Discussion:
Douglas Richardson correction?
(too old to reply)
p***@hotmail.com
2020-05-21 19:26:09 UTC
Permalink
James Cudworth is an ancestor of mine found on the Descendants of Charlemagne Gateway list. But a seemingly cogent criticism of Douglas Richardson's idetification of Cudworth's mother, Mary Machell (who married Ralph Cudworth), as the daughter of Mary Lewknor and Matthew Machell, appeared first in a book by Adrienne Boaz in 2014, and then had a WikiTree project assigned a couple of years ago. Now I find that Gary Boyd Roberts continues with the identification in his latest "Royal Descents of 900 Immigrants" book, though changing the Royal connection somewhat, it still runs through Mary Lewknor

Is anyone up on the status of this dispute with Douglas Richardson's identication of the parentage of Mary Machell with her mother being named as Mary Lewknor, a Royal Descendant of Edward I (according to GBR?)
John Higgins
2020-05-21 23:14:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by p***@hotmail.com
James Cudworth is an ancestor of mine found on the Descendants of Charlemagne Gateway list. But a seemingly cogent criticism of Douglas Richardson's idetification of Cudworth's mother, Mary Machell (who married Ralph Cudworth), as the daughter of Mary Lewknor and Matthew Machell, appeared first in a book by Adrienne Boaz in 2014, and then had a WikiTree project assigned a couple of years ago. Now I find that Gary Boyd Roberts continues with the identification in his latest "Royal Descents of 900 Immigrants" book, though changing the Royal connection somewhat, it still runs through Mary Lewknor
Is anyone up on the status of this dispute with Douglas Richardson's identication of the parentage of Mary Machell with her mother being named as Mary Lewknor, a Royal Descendant of Edward I (according to GBR?)
This matter has been discussed at length a number of times in this group. There are strongly held opinions on both sides. My personal opinion FWIW continues to be that neither alternative for the parentage of Mary Machell has been sufficiently proved.

The Edward I descent for Mary Machell in RD900 is exactly the same one that was published way back in 1993 in RD500. The evidence for the descent is also essentially the same as in it was in 1993, although slightly re-characterized in subsequent editions. The key piece of evidence seems to be "research by Debrett Ancestry Research commissioned by Miss Jane E. Grunwell", first cited in 1993. It would be interesting to know who has actually SEEN this research. The only "evidence" added since 1993 is the mention, first made in RD600 in 2004, of a "forthcoming article" by Paul Reed that is still "forthcoming" more than 15 years later. GBR should know better than to keep citing this "article".

