Discussion:
Edmund Sandford
(too old to reply)
guineapi...@gmail.com
2021-01-19 15:12:11 UTC
Permalink
Dear members,
Does anyone know the correct parentage of Edmund Sandford of Askham or Helton, Westmorland? He is said to have died in 1377. He married Idonea English who died 1420, and they were the parents of Idonea Sandford (living 1414) who married William Thornburgh ( living 1421). Any help appreciated! Is anyone actively researching the ancestry of General James Cudworth of Scituate, MA?
Nancy
Mary Morgan
2021-01-21 16:41:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by ***@gmail.com
Dear members,
Does anyone know the correct parentage of Edmund Sandford of Askham or Helton, Westmorland? He is said to have died in 1377. He married Idonea English who died 1420, and they were the parents of Idonea Sandford (living 1414) who married William Thornburgh ( living 1421). Any help appreciated! Is anyone actively researching the ancestry of General James Cudworth of Scituate, MA?
Nancy
There is a pedigree of Sandford of Askham facing p. 232 of this article
Ragg, Frederick W., Helton Flechan, Askham and Sandford of Askam, Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society, n.s.,Vol. 21 (1921), pp. 174-233.
https://archaeologydataservice.ac.uk/archiveDS/archiveDownload?t=arch-2055-1/dissemination/pdf/Article_Level_Pdf/tcwaas/002/1921/vol21/tcwaas_002_1921_vol21_0014.pdf
guineapi...@gmail.com
2021-01-21 20:38:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mary Morgan
Post by ***@gmail.com
Dear members,
Does anyone know the correct parentage of Edmund Sandford of Askham or Helton, Westmorland? He is said to have died in 1377. He married Idonea English who died 1420, and they were the parents of Idonea Sandford (living 1414) who married William Thornburgh ( living 1421). Any help appreciated! Is anyone actively researching the ancestry of General James Cudworth of Scituate, MA?
Nancy
There is a pedigree of Sandford of Askham facing p. 232 of this article
Ragg, Frederick W., Helton Flechan, Askham and Sandford of Askam, Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society, n.s.,Vol. 21 (1921), pp. 174-233.
https://archaeologydataservice.ac.uk/archiveDS/archiveDownload?t=arch-2055-1/dissemination/pdf/Article_Level_Pdf/tcwaas/002/1921/vol21/tcwaas_002_1921_vol21_0014.pdf
Thank you, Mary. This agrees with most of the online trees, and Mr. Wragg was a careful researcher .
Nancy
wjhonson
2021-01-22 17:51:11 UTC
Permalink
There are by the way, dozens and dozens of extant documents for this family on A2A
taf
2021-01-22 19:42:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by wjhonson
There are by the way, dozens and dozens of extant documents for this family on A2A
Which doesn't really exist as a distinct entity any longer - now part of The National Archives' Discovery catalogue.
https://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/

taf
wjhonson
2021-01-23 16:59:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by taf
Post by wjhonson
There are by the way, dozens and dozens of extant documents for this family on A2A
Which doesn't really exist as a distinct entity any longer - now part of The National Archives' Discovery catalogue.
https://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/
taf
I call it that because I go to Google and type "Access to Archives" and there it is
ps bumppo
2021-06-09 15:30:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by ***@gmail.com
Dear members,
Does anyone know the correct parentage of Edmund Sandford of Askham or Helton, Westmorland? He is said to have died in 1377. He married Idonea English who died 1420, and they were the parents of Idonea Sandford (living 1414) who married William Thornburgh ( living 1421). Any help appreciated! Is anyone actively researching the ancestry of General James Cudworth of Scituate, MA?
Nancy
Hi Nancy,

Did you get anywhere on your Cudworth query? I just received a message from Douglas Richardson, through facebook, that the Mary Machell he identifies as the wife of Ralph Cudworth, so thus the mother of General James Cudworth. is correct as he has stated in the past, the child of Matthew Machell and Mary Lewknor. The criticism of this identification by Adrienne Boaz is dismissed by Richardson.
John Higgins
2021-06-09 18:48:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by ps bumppo
Post by ***@gmail.com
Dear members,
Does anyone know the correct parentage of Edmund Sandford of Askham or Helton, Westmorland? He is said to have died in 1377. He married Idonea English who died 1420, and they were the parents of Idonea Sandford (living 1414) who married William Thornburgh ( living 1421). Any help appreciated! Is anyone actively researching the ancestry of General James Cudworth of Scituate, MA?
Nancy
Hi Nancy,
Did you get anywhere on your Cudworth query? I just received a message from Douglas Richardson, through facebook, that the Mary Machell he identifies as the wife of Ralph Cudworth, so thus the mother of General James Cudworth. is correct as he has stated in the past, the child of Matthew Machell and Mary Lewknor. The criticism of this identification by Adrienne Boaz is dismissed by Richardson.
Ho-hum.... It's no surprise that Richardson criticizes Boaz's criticism of Richardson's identification of Mary Machell.

