23 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by JBrand
Post by Paulo Canedo
My personal conclusion: Mary Machell, wife of James Cudworth and John Stoughton, was daughter of either Matthew Machell and Mary Lewknor or daughter of John Machell and Ursula Hynde. Both ideas have evidence, and it's difficult to decide between them. Both give royal descents, though.
John "Lackland," King of England, d. 1216
(illegit. son) Richard FitzRoy = Rohese of Dover
Lorette de Dover = Sir William Marmion
John Marmion, 1st Baron Marmion = Isabel ___
John Marmion, 2nd Baron Marmion = Maud Fernival
Avice Marmion = John Grey, 1st Baron Grey de Rotherfield
Sir Robert Grey als Marmion = Lore St. Quentin
Elizabeth Marmion = Henry FitzHugh, 3rd Lord FitzHugh
Eleanor FitzHugh = Sir Thomas Tunstall
Elizabeth Tunstall = Sir Robert Bellingham
Isabell Bellingham = James Leybourne
[dau.] Leybourne = John Machell
John Machell = Jane [? or Alice] Luddington/ Loddington
(sons include) John Machell, Matthew Machelll
You correctly note that this Machell descent from King John depends on the identification of the unnamed Leybourne daughter who married John Machell, graandfather of John and Matthew Machell. The present narrative for her in the Wikitree material seems pretty conjectural. Perhaps John Schmeeckle could elaborate on this point...

But there is another issue as well: Elizabeth Tunstall m. Sir Robert Bellingham. A Tunstall pedigree in vol. 28 (new series, 1928) of Trans. Cumb. West. AAS does show Elizabeth as a daughter of Sir Thomas Tunstall who married Elizabeth FitzHugh - thus gaining the royal descent. But three different visitation pedigrees do NOT include this Elizabeth among the children of this couple:
1) Visitation of Yorkshire 1563-64 (Harleian Society, vol. 16, p. 327)
2) Visitations of the North, pt. 1 (Surtees Society, vol. 122, p. 121)
3) Visitations of the North, pt. 3 (Surtees Society, vol. 144, p. 80)

FWIW the first ed. of Richardson's PA also does not include Elizabeth the wife of Sir Robert Bellingham among the children of Sir Thomas Tunstall and Eleanor FitzHugh - but give another daughter Elizabeth (or Isabel) who married Sir Simon Norwich. This agrees with the visitation pedigrees.

Unless there is a source other than the TCWAAS pedigree for the Tunstall wife of Bellingham being assigned to this couple, I think this descent fails at this generation - in addition to the uncertainty of the Leybourne-Machell connection.
JBrand
2018-03-26 02:25:32 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by John Higgins
Post by JBrand
Post by Paulo Canedo
My personal conclusion: Mary Machell, wife of James Cudworth and John Stoughton, was daughter of either Matthew Machell and Mary Lewknor or daughter of John Machell and Ursula Hynde. Both ideas have evidence, and it's difficult to decide between them. Both give royal descents, though.
John "Lackland," King of England, d. 1216
(illegit. son) Richard FitzRoy = Rohese of Dover
Lorette de Dover = Sir William Marmion
John Marmion, 1st Baron Marmion = Isabel ___
John Marmion, 2nd Baron Marmion = Maud Fernival
Avice Marmion = John Grey, 1st Baron Grey de Rotherfield
Sir Robert Grey als Marmion = Lore St. Quentin
Elizabeth Marmion = Henry FitzHugh, 3rd Lord FitzHugh
Eleanor FitzHugh = Sir Thomas Tunstall
Elizabeth Tunstall = Sir Robert Bellingham
Isabell Bellingham = James Leybourne
[dau.] Leybourne = John Machell
John Machell = Jane [? or Alice] Luddington/ Loddington
(sons include) John Machell, Matthew Machelll
You correctly note that this Machell descent from King John depends on the identification of the unnamed Leybourne daughter who married John Machell, graandfather of John and Matthew Machell. The present narrative for her in the Wikitree material seems pretty conjectural. Perhaps John Schmeeckle could elaborate on this point...
1) Visitation of Yorkshire 1563-64 (Harleian Society, vol. 16, p. 327)
2) Visitations of the North, pt. 1 (Surtees Society, vol. 122, p. 121)
3) Visitations of the North, pt. 3 (Surtees Society, vol. 144, p. 80)
FWIW the first ed. of Richardson's PA also does not include Elizabeth the wife of Sir Robert Bellingham among the children of Sir Thomas Tunstall and Eleanor FitzHugh - but give another daughter Elizabeth (or Isabel) who married Sir Simon Norwich. This agrees with the visitation pedigrees.
Unless there is a source other than the TCWAAS pedigree for the Tunstall wife of Bellingham being assigned to this couple, I think this descent fails at this generation - in addition to the uncertainty of the Leybourne-Machell connection.
It should be investigated further. Edmund Miller's _George Herbert's Kinships: An Ahnentafel With Annotations_ seems to have the following generations:

