Discussion:
James Cudworth and/or Edmund Hawes
Add Reply
p***@hotmail.com
2020-03-26 15:42:43 UTC
Reply
Permalink
I am aware of a challenge at Wikitree to the lineage of James Cudworth of MA, who IS on the Gateway list. Anyone following that? Also, does anyone have knowledge of a question in the Edmund Hawes lineage to Charlamagne?
j***@gmail.com
2020-03-26 23:18:59 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by p***@hotmail.com
I am aware of a challenge at Wikitree to the lineage of James Cudworth of MA, who IS on the Gateway list. Anyone following that? Also, does anyone have knowledge of a question in the Edmund Hawes lineage to Charlamagne?
This issue came up on wikitree in 2018. The most persistent person arguing that Douglas Richardson is wrong is Mr. Schmeekle; who posts here frequently, and absolutely cannot tell the difference between reality and fact. He relies on his imaginary visions and "discussion" with his ancestors to tell him what 'fact' is. (I'm not exaggerating)

Of course, even if the delusional person who says the link is bad discovered it after drinking a LOT of laudanum, that does not change what the underlying facts are. It would probably be best to ignore everything that the delusional says and see if the facts are there to support the links or not. If not, it would be worth writing a journal article disproving the link that can be peer reviewed.

The fact that someone who admits to using imaginary sources as a critical part of his arguments and genealogy hasn't been banned by wikitree yet speaks volumes against wikitree.
taf
2020-03-27 00:38:08 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by j***@gmail.com
Post by p***@hotmail.com
I am aware of a challenge at Wikitree to the lineage of James Cudworth of MA, who IS on the Gateway list. Anyone following that? Also, does anyone have knowledge of a question in the Edmund Hawes lineage to Charlamagne?
This issue came up on wikitree in 2018. The most persistent person arguing that Douglas Richardson is wrong is Mr. Schmeekle; who posts here frequently, and absolutely cannot tell the difference between reality and fact. He relies on his imaginary visions and "discussion" with his ancestors to tell him what 'fact' is. (I'm not exaggerating)
Of course, even if the delusional person who says the link is bad discovered it after drinking a LOT of laudanum, that does not change what the underlying facts are. It would probably be best to ignore everything that the delusional says and see if the facts are there to support the links or not. If not, it would be worth writing a journal article disproving the link that can be peer reviewed.
The fact that someone who admits to using imaginary sources as a critical part of his arguments and genealogy hasn't been banned by wikitree yet speaks volumes against wikitree.
That may all be true, but a blind squirrel can still find a nut occasionally. We are better off addressing the sources.

As to Edward Hawes, I don't recall seeing any actual evidence linking him to England, and I suspect the whole thing is name's the same guesswork.

taf
taf
2020-03-27 01:15:02 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by taf
As to Edward Hawes, I don't recall seeing any actual evidence linking him to England, and I suspect the whole thing is name's the same guesswork.
Oops, the question was about Edmund Hawes, not Edward.

taf
John Higgins
2020-03-27 03:04:40 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by taf
Post by taf
As to Edward Hawes, I don't recall seeing any actual evidence linking him to England, and I suspect the whole thing is name's the same guesswork.
Oops, the question was about Edmund Hawes, not Edward.
taf
I don't know about an Edmund Hawes descent from Charlemagne, but the 1st edition of Richardson's PA gives him a descent from Henry II, and RD900 gives him a "better" descent from King John.
lmahler@att.net
2020-03-27 04:24:04 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by taf
Post by j***@gmail.com
Post by p***@hotmail.com
I am aware of a challenge at Wikitree to the lineage of James Cudworth of MA, who IS on the Gateway list. Anyone following that? Also, does anyone have knowledge of a question in the Edmund Hawes lineage to Charlamagne?
This issue came up on wikitree in 2018. The most persistent person arguing that Douglas Richardson is wrong is Mr. Schmeekle; who posts here frequently, and absolutely cannot tell the difference between reality and fact. He relies on his imaginary visions and "discussion" with his ancestors to tell him what 'fact' is. (I'm not exaggerating)
Of course, even if the delusional person who says the link is bad discovered it after drinking a LOT of laudanum, that does not change what the underlying facts are. It would probably be best to ignore everything that the delusional says and see if the facts are there to support the links or not. If not, it would be worth writing a journal article disproving the link that can be peer reviewed.
The fact that someone who admits to using imaginary sources as a critical part of his arguments and genealogy hasn't been banned by wikitree yet speaks volumes against wikitree.
That may all be true, but a blind squirrel can still find a nut occasionally. We are better off addressing the sources.
As to Edward Hawes, I don't recall seeing any actual evidence linking him to England, and I suspect the whole thing is name's the same guesswork.
taf
That is not correct.