I'll repeat what I said when you raised this issue last May in this group:

"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."
taf
2021-11-04 13:18:15 UTC
Permalink
Curious... could you/would you post the response? If someone of Richardson's experience stands behind the line, then why should the "not proved" side prevail? I would love to see his response if you are able to quote it.
Such appeals to authority are never a good approach to genealogy. While one should be careful in following the conclusions of novices, one can be led down the garden path by simply basing one's conclusions on personalities rather than the strength of the evidence. The 'not proved' side should prevail if they have made the better case, with sounder sources and logic, and vice versa, no matter who is on which side.

taf
Darrell E. Larocque
2021-11-04 14:00:00 UTC
Permalink
Curious... could you/would you post the response? If someone of Richardson's experience stands behind the line, then why should the "not proved" side prevail? I would love to see his response if you are able to quote it.
Such appeals to authority are never a good approach to genealogy. While one should be careful in following the conclusions of novices, one can be led down the garden path by simply basing one's conclusions on personalities rather than the strength of the evidence. The 'not proved' side should prevail if they have made the better case, with sounder sources and logic, and vice versa, no matter who is on which side.
taf
I appreciate the response, and yes it is true, but not all people can approach something from that neutral place and keep a clear head!

So who decides who has made the better case? So far I haven't seen compelling evidence that would lead to not proven, and yet it is being defended as if there is a smoking gun definitively tossing out Richardson's conclusions. I see two people who are unmoved by any logic or sourcing which refutes their "disproven" mindset and in fact are rude about it frankly. That's certainly not a good approach either. I have found this sort of posturing in other places when it comes to native ancestry or nationalistic ancestral conflicts, and it never ends because of the same attitude. I just wanted to know why Richardson is so sure of his conclusions and work from there, but evidently that is even too much for those people I have just mentioned- hence this "Ho-hum.... It's no surprise that Richardson criticizes Boaz's criticism of Richardson's identification of Mary Machell." example. That's not a valid response in my mind... it sounds more like backbiting.

I don't have a dog in this fight, I don't know any of the parties arguing about the line, but when someone asked about it I wanted to put forth an effort to understand why they were asking, and frankly I think those involved need to tone it down and stick to the facts and logic.

D. E. Larocque
taf
2021-11-04 15:44:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by Darrell E. Larocque
I appreciate the response, and yes it is true, but not all people can approach something from that neutral place and keep a clear head!
True.
Post by Darrell E. Larocque
So who decides who has made the better case?
We each do, individually, based on our own evaluation of the evidence each has presented in favor of their viewpoint.
Post by Darrell E. Larocque
So far I haven't seen compelling evidence that would lead to not proven, and yet it
is being defended as if there is a smoking gun definitively tossing out Richardson's
conclusions.
This is a non-sequitur. Mr. Richardson is portraying the connection as 'fact' and they are arguing that it is 'not sure', whereas were there the type of smoking gun you describe available, they would be arguing 'surely not'. It is an inherent tension within scholarship what level of evidence is sufficient to justify presenting a hypothesis as unquestioned fact, and they are suggesting that the evidence in this case does not rise to that level, that there is sufficient reason for uncertainty that it shouldn'e be represented as fact, not that it can be definitively labeled it a falsehood.
Post by Darrell E. Larocque
I just wanted to know why Richardson is so sure of his conclusions and work from
there, but evidently that is even too much for those people I have just mentioned-
Well, I know this will sound like more backstabbing, but there are reasons that animosity has built up here over the years. Let's just say that you are unlikely to see Mr. Richardson seriously consider the possibility that he might have reached an insufficiently-supported conclusion, an attitude that tends not to go over well with others who are equally expert, but disagree. And you are right, it all gets in the way of productive discussion of genealoigcal cunnundra, _by both sides_.

taf

Loading...