252 Robert Bellingham of Burnside (BP 1970.) Of Burnside, Westmorlandshire, temp. Henry V(i.e. 1413-22).

253 Elizabeth Tunstall Although given as the daughter of Sir Richard Tunstall in BP 170, shown as the daughter of Sir Thomas Tunstall (# 506) in Whitaker, as is perhaps more probable on the basis ...

https://books.google.com/books?id=6a1pAAAAMAAJ&q=%22richard+tunstall%22+bellingham&dq=%22richard+tunstall%22+bellingham&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjL0few9ojaAhUl04MKHa6NAqU4HhDoAQgwMAI
r***@yahoo.com
2018-03-26 16:16:06 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by JBrand
253 Elizabeth Tunstall Although given as the daughter of Sir Richard Tunstall in BP 170, shown as the daughter of Sir Thomas Tunstall (# 506) in Whitaker, as is perhaps more probable on the basis ...
253 Elizabeth Tunstall Although given as the daughter of Sir Richard Tunstall in BP 170, shown as the daughter of Sir Thomas Tunstall (# 506) in Whitaker, as is perhaps more probable on the basis of the dates. This Sir Richard (called Sir Robert in _Visitation of Yorkshire 1563/4_) Tunstall 1427-92 K.G., Ambassador to France (otherwise brother of #253 here), was attainted 1460 as a Lancastrian sympathizer (later restored). Sturge (correcting Wedgwood) ..."

That's all I can read.
j***@gmail.com
2018-03-28 00:17:35 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by JBrand
Post by John Higgins
You correctly note that this Machell descent from King John depends on the identification of the unnamed Leybourne daughter who married John Machell, graandfather of John and Matthew Machell. The present narrative for her in the Wikitree material seems pretty conjectural. Perhaps John Schmeeckle could elaborate on this point...
But there is another issue as well: Elizabeth Tunstall m. Sir Robert Bellingham. A Tunstall pedigree in vol. 28 (new series, 1928) of Trans. Cumb. West. AAS does show Elizabeth as a daughter of Sir Thomas Tunstall who married Elizabeth FitzHugh - thus gaining the royal descent. But three different visitation pedigrees do NOT include this Elizabeth among the children of this couple...
Unless there is a source other than the TCWAAS pedigree for the Tunstall wife of Bellingham being assigned to this couple, I think this descent fails at this generation - in addition to the uncertainty of the Leybourne-Machell connection.
252 Robert Bellingham of Burnside (BP 1970.) Of Burnside, Westmorlandshire, temp. Henry V(i.e. 1413-22).
253 Elizabeth Tunstall Although given as the daughter of Sir Richard Tunstall in BP 170, shown as the daughter of Sir Thomas Tunstall (# 506) in Whitaker, as is perhaps more probable on the basis ...
https://books.google.com/books?id=6a1pAAAAMAAJ&q=%22richard+tunstall%22+bellingham&dq=%22richard+tunstall%22+bellingham&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjL0few9ojaAhUl04MKHa6NAqU4HhDoAQgwMAI
Before I wade into the question of the possible royal ancestry of the Machells, I'm going to share a couple points regarding John vs. Mathew as the father of Mary (Machell) Cudworth. First of all, Douglas Richardson, in his above post, supposes that the bequest from John Machell (son of Mathew) to "cousin Jane Cudworth" was actually money held in trust from her deceased parents. Richardson and others are inclined to interpret this as indicating that John was Jane's uncle, but there's another consideration here: John was the only Machell male of his generation alive at the time (among the descendants of John the London Alderman). John's cousin John (son of Mathew's elder brother John) had predeceased his father, but the 1634 Essex visitation shows his son John (of the next generation) with an eldest son seven years old. In other words, John (son of Mathew) was acting as the head of the extended family; there's no particular reason to suppose that he was Jane's uncle.