It would certainly be useful if someone could write an article on the subject actually describing the evidence in the matter. But, after all these years, that seems unlikely to happen...
Paulo Ricardo Canedo
2020-05-21 23:29:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Higgins
Post by p***@hotmail.com
James Cudworth is an ancestor of mine found on the Descendants of Charlemagne Gateway list. But a seemingly cogent criticism of Douglas Richardson's idetification of Cudworth's mother, Mary Machell (who married Ralph Cudworth), as the daughter of Mary Lewknor and Matthew Machell, appeared first in a book by Adrienne Boaz in 2014, and then had a WikiTree project assigned a couple of years ago. Now I find that Gary Boyd Roberts continues with the identification in his latest "Royal Descents of 900 Immigrants" book, though changing the Royal connection somewhat, it still runs through Mary Lewknor
Is anyone up on the status of this dispute with Douglas Richardson's identication of the parentage of Mary Machell with her mother being named as Mary Lewknor, a Royal Descendant of Edward I (according to GBR?)
This matter has been discussed at length a number of times in this group. There are strongly held opinions on both sides. My personal opinion FWIW continues to be that neither alternative for the parentage of Mary Machell has been sufficiently proved.
The Edward I descent for Mary Machell in RD900 is exactly the same one that was published way back in 1993 in RD500. The evidence for the descent is also essentially the same as in it was in 1993, although slightly re-characterized in subsequent editions. The key piece of evidence seems to be "research by Debrett Ancestry Research commissioned by Miss Jane E. Grunwell", first cited in 1993. It would be interesting to know who has actually SEEN this research. The only "evidence" added since 1993 is the mention, first made in RD600 in 2004, of a "forthcoming article" by Paul Reed that is still "forthcoming" more than 15 years later. GBR should know better than to keep citing this "article".
It would certainly be useful if someone could write an article on the subject actually describing the evidence in the matter. But, after all these years, that seems unlikely to happen...
Reed noted in https://groups.google.com/d/msg/soc.genealogy.medieval/ZPJm_zsEDfk/PmPugptyj8IJ that, instead of writing an article, he was considering creating a Wiki. Unfortunately, that's not happened yet.
John Higgins
2020-05-22 01:01:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Paulo Ricardo Canedo
Post by John Higgins
Post by p***@hotmail.com
James Cudworth is an ancestor of mine found on the Descendants of Charlemagne Gateway list. But a seemingly cogent criticism of Douglas Richardson's idetification of Cudworth's mother, Mary Machell (who married Ralph Cudworth), as the daughter of Mary Lewknor and Matthew Machell, appeared first in a book by Adrienne Boaz in 2014, and then had a WikiTree project assigned a couple of years ago. Now I find that Gary Boyd Roberts continues with the identification in his latest "Royal Descents of 900 Immigrants" book, though changing the Royal connection somewhat, it still runs through Mary Lewknor
Is anyone up on the status of this dispute with Douglas Richardson's identication of the parentage of Mary Machell with her mother being named as Mary Lewknor, a Royal Descendant of Edward I (according to GBR?)
This matter has been discussed at length a number of times in this group. There are strongly held opinions on both sides. My personal opinion FWIW continues to be that neither alternative for the parentage of Mary Machell has been sufficiently proved.
The Edward I descent for Mary Machell in RD900 is exactly the same one that was published way back in 1993 in RD500. The evidence for the descent is also essentially the same as in it was in 1993, although slightly re-characterized in subsequent editions. The key piece of evidence seems to be "research by Debrett Ancestry Research commissioned by Miss Jane E. Grunwell", first cited in 1993. It would be interesting to know who has actually SEEN this research. The only "evidence" added since 1993 is the mention, first made in RD600 in 2004, of a "forthcoming article" by Paul Reed that is still "forthcoming" more than 15 years later. GBR should know better than to keep citing this "article".
It would certainly be useful if someone could write an article on the subject actually describing the evidence in the matter. But, after all these years, that seems unlikely to happen...
Reed noted in https://groups.google.com/d/msg/soc.genealogy.medieval/ZPJm_zsEDfk/PmPugptyj8IJ that, instead of writing an article, he was considering creating a Wiki. Unfortunately, that's not happened yet.
Yes it is unfortunate - whether the wait for the article is 8 years or "more than 15"...
Paulo Ricardo Canedo
2020-05-31 23:13:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Higgins
Post by Paulo Ricardo Canedo
Post by John Higgins
Post by p***@hotmail.com
James Cudworth is an ancestor of mine found on the Descendants of Charlemagne Gateway list. But a seemingly cogent criticism of Douglas Richardson's idetification of Cudworth's mother, Mary Machell (who married Ralph Cudworth), as the daughter of Mary Lewknor and Matthew Machell, appeared first in a book by Adrienne Boaz in 2014, and then had a WikiTree project assigned a couple of years ago. Now I find that Gary Boyd Roberts continues with the identification in his latest "Royal Descents of 900 Immigrants" book, though changing the Royal connection somewhat, it still runs through Mary Lewknor
Is anyone up on the status of this dispute with Douglas Richardson's identication of the parentage of Mary Machell with her mother being named as Mary Lewknor, a Royal Descendant of Edward I (according to GBR?)
This matter has been discussed at length a number of times in this group. There are strongly held opinions on both sides. My personal opinion FWIW continues to be that neither alternative for the parentage of Mary Machell has been sufficiently proved.
The Edward I descent for Mary Machell in RD900 is exactly the same one that was published way back in 1993 in RD500. The evidence for the descent is also essentially the same as in it was in 1993, although slightly re-characterized in subsequent editions. The key piece of evidence seems to be "research by Debrett Ancestry Research commissioned by Miss Jane E. Grunwell", first cited in 1993. It would be interesting to know who has actually SEEN this research. The only "evidence" added since 1993 is the mention, first made in RD600 in 2004, of a "forthcoming article" by Paul Reed that is still "forthcoming" more than 15 years later. GBR should know better than to keep citing this "article".
It would certainly be useful if someone could write an article on the subject actually describing the evidence in the matter. But, after all these years, that seems unlikely to happen...
Reed noted in https://groups.google.com/d/msg/soc.genealogy.medieval/ZPJm_zsEDfk/PmPugptyj8IJ that, instead of writing an article, he was considering creating a Wiki. Unfortunately, that's not happened yet.
Yes it is unfortunate - whether the wait for the article is 8 years or "more than 15"...
Thing is, 8 years ago, Paul Reed was no longer considering writing an article, he was considering creating a wiki, though I see little point in creating a wiki dedicated merely to this connection.
Peter Stewart
2020-05-31 23:20:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Paulo Ricardo Canedo
Post by John Higgins
Post by Paulo Ricardo Canedo
Post by John Higgins
Post by p***@hotmail.com
James Cudworth is an ancestor of mine found on the Descendants of Charlemagne Gateway list. But a seemingly cogent criticism of Douglas Richardson's idetification of Cudworth's mother, Mary Machell (who married Ralph Cudworth), as the daughter of Mary Lewknor and Matthew Machell, appeared first in a book by Adrienne Boaz in 2014, and then had a WikiTree project assigned a couple of years ago. Now I find that Gary Boyd Roberts continues with the identification in his latest "Royal Descents of 900 Immigrants" book, though changing the Royal connection somewhat, it still runs through Mary Lewknor
Is anyone up on the status of this dispute with Douglas Richardson's identication of the parentage of Mary Machell with her mother being named as Mary Lewknor, a Royal Descendant of Edward I (according to GBR?)
This matter has been discussed at length a number of times in this group. There are strongly held opinions on both sides. My personal opinion FWIW continues to be that neither alternative for the parentage of Mary Machell has been sufficiently proved.
The Edward I descent for Mary Machell in RD900 is exactly the same one that was published way back in 1993 in RD500. The evidence for the descent is also essentially the same as in it was in 1993, although slightly re-characterized in subsequent editions. The key piece of evidence seems to be "research by Debrett Ancestry Research commissioned by Miss Jane E. Grunwell", first cited in 1993. It would be interesting to know who has actually SEEN this research. The only "evidence" added since 1993 is the mention, first made in RD600 in 2004, of a "forthcoming article" by Paul Reed that is still "forthcoming" more than 15 years later. GBR should know better than to keep citing this "article".
It would certainly be useful if someone could write an article on the subject actually describing the evidence in the matter. But, after all these years, that seems unlikely to happen...
Reed noted in https://groups.google.com/d/msg/soc.genealogy.medieval/ZPJm_zsEDfk/PmPugptyj8IJ that, instead of writing an article, he was considering creating a Wiki. Unfortunately, that's not happened yet.
Yes it is unfortunate - whether the wait for the article is 8 years or "more than 15"...
Thing is, 8 years ago, Paul Reed was no longer considering writing an article, he was considering creating a wiki, though I see little point in creating a wiki dedicated merely to this connection.
Paul Reed was one of the most valued contributors to this newsgroup, but
I think you will find that nowadays he has other fish to fry apart from
very infrequent forays here. He is a man of talent and expertise in
areas beyond medieval genealogy.

