BUDD family 1450 Essex

Mary, I think you will find that the widow of Dr. John Gosling, who married Judge Francis Collins was not a Budd, but was Mary Savery, born c.1665, the daughter of John Savery (d.aft.1696) and his wife Elizabeth. She is identified in her Mother's will in Barbadoes. There is also a TAG article on her.

Bill Collins

h***@gmail.com

2018-10-11 19:58:29 UTC

Stewart Baldwin,why so you say that the Budd/Simcock relationship is not correct? I have been seeing this every where I look that Elizabeth Budd married John Simcock The Elder (marriage date of 1658).

Can you please explain why you feel this way? Or anyone else can answer as well.

Thank you, Karen

descendants of: John Budd

1 John Budd b. 1450 m. Elizabeth Bishoppe b. 1450
2 William Budd b. 1479 m. Katherine Saunders b. 1480
3 Nicholas Budd b. 1503 m. 7 May 1526 Elizabeth Wright b. 1504
4 Thomas Budd b. 23 Feb 1527
4 Richard Budd b. 11 Sept 1528 m. 3 Dec 1548 Margaret Symons b. 1532
5 Thomas Budd b. 11 Sept 1550 d. 24 April 1609
m. 9 Aug 1581 Margaret West b. 1560
6 Thomas Budd b. 1575 d. 24 April 1609
m. 23 Oct 1615 Sarah Johnson b. 1594
m. Aleni Fowles b. 1589 d. -1615
7 Nicholas Budd b. 30 July 1616
7 Joseph Budd b. 19 Feb 1618
7 John Budd b. 16 Dec 1619
7 Richard Budd
7 Thomas Budd b. 23 May 1617 d. 22 June 1670
m. 18 April 1635 Sussanah Prigge b. 1611
m. 12 August 1645 Johanna Knight b. 1615/1624+
8 Elizabeth Budd b. 1647 m. John Simcock
8 Samuel Budd b. 1644
8 John Budd b. 22 Feb 1645
8 James Budd b. 19 May 1646
8 Thomas Budd b. 19 May 1646 d. 1697
m. Susanna Robinson b. 1677
9 Mary Budd b. 2 Sept 1677
m. Dr. Goslin
m. Francis Collins b. 6 Jan 1635 d. 6 Feb 1720
8 James Budd b. 2 Jan 1647
8 Elizabeth Budd b. 1647
8 William Budd b. 13 May 1649
8 Ann Budd b. 1651
8 Susana Budd b. 1653
8 Mary Budd b. 1660
6 Josephine Budd b. 1 March 1583
6 William Budd b. 4 April 1584
5 John Budd b. 23 March 1550
5 Richard Budd b. 19 June 1561
4 John Budd b. 23 March 1532
*http://www.heritagepursuit.com/GarwoodMinnie.htm
Ancestors of Samuel Logan GARWOOD - Jan 16 2001
COMPILED BY ALLEN L. POTTS
(lists sources)
Thomas Budd
http://www.fdu.com/family/tree/fam01796.html
[part of: http://www.fdu.com/family/tree/
Ancestors, descendants and families related to
Alfred Alton Franklin, Jr. no reference citations]
Mary Gossage

Joe

2018-10-12 05:24:42 UTC

Baldwin, Stewart. John Simcock of Chester County, Pennsylvania. in The Genealogist vol. 18 (Spring 2004): pages 3-53.

https://fasg.org/wp-content/uploads/TG-18-1.pdf
https://fasg.org/the-genealogist/subscribing-and-back-issues/

Post by h***@gmail.com
Stewart Baldwin,why so you say that the Budd/Simcock relationship is not correct? I have been seeing this every where I look that Elizabeth Budd married John Simcock The Elder (marriage date of 1658).
Can you please explain why you feel this way? Or anyone else can answer as well.
Thank you, Karen
descendants of: John Budd

Joe

2018-10-12 05:29:31 UTC

Baldwin, Stewart. John Simcock of Chester County, Pennsylvania. in The Genealogist vol. 18 (Spring 2004): pages 3-53.

https://fasg.org/wp-content/uploads/TG-18-1.pdf

https://fasg.org/the-genealogist/subscribing-and-back-issues/

h***@gmail.com

2018-10-15 18:28:06 UTC

Post by Joe
Baldwin, Stewart. John Simcock of Chester County, Pennsylvania. in The Genealogist vol. 18 (Spring 2004): pages 3-53.
https://fasg.org/wp-content/uploads/TG-18-1.pdf
https://fasg.org/the-genealogist/subscribing-and-back-issues/

Thank you for the information and replying. I will check this out.

wjhonson

2018-10-12 16:17:21 UTC

Karen online family trees can not be trusted to be accurate.

h***@gmail.com

2018-10-15 18:29:26 UTC

Post by wjhonson

Karen online family trees can not be trusted to be accurate.