Furthermore, Ursula Hynde had not one but TWO first cousins (Francis and half-brother Edmund) in the household of Prince Henry in 1610 (the year before Mary Machell married Ralph Cudworth), per "Collection of Household Ordinances," pp. 323 and 327; see https://archive.org/stream/collectionofordi00soci#page/322/mode/2up

By the way, the Francis Verney in Prince Henry's household in 1610 has been mistakenly assumed to have been his uncle by the same name (who died in 1559, attainted for treason). This Francis, brother of Edmund, was the one who, as the story goes, went to Morocco and became a Muslim (or at least dressed like one). But once again, for Mary Machell to have become the nurse to Prince Henry, she would have had to have connections at court, and the Hynde/Verney family seems to be the obvious court connection here.

Regarding the Machells' royal descent, I find this old gen-medieval post claiming that Elizabeth (Tunstall) Bellingham was the daughter of Thomas Tunstall's son Richard: https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/soc.genealogy.medieval/DsBjxnxk0Ko

The dates seem funky, however. Could this work chronologically? Elizabeth Tunstall, wife of Robert Bellingham, was the daughter of Richard (not Thomas) Tunstall, per this 17th-century Bellingham pedigree: https://www.wikitree.com/photo/png/Bellingham-1-1

And supporting that, Robert Bellingham and wife Elizabeth named their second son Richard, and didn't have a son Thomas. Does the chronology work for Elizabeth Tunstall, wife of Robert Bellingham, to have been the GRANDdaughter of Thomas and wife Eleanor FitzHugh?

And now I'm running out of time, so will explain my conjectural Bellingham maternity of Alderman John Machell's mother later, tomorrow perhaps.
j***@gmail.com
2018-04-02 18:23:05 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by John Higgins
You correctly note that this Machell descent from King John depends on the identification of the unnamed Leybourne daughter who married John Machell, graandfather of John and Matthew Machell. The present narrative for her in the Wikitree material seems pretty conjectural. Perhaps John Schmeeckle could elaborate on this point...
Continuing where I left off last time: First of all, it seems that Elizabeth Tunstall, wife of Robert Bellingham, couldn't have been a granddaughter of Thomas Tunstall and Eleanor FitzHugh, or even their daughter, as they married in 1427 and Elizabeth (Tunstall) Bellingham was having children in the 1430s.

Secondly, regarding the conjectural Bellingham mother of Alderman John Machell's Leybourne mother:

1. Bellasis's pedigree of this branch of the Machell family states that John Machell the Alderman was born at Kirkby Kendall. This would seem to be a mistake, as he was indeed the brother of Harry Machell of Crackenthorpe. However, Machell bore his family arms counterchanged, indicating that he was a younger half-brother of the twin Crackenthorpe lords Guy and Hugh. It is conceiveable that his father's second wife, born a Leybourne of Kirkby Kendal, bore a child at her parents' home. Furthermore, at the death of the father around 1511, John Machell the future Alderman was around 10 years old, and his mother wouldn't have been involved in the upbringing of his elder half-brothers (the heirs), so he probably grew up on the Leybourne (or Bellingham?) estates of Cunswick or Burneside, both in the Kendal neighborhood.

2. John Machell the Alderman purchased Burneside in 1552; it would seem that he purchased an estate that he knew as a child, assuming that his Leybourne mother was indeed the daughter of James Leybourne and his Bellingham wife.

3. The Bellinghams descend from the Tunstalls, who intermarried with the Kirkbys. John Machell's wife Jane Luddington was the granddaughter of a Kirkby from this same extended family.