Edmund Hawes is recorded as a cutler of London, in a passenger list
from the mid 1630s.

His apprenticeship record in the Cutlers Company of London states that
he was from Solihull, Warwickshire.


Leslie
taf
2020-03-27 05:56:21 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by ***@att.net
Post by taf
As to Edward Hawes, I don't recall seeing any actual evidence linking him to England, and I suspect the whole thing is name's the same guesswork.
That is not correct.
Edmund Hawes is recorded as a cutler of London, in a passenger list
from the mid 1630s.
Yeah, I was referring to Edward, this is about Edmund.

taf

taf
p***@hotmail.com
2020-03-27 18:15:51 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by taf
Post by ***@att.net
Post by taf
As to Edward Hawes, I don't recall seeing any actual evidence linking him to England, and I suspect the whole thing is name's the same guesswork.
That is not correct.
Edmund Hawes is recorded as a cutler of London, in a passenger list
from the mid 1630s.
Yeah, I was referring to Edward, this is about Edmund.
taf
taf
Edmund Hawes of Duxbury & Yarmouth MA is on the Order of the Crown of Charlemagne's list of Gateway Ancestors
wjhonson
2020-03-27 18:42:08 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by p***@hotmail.com
Post by taf
Post by ***@att.net
Post by taf
As to Edward Hawes, I don't recall seeing any actual evidence linking him to England, and I suspect the whole thing is name's the same guesswork.
That is not correct.
Edmund Hawes is recorded as a cutler of London, in a passenger list
from the mid 1630s.
Yeah, I was referring to Edward, this is about Edmund.
taf
taf
Edmund Hawes of Duxbury & Yarmouth MA is on the Order of the Crown of Charlemagne's list of Gateway Ancestors
Well they are merely copyists. The Order doesn't do any original research.
p***@hotmail.com
2020-03-27 18:45:46 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by j***@gmail.com
Post by p***@hotmail.com
I am aware of a challenge at Wikitree to the lineage of James Cudworth of MA, who IS on the Gateway list. Anyone following that? Also, does anyone have knowledge of a question in the Edmund Hawes lineage to Charlamagne?
This issue came up on wikitree in 2018. The most persistent person arguing that Douglas Richardson is wrong is Mr. Schmeekle; who posts here frequently, and absolutely cannot tell the difference between reality and fact. He relies on his imaginary visions and "discussion" with his ancestors to tell him what 'fact' is. (I'm not exaggerating)
Of course, even if the delusional person who says the link is bad discovered it after drinking a LOT of laudanum, that does not change what the underlying facts are. It would probably be best to ignore everything that the delusional says and see if the facts are there to support the links or not. If not, it would be worth writing a journal article disproving the link that can be peer reviewed.
The fact that someone who admits to using imaginary sources as a critical part of his arguments and genealogy hasn't been banned by wikitree yet speaks volumes against wikitree.
The thing is that the question arises and is detailed with a plausible counter-proposal for the mother of Mary Lewknor, specifically questioning Richardson's "apparently groundless" (too strong) conclusion, appears in Adrienne Boaz's Specific Ancestral Lines of the Boaz, Paul, Welty & Fishel Families (2014) Richardson's reading of the will of John Machell naming Jane Cudworth as “cosen” and “kinswoman” in the 1646/7 will and codicil of John Machell (1579-1647) of Wonersh, Surrey, son and heir of Mathew Machell (1543-1593). Mathew Machell, the younger son of John Machell (1502-1558), Alderman of London, had an elder brother John Machell (1545-1625), who also had a son John (c. 1570-bef. 1634).
Paulo Ricardo Canedo
2020-03-28 19:55:09 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by j***@gmail.com
Post by p***@hotmail.com
I am aware of a challenge at Wikitree to the lineage of James Cudworth of MA, who IS on the Gateway list. Anyone following that? Also, does anyone have knowledge of a question in the Edmund Hawes lineage to Charlamagne?
This issue came up on wikitree in 2018. The most persistent person arguing that Douglas Richardson is wrong is Mr. Schmeekle; who posts here frequently, and absolutely cannot tell the difference between reality and fact. He relies on his imaginary visions and "discussion" with his ancestors to tell him what 'fact' is. (I'm not exaggerating)
Of course, even if the delusional person who says the link is bad discovered it after drinking a LOT of laudanum, that does not change what the underlying facts are. It would probably be best to ignore everything that the delusional says and see if the facts are there to support the links or not. If not, it would be worth writing a journal article disproving the link that can be peer reviewed.
The fact that someone who admits to using imaginary sources as a critical part of his arguments and genealogy hasn't been banned by wikitree yet speaks volumes against wikitree.
You're wrong, Schmeeckle was banned by Wikitree.

Loading...