Thank you. I know that. It is why I'm looking all over for information, not just family trees and why I asked a question.

s***@mindspring.com

2018-10-14 17:35:14 UTC

Several reasons.

1. To my knowledge, no evidence has ever been put forward to support the claim. The fact that numerous individuals have copied the same bad information does not count as evidence.

2. Thomas Budd lived in Staffordshire, and John Simcock lived in Cheshire, so the geographical fit is not good. This fact alone would not rule out the marriage, but it is a significant red flag.

3. Take a look at the children listed for Thomas Budd below, taken from the source you posted: This show twins born 19 May 1646, then a son born on 2 January 1647, which would have to be 2 January 1647[/8] to be even possible, leaving no room for Elizabeth (listed twice) supposedly also born in 1647. The other children are born so close together that there is no room for Elizabeth anywhere between 1644 and 1650.

The complete absence of acceptable evidence alone would be enough to regard the claim as questionable. Given the major "red flags" indicated in #2 and #3, there is no reason to give the claim any credence.

Note: In my Simcock article, I conjectured that Elizabeth's maiden name may actually have been Maddock, and that she was a sister of the immigrant Henry Maddock, and daughter of Henry and Jane (Danyell) Maddock of Nantwich. This conjectured link has definitely not been proven, but unlike the Budd claim, there is at least some circumstantial evidence to support it.

Stewart Baldwin

7 Thomas Budd b. 23 May 1617 d. 22 June 1670
m. 18 April 1635 Sussanah Prigge b. 1611
m. 12 August 1645 Johanna Knight b. 1615/1624+
8 Elizabeth Budd b. 1647 m. John Simcock
8 Samuel Budd b. 1644
8 John Budd b. 22 Feb 1645
8 James Budd b. 19 May 1646
8 Thomas Budd b. 19 May 1646 d. 1697
m. Susanna Robinson b. 1677
9 Mary Budd b. 2 Sept 1677
m. Dr. Goslin
m. Francis Collins b. 6 Jan 1635 d. 6 Feb 1720
8 James Budd b. 2 Jan 1647
8 Elizabeth Budd b. 1647
8 William Budd b. 13 May 1649
8 Ann Budd b. 1651
8 Susana Budd b. 1653
8 Mary Budd b. 1660

g***@gmail.com

2018-10-15 10:52:11 UTC

Several reasons.
1. To my knowledge, no evidence has ever been put forward to support the claim. The fact that numerous individuals have copied the same bad information does not count as evidence.
2. Thomas Budd lived in Staffordshire, and John Simcock lived in Cheshire, so the geographical fit is not good. This fact alone would not rule out the marriage, but it is a significant red flag.
3. Take a look at the children listed for Thomas Budd below, taken from the source you posted: This show twins born 19 May 1646, then a son born on 2 January 1647, which would have to be 2 January 1647[/8] to be even possible, leaving no room for Elizabeth (listed twice) supposedly also born in 1647. The other children are born so close together that there is no room for Elizabeth anywhere between 1644 and 1650.
The complete absence of acceptable evidence alone would be enough to regard the claim as questionable. Given the major "red flags" indicated in #2 and #3, there is no reason to give the claim any credence.
Note: In my Simcock article, I conjectured that Elizabeth's maiden name may actually have been Maddock, and that she was a sister of the immigrant Henry Maddock, and daughter of Henry and Jane (Danyell) Maddock of Nantwich. This conjectured link has definitely not been proven, but unlike the Budd claim, there is at least some circumstantial evidence to support it.
Stewart Baldwin

I have no comment on this argument however re Stewart's point 2 Cheshire and Staffordshire actually share quite a long border