By the way, Jane Luddington's Kirkby ancestors go back to the Urswick family, with a conjectural descent from the Radcliffes, with a lot of early medieval ancestors. The Kirkby line also goes way back, apparently with an origin going back to the 11th century. I've been adding to this lineage as time permits, and a lot of the really early stuff at wikitree has been carefully checked. Jane Luddington's ancestry is on wikitree at https://www.wikitree.com/genealogy/Luddington-Family-Tree-75
Nancy Piccirilli
2018-04-10 04:48:38 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by j***@gmail.com
Post by John Higgins
You correctly note that this Machell descent from King John depends on the identification of the unnamed Leybourne daughter who married John Machell, graandfather of John and Matthew Machell. The present narrative for her in the Wikitree material seems pretty conjectural. Perhaps John Schmeeckle could elaborate on this point...
Continuing where I left off last time: First of all, it seems that Elizabeth Tunstall, wife of Robert Bellingham, couldn't have been a granddaughter of Thomas Tunstall and Eleanor FitzHugh, or even their daughter, as they married in 1427 and Elizabeth (Tunstall) Bellingham was having children in the 1430s.
1. Bellasis's pedigree of this branch of the Machell family states that John Machell the Alderman was born at Kirkby Kendall. This would seem to be a mistake, as he was indeed the brother of Harry Machell of Crackenthorpe. However, Machell bore his family arms counterchanged, indicating that he was a younger half-brother of the twin Crackenthorpe lords Guy and Hugh. It is conceiveable that his father's second wife, born a Leybourne of Kirkby Kendal, bore a child at her parents' home. Furthermore, at the death of the father around 1511, John Machell the future Alderman was around 10 years old, and his mother wouldn't have been involved in the upbringing of his elder half-brothers (the heirs), so he probably grew up on the Leybourne (or Bellingham?) estates of Cunswick or Burneside, both in the Kendal neighborhood.
2. John Machell the Alderman purchased Burneside in 1552; it would seem that he purchased an estate that he knew as a child, assuming that his Leybourne mother was indeed the daughter of James Leybourne and his Bellingham wife.
3. The Bellinghams descend from the Tunstalls, who intermarried with the Kirkbys. John Machell's wife Jane Luddington was the granddaughter of a Kirkby from this same extended family.
By the way, Jane Luddington's Kirkby ancestors go back to the Urswick family, with a conjectural descent from the Radcliffes, with a lot of early medieval ancestors. The Kirkby line also goes way back, apparently with an origin going back to the 11th century. I've been adding to this lineage as time permits, and a lot of the really early stuff at wikitree has been carefully checked. Jane Luddington's ancestry is on wikitree at https://www.wikitree.com/genealogy/Luddington-Family-Tree-75
Hi everyone,
In the Visitation of Yorkshire 1563/4 by William Flower (Harleian Society vol. 16 pg. 37), in the pedigree of Brakenbury, the editor Charles Best Norcliffe notes that Anne, daughter of Ralph Brackenbury and Margery Duckett, married Henry Bainbridge, and had issue Julian, wife of Hugh Machell of Crackenthorpe, and Anthony Bainbridge of Middleton in Teesdale, who made his will 20 Nov. 1576. Might not Julian be the mother of Sir John Machell (died 1558)?
Nancy
j***@gmail.com
2018-04-10 19:41:24 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
... Julian, wife of Hugh Machell of Crackenthorpe.... Might not Julian be the mother of Sir John Machell (died 1558)?
Hi Nancy, the evidence (visitation pedigree names his father John, counter-changed coat of arms, and BROTHER of Harry Machell of Crackenthorpe, who was of the same generation as Hugh and Guy, who were also sons of John) points to the conclusion that John Machell was the younger half-brother of Hugh. This is fleshed out on John Machell's wikitree profile at https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Machell-4
j***@googlemail.com
2018-05-09 22:00:42 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
John, et al.,

Although tangential of this research, the Bellinghams of Bromby Wood, Frodingham, Lincolnshire, did marry into the Lodington family (although this branch is as of yet linked to the one the Machells married into), although in the 16th century and not the 15th.

The individual in question was John Bellingham, of Bromby Wood, Frodingham (died 26 Jan. 1615/16) who married Alice Lodington, daughter of Stephen Lodington, of Scotton, Lincolnshire (died 27 Nov. 1557, Scotton) and Joane (surname unknown).