Peter Stewart

Paulo Ricardo Canedo
2020-05-31 23:17:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Higgins
Post by Paulo Ricardo Canedo
Post by John Higgins
Post by p***@hotmail.com
James Cudworth is an ancestor of mine found on the Descendants of Charlemagne Gateway list. But a seemingly cogent criticism of Douglas Richardson's idetification of Cudworth's mother, Mary Machell (who married Ralph Cudworth), as the daughter of Mary Lewknor and Matthew Machell, appeared first in a book by Adrienne Boaz in 2014, and then had a WikiTree project assigned a couple of years ago. Now I find that Gary Boyd Roberts continues with the identification in his latest "Royal Descents of 900 Immigrants" book, though changing the Royal connection somewhat, it still runs through Mary Lewknor
Is anyone up on the status of this dispute with Douglas Richardson's identication of the parentage of Mary Machell with her mother being named as Mary Lewknor, a Royal Descendant of Edward I (according to GBR?)
This matter has been discussed at length a number of times in this group. There are strongly held opinions on both sides. My personal opinion FWIW continues to be that neither alternative for the parentage of Mary Machell has been sufficiently proved.
The Edward I descent for Mary Machell in RD900 is exactly the same one that was published way back in 1993 in RD500. The evidence for the descent is also essentially the same as in it was in 1993, although slightly re-characterized in subsequent editions. The key piece of evidence seems to be "research by Debrett Ancestry Research commissioned by Miss Jane E. Grunwell", first cited in 1993. It would be interesting to know who has actually SEEN this research. The only "evidence" added since 1993 is the mention, first made in RD600 in 2004, of a "forthcoming article" by Paul Reed that is still "forthcoming" more than 15 years later. GBR should know better than to keep citing this "article".
It would certainly be useful if someone could write an article on the subject actually describing the evidence in the matter. But, after all these years, that seems unlikely to happen...
Reed noted in https://groups.google.com/d/msg/soc.genealogy.medieval/ZPJm_zsEDfk/PmPugptyj8IJ that, instead of writing an article, he was considering creating a Wiki. Unfortunately, that's not happened yet.
Yes it is unfortunate - whether the wait for the article is 8 years or "more than 15"...
Do you know Paul Reed's email address? We could ask him if he has any responses to the objections against his version.
ps bumppo
2020-05-22 02:25:01 UTC
Permalink
Thank you for your response John. As a Mayflower historian for 25 plus years, I have to admit that Royal lineages are more than a little frustrating to me. Depending on the few "experts" that there seem to be is only part of the problem. Not sure how one is to trust what has been set in stone. Thankfully Mayflower lineages are generally more easily proven, and the Society's books are better. Of course the fact that we're only 400 years down from arrival, and my family remained in Plymouth County,helped.

