Who are the parents of Mary (Howell) Lothrop?

Question

Mary Howell was one of the three wives of Thomas Lowthropp and the mother of the Rev. John Lothrop/Lathrop, immigrant to Plymouth Colony.  Her profile currently shows that she was the daughter of John Howell and Gauche St. Andrews, but this seems to be doubtful.

To quote from "Rev. John Lothropp's Ancestors" at http://www.jtbullock.com/Tree/John_Lothropp.html :

"There is much confusion about Mary Howell the second wife of Thomas Lathrop. She was born sometime between 1538 and 1556. Some say her name was Mary Ellen Salt the daughter of Robert Salte and Sanchia St. Andrews, who was the daughter of John St. Andrews. But according to the Collections for a History of Staffordshire, Volume 5, Mary Salte married a Thomas Lathrop, son of Michaell Lathropp, who was living in Staffordshire in 1614. So this could not be our Mary, as our Thomas died in 1606 and was the son of Robert. Some say she was married to a John Howell before she married Thomas; others say that she is the daughter of John Howell and Gauche St. Andrews, daughter of John St. Andrews. Some say Gauche and Sanchia are the same person. In the October 1995 issue of The American Genealogist #280, Vol. 70, No. 4, there is an article written by Clifford L. Stott called "Lothrop and House Entries in the Parish Registers of Eastwell, Kent." Stott writes that Maud (last name unknown) was the name of John's mother. So there is a great deal of uncertainty about John’s mother. After much research, it is plausible to say that Mary/Maud was born in 1556 and her father was probably John Howell (see his bio for more on this)."

Answer 1

(Warning: cranky alert!)

(John, thanks for taking this on. Despite my rant below, I continue to appreciate all you're doing to de-mythologize our ancestors.)

Ugh! Yet another collection of links-- both above and on the profile of Mary/Maude-- the pages pointed to being poorly sourced. While some pages make reference to other works, few provide specific citations for specific pieces of data-- such as the baptism records. Where did these come from? 

While most of these pages APPEAR to be well researched, they would be so much more convincing with footnotes citing AND QUOTING specific sources.  Sigh. 

Bottom line in my clearly not so humble (this morning) opinion: 

1. Second wife of Thomas Lothrop (of whatever spelling) =?= Mary/Maud Unknown. (What was Stott's source for "Maud"? Where did "Mary" come from?)
2. Mary/Maud's profile should have disputed origins section summarizing *with specific citations please* (let's do a better job than the various pages linked to so far!) for each of the known issues. 
3. Detach her from ANY parents but include links to them in the disputed origins section.  If I understand correctly, Stott provides no surname for her. No parent. 
4. I think we need-- if it doesn't exist already -- a Gustav Anjou category or template. (I'll raise this in another thread.) John, you don't mention it above, but it's referenced in one of the linked-to pages-- that the Salte theory started with a work by the infamous and proven fraud, Gustav Anjou.
5. the various profiles of the disputed parents also need appropriate editing that includes brief explanations as to their disputed connections to Mary/Maud.  

Thanks again, John. 

Comments

Jillaine, I will edit as you advise, if nobody lse comes up with better information in the next few days.  (I probably won't change the maiden name to Unknown, because I'm not a profile manager, but I'll bring up the question of her maiden name.)

Regarding Gustav Anjou, here's a list, originally from Robert Charles Anderson, of families whose lineages have been tainted by his "research": http://genforum.genealogy.com/gen/messages/37674.html

If anybody brings the WikiTree profiles of any of these families to my attention, I'll put them at the top of my list of lineages to fix or detach.