A point of interest is Alice Lodington had 4 known siblings, viz. Thomas Lodington, of Scotton, Lincolnshire (died 3 Dec. 1580, Scotton, buried 4 Dec. 1580, Scotton -- married Mary Manby of the Manby of Worlaby, Lincolnshire family), John Lodington, of Gainsborough, Lincolnshire, Robert Lodington of Laughton (married Alyson Laingley on 7 Oct. 1571 in Whitton, Lincolnshire) and Anne Lodington (married Clerk).

Note that John Lodington as of Gainsborough. It could be a coincidence or it could be that the Lodingtons had property in Gainsborough. John appears to be a second (at least surviving) son.

I note that the Henry Luddington/Lodington, Grocer of the City of London was also "of Gainsborough" in Lincolnshire. In regards to when he flourished, well he'd be a contemporary of William Lodington, of Scotton, Lincolnshire, father of the above Stephen Lodington, of Scotton. They could be brothers or cousins.

Also note Alice is a name within this branch of the Lodingtons, as is the name Joan. Albeit in the 16th century, rather the the 15th.

The surname in the Scotton branch (as with others) is interchangeable with that of Luddington.

Best regards,

James R. Yeowell
Post by j***@gmail.com
Post by John Higgins
You correctly note that this Machell descent from King John depends on the identification of the unnamed Leybourne daughter who married John Machell, graandfather of John and Matthew Machell. The present narrative for her in the Wikitree material seems pretty conjectural. Perhaps John Schmeeckle could elaborate on this point...
Continuing where I left off last time: First of all, it seems that Elizabeth Tunstall, wife of Robert Bellingham, couldn't have been a granddaughter of Thomas Tunstall and Eleanor FitzHugh, or even their daughter, as they married in 1427 and Elizabeth (Tunstall) Bellingham was having children in the 1430s.
1. Bellasis's pedigree of this branch of the Machell family states that John Machell the Alderman was born at Kirkby Kendall. This would seem to be a mistake, as he was indeed the brother of Harry Machell of Crackenthorpe. However, Machell bore his family arms counterchanged, indicating that he was a younger half-brother of the twin Crackenthorpe lords Guy and Hugh. It is conceiveable that his father's second wife, born a Leybourne of Kirkby Kendal, bore a child at her parents' home. Furthermore, at the death of the father around 1511, John Machell the future Alderman was around 10 years old, and his mother wouldn't have been involved in the upbringing of his elder half-brothers (the heirs), so he probably grew up on the Leybourne (or Bellingham?) estates of Cunswick or Burneside, both in the Kendal neighborhood.
2. John Machell the Alderman purchased Burneside in 1552; it would seem that he purchased an estate that he knew as a child, assuming that his Leybourne mother was indeed the daughter of James Leybourne and his Bellingham wife.
3. The Bellinghams descend from the Tunstalls, who intermarried with the Kirkbys. John Machell's wife Jane Luddington was the granddaughter of a Kirkby from this same extended family.
By the way, Jane Luddington's Kirkby ancestors go back to the Urswick family, with a conjectural descent from the Radcliffes, with a lot of early medieval ancestors. The Kirkby line also goes way back, apparently with an origin going back to the 11th century. I've been adding to this lineage as time permits, and a lot of the really early stuff at wikitree has been carefully checked. Jane Luddington's ancestry is on wikitree at https://www.wikitree.com/genealogy/Luddington-Family-Tree-75
John Higgins
2018-03-25 23:42:39 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Paulo Canedo
My personal conclusion: Mary Machell, wife of James Cudworth and John Stoughton, was daughter of either Matthew Machell and Mary Lewknor or daughter of John Machell and Ursula Hynde. Both ideas have evidence, and it's difficult to decide between them. Both give royal descents, though.
I think Paulo's statement is an accurate and impartial assessment of the current status of the Cudworth descent. More work needs to be done....
d***@aol.com
2018-03-26 16:17:43 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by John Higgins
Post by Paulo Canedo
My personal conclusion: Mary Machell, wife of James Cudworth and John Stoughton, was daughter of either Matthew Machell and Mary Lewknor or daughter of John Machell and Ursula Hynde. Both ideas have evidence, and it's difficult to decide between them. Both give royal descents, though.
I think Paulo's statement is an accurate and impartial assessment of the current status of the Cudworth descent. More work needs to be done....
So with that said, would this be the correction forthcoming in the 3rd edition to Richardson’s Magna Carta Ancestry: A Study in Colonial and Medieval Families. 2nd ed. Vol. II. (2011): p. 10 [see CUDWORTH 15]?