I have been aware of the proposed Cudworth line since I first saw RD 500 several years ago, but then encountered the Wikitree controversy a few months ago now that I'm retired. I have tried to read through the various views of the case, see it is probably not easily resolved, and just wanted a "current state" of the discussion. So I guess I'll just throw up my hands and wait for some possible resolution at some unknown future time ☹️ At least I still have Edmond Hawes and Edward Raynsford.

Thanks Again John,
Paul Bumpus
Paulo Ricardo Canedo
2020-05-22 09:54:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by ps bumppo
Thank you for your response John. As a Mayflower historian for 25 plus years, I have to admit that Royal lineages are more than a little frustrating to me. Depending on the few "experts" that there seem to be is only part of the problem. Not sure how one is to trust what has been set in stone. Thankfully Mayflower lineages are generally more easily proven, and the Society's books are better. Of course the fact that we're only 400 years down from arrival, and my family remained in Plymouth County,helped.
I have been aware of the proposed Cudworth line since I first saw RD 500 several years ago, but then encountered the Wikitree controversy a few months ago now that I'm retired. I have tried to read through the various views of the case, see it is probably not easily resolved, and just wanted a "current state" of the discussion. So I guess I'll just throw up my hands and wait for some possible resolution at some unknown future time ☹️ At least I still have Edmond Hawes and Edward Raynsford.
Thanks Again John,
Paul Bumpus
Thing is, even if Mary Machell was daughter of John Machell and Ursula Hynde, she still had a royal descent.
ps bumppo
2020-05-22 14:38:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Paulo Ricardo Canedo
Thing is, even if Mary Machell was daughter of John Machell and Ursula Hynde, she still had a royal descent.
How so Paolo?
ps bumppo
2020-05-22 15:20:31 UTC
Permalink
How so Paulo?
Paulo Ricardo Canedo
2020-05-23 00:35:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by ps bumppo
How so Paulo?
Put Hynde-10 and Plantagenet-1627 in the Wikitree Relationship Finder and you will see Ursula Hynde's descent from Henry II.
ps bumppo
2020-05-23 01:43:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Paulo Ricardo Canedo
Post by ps bumppo
How so Paulo?
Put Hynde-10 and Plantagenet-1627 in the Wikitree Relationship Finder and you will see Ursula Hynde's descent from Henry II.
Thank You Paulo. Got it!
s***@mindspring.com
2020-05-22 03:58:43 UTC
Permalink
... Now I find that Gary Boyd Roberts continues with the identification in his latest "Royal Descents of 900 Immigrants" book, though changing the Royal connection somewhat, it still runs through Mary Lewknor
I would place very little faith in whether or not a royal line appears in the various "Royal Descents of ___ Immigrants" books by Roberts. While some of the claimed royal lines listed are correct, these books also have a history of "accepting" too many false royal lines from poor sources that never should have been even considered (let alone included) in the first place. I bought the first one ("Royal Descents of 500 Immigrants") and after I saw how many false and questionable lines it included, that was enough for me. I have never considered wasting my money on any of the sequels.

Stewart Baldwin
Loading...