Geoff V

h***@gmail.com

2018-10-15 18:33:10 UTC

Post by g***@gmail.com

Several reasons.
1. To my knowledge, no evidence has ever been put forward to support the claim. The fact that numerous individuals have copied the same bad information does not count as evidence.
2. Thomas Budd lived in Staffordshire, and John Simcock lived in Cheshire, so the geographical fit is not good. This fact alone would not rule out the marriage, but it is a significant red flag.
3. Take a look at the children listed for Thomas Budd below, taken from the source you posted: This show twins born 19 May 1646, then a son born on 2 January 1647, which would have to be 2 January 1647[/8] to be even possible, leaving no room for Elizabeth (listed twice) supposedly also born in 1647. The other children are born so close together that there is no room for Elizabeth anywhere between 1644 and 1650.
The complete absence of acceptable evidence alone would be enough to regard the claim as questionable. Given the major "red flags" indicated in #2 and #3, there is no reason to give the claim any credence.
Note: In my Simcock article, I conjectured that Elizabeth's maiden name may actually have been Maddock, and that she was a sister of the immigrant Henry Maddock, and daughter of Henry and Jane (Danyell) Maddock of Nantwich. This conjectured link has definitely not been proven, but unlike the Budd claim, there is at least some circumstantial evidence to support it.
Stewart Baldwin

I have no comment on this argument however re Stewart's point 2 Cheshire and Staffordshire actually share quite a long border
Geoff V

Thank you for responding to my question.

h***@gmail.com

2018-10-15 18:34:49 UTC

Post by g***@gmail.com

Several reasons.
1. To my knowledge, no evidence has ever been put forward to support the claim. The fact that numerous individuals have copied the same bad information does not count as evidence.
2. Thomas Budd lived in Staffordshire, and John Simcock lived in Cheshire, so the geographical fit is not good. This fact alone would not rule out the marriage, but it is a significant red flag.
3. Take a look at the children listed for Thomas Budd below, taken from the source you posted: This show twins born 19 May 1646, then a son born on 2 January 1647, which would have to be 2 January 1647[/8] to be even possible, leaving no room for Elizabeth (listed twice) supposedly also born in 1647. The other children are born so close together that there is no room for Elizabeth anywhere between 1644 and 1650.
The complete absence of acceptable evidence alone would be enough to regard the claim as questionable. Given the major "red flags" indicated in #2 and #3, there is no reason to give the claim any credence.
Note: In my Simcock article, I conjectured that Elizabeth's maiden name may actually have been Maddock, and that she was a sister of the immigrant Henry Maddock, and daughter of Henry and Jane (Danyell) Maddock of Nantwich. This conjectured link has definitely not been proven, but unlike the Budd claim, there is at least some circumstantial evidence to support it.
Stewart Baldwin

I have no comment on this argument however re Stewart's point 2 Cheshire and Staffordshire actually share quite a long border
Geoff V

I would not call this an argument, it is a discussion. I was merely asking why someone said something. Thank you for your answer.

h***@gmail.com

2018-10-15 18:32:40 UTC

Several reasons.
1. To my knowledge, no evidence has ever been put forward to support the claim. The fact that numerous individuals have copied the same bad information does not count as evidence.
2. Thomas Budd lived in Staffordshire, and John Simcock lived in Cheshire, so the geographical fit is not good. This fact alone would not rule out the marriage, but it is a significant red flag.
3. Take a look at the children listed for Thomas Budd below, taken from the source you posted: This show twins born 19 May 1646, then a son born on 2 January 1647, which would have to be 2 January 1647[/8] to be even possible, leaving no room for Elizabeth (listed twice) supposedly also born in 1647. The other children are born so close together that there is no room for Elizabeth anywhere between 1644 and 1650.
The complete absence of acceptable evidence alone would be enough to regard the claim as questionable. Given the major "red flags" indicated in #2 and #3, there is no reason to give the claim any credence.
Note: In my Simcock article, I conjectured that Elizabeth's maiden name may actually have been Maddock, and that she was a sister of the immigrant Henry Maddock, and daughter of Henry and Jane (Danyell) Maddock of Nantwich. This conjectured link has definitely not been proven, but unlike the Budd claim, there is at least some circumstantial evidence to support it.
Stewart Baldwin