"CHANGES IN PERENTAGE:

Ursula Hynde (not Mary Lewknor), wife of John Machell (not Matthew Machell) [see CUDWORTH 15]."
r***@yahoo.com
2018-03-26 16:27:48 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
John Schmeeckle gives the dates ("abt. 1485 - ") for Joan/Jane Kirkby, wife of Loddington/ Luddington.

https://www.wikitree.com/genealogy/Machell-Family-Tree-1

Her year of death was 1576. She left a PCC will under her second married name of Dame Joan Laxton, widow [PROB 11/58/316].
r***@yahoo.com
2018-03-26 17:14:12 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Those interested in reconstructing the family and ancestry of Joan/ ?Alice (Loddington/ Luddington) Machell should check out Charles Evans's article in the Fall 1982 _The Genealogist_, pp. 154-61, "Sir Thomas Chamberlayne and His Wives and Children."

This states that Sir Thomas Chamberlayne married second to Joan Luddington, daughter of Henry and Joan (Kirkby) Luddington, widow of Machell/ Machyll. It mentions that Joan Kirkby's second husband was Sir William Laxton of London, who died in 1556.

Sir Thomas Chamberlayne's children by Joan Luddington Machell (... hence half-siblings of John Machell and Matthew Machell) were:

(1) Sir John Chamberlayne of Prestbury, who married Elizabeth Thynne of Longleat, and died without issue.

(2) Edmund Chamberlayne of Maugersbury, Gloucs., d. 1634; m. 1) Anne Woodford (d. 1604); m. 2) Grace Strangways. Does not state if he had issue.

(3) Theophila Chamberlayne m. Dr. ____ Hughes.

The wills, if any, of these half-siblings of the Matthew Machell and John Machell could be checked for clues.

The article also indicates that, on the basis of heraldry, the mother of Joan (Kirkby) (Luddington) Laxton was "presumably" a member of the Vere family.

The Whetehill connection, also based on heraldry, was apparently to the "Whetehill of Calais" family, behind Isaacs and Appletons.
r***@yahoo.com
2018-03-26 18:46:11 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Theophila (Chamberlayne) Hughes was "mother to the now Lady Danvers," circa 1640:

https://books.google.com/books?id=TCsEAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA96&dq=chamberlayne+prestbury&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwigyuLH0oraAhVO7FMKHV77DUEQ6AEIKTAA#v=onepage&q=chamberlayne%20prestbury&f=false
r***@yahoo.com
2018-03-26 20:41:54 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Widow Joan Machell's second husband and first child of second marriage:

http://www.historyofparliamentonline.org/volume/1558-1603/member/chamberlain-sir-thomas-1504-80

http://www.historyofparliamentonline.org/volume/1558-1603/member/chamberlain-john-1560-1617
r***@yahoo.com
2018-03-26 21:44:18 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Perhaps another child of John Machell and Joan Luddington/ Loddington:

https://books.google.com/books?id=HC8EAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA464&dq=%22machill+alderm%22&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjbrqG9-oraAhUO61MKHYWFDscQ6AEIJzAA#v=onepage&q=%22machill%20alderm%22&f=false
j***@gmail.com
2018-04-10 19:54:09 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by r***@yahoo.com
https://books.google.com/books?id=HC8EAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA464&dq=%22machill+alderm%22&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjbrqG9-oraAhUO61MKHYWFDscQ6AEIJzAA#v=onepage&q=%22machill%20alderm%22&f=false
Actually, that appears to be a child of a different John Machell, first cousin of John, and also a London alderman, but with a different coat of arms (not counterchanged, and with a bordure), who was mentioned in the 1570 will of his father Leonard Machell, per the "Machell of Kendal" pedigree chart at the end of Bellasis's "The Machells of Crackenthorpe: http://memory.loc.gov/service/gdc/scd0001/2007/20070601066ma/20070601066ma.pdf

For whatever it's worth, the wikipedia profile for Robert Townshend's father (mentioning the son's 1571 marriage to Anna Machell) is here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Townshend_(judge)
Loading...