How shall we represent the questionableness of Mary (Scudamore?) French?

Question

The following two women may or may not be the same person:

1. Mary, wife of Thomas French: she bore children in New England in the mid-1630s and died there 1681.
2. Mary, daughter of William (III) Scudamore: she is named in a 1683 Visitation pedigree with the married surname French and having migrated to New England.

Both of these women would fall under the auspices of the PGM Project. Only Mary #2 would be relevant to Magna Carta and EuroAristo Projects.

 

On PGM, our standard of evidence is Anderson's Great Migration unless there is newer research from a reliable source. Anderson gives no maiden surname or family of origin for the wife of Thomas French. Thus, he doesn't accept the argument that #1 and #2 are the same.

 

On MC, our standard of evidence is Richardson's Ancestry serieses. Richardson profiles some of the Scudamores, so the family is legitimately noble, but he doesn't cover Mary's generation or anywhere near it in her line. Thus, he doesn't address the question.

 

This matters, because it determines whether we accept Mary as a Gateway Ancestor bestowing royal ancestry upon descendants of Thomas French.

 

There are a few papers on the question of Mary Scudamore vs. Mary, wife of Thomas, with some interesting circumstantial evidence that they might have been the same woman:

• Brian J.L. Berry, "Was Mary French a Scudamore?" in The Shapely Connection, Vol. 5, No. 3 (Oct. 1992), pp. 66, 79-81. Can't find a full copy online, only cites/excerpts.
• Warren Skidmore, "Mary Scudamore (ca. 1598-1681), Wife of Thomas French of Ipswich, Massachusetts. An Old Debate Newly Resolved," undated. "Resolved" is a bit strong.
• Adrienne Boaz, Specific Ancestral Lines of the Boaz, Paul, Welty & Fishel Families, 2014, citing the two above, pp. 406-8 (free in preview).

The Scudamore claim was out there at the time our projects' authoritative works were written, and both chose not to include it; by project standards this means we follow their lead. The 2014 book adds some interesting perspective, but still super-speculative. I don't think it's the sort of rigorous, primary-sourced stuff we would demand to accept it over Anderson/Richardson.

 

Conclusion: the connection between Mary #1 and Mary #2 is UNPROVEN, and Mary is QUESTIONABLE as a Gateway. By the standards of MC and PGM, there should not be a WikiTree line from the French children to the Scudamores.

 

Actions:

• Retain Scudamore-18 as the profile for Mary #2.
  • Detach Scudamore-18 from Thomas French and the French children.
  • Add a Disputed Spouse/Children section in her bio and wikilink to Thomas/children there.
  • Add a Disputed Spouse section in Thomas' bio and wikilink to her there.
  • Should she keep the PGM Template?  Mary #2 apparently migrated during the project timeframe, but we don't have any further record of her in New England.
  • Retain the Questionable Gateway Ancestors category on Scudamore-18.
• Create a new Mary Unknown profile with the sourced data relating to Mary #1 (e.g., death record).
  • Attach Thomas French as her spouse and the French children as her issue.
  • Add a Disputed Parentage section in her bio and wikilink to Scudamore-18/parents there.

Are there objections or additional insights on the above plan?  Is anything above inconsistent with EA standards?  Otherwise, I shall try to implement it by end of week.

Comments

Thank you Cheryl, or should I call you Nancy Drew. This is great detective work.

Answer 1

Cheryl - Sorry for the delay - I've checked Royal Ancestry and Richardson does not show her as a Gateway. It looks like you probably discovered that already - just wanted to close the loop!

Answer 2

Hey everyone,

I've revisited these articles and realized that the "undated" work by Warren Skidmore ("An Old Debate Newly Resolved") was written sometime after 2006; in other words, it's much more recent than the 1996 volume of Great Migration Begins.

The article itself is confusing as heck, but as best I can determine, Mr. Skidmore is saying that the Pengry/Bower/Redfern families were connected with the Scudamores via property transactions in Upton Bishop, Herefordshire, and sons of this Pengry family migrated to Ipswich in New England, where Thomas French and his wife Mary also lived. If accurate, it provides an indirect link between the "Mary French" of Herefordshire and Thomas and Mary French of Ipswich. This information was not available to Anderson at the time he wrote GMB. (I haven't determined whether he has addressed it in any later writings.)

I've updated the bio for Mary Scudamore-of-unknown-French to take into account the new and improved evidence. I probably still wouldn't call it conclusive or re-link her to Mary wife-of-Thomas, but it's more debatable now than I thought it was before.

Happy hunting. :)

Comments

Adrienne Boaz in 2014 gives a much better summation of the argument, it's just hard to see because of the Google Books preview limitations.  These links will open each page separately to read the whole case:

• https://books.google.com/books?id=zzjxBQAAQBAJ&pg=PA406
• https://books.google.com/books?id=zzjxBQAAQBAJ&pg=PA407

---

Nice work, Cheryl!

Answer 3

Not wishing to put too much emphasis on things what about the following:-

BRIDGES, Giles (c.1573-1637), of Wilton Castle, Bridstow, Herefs.
Published in The History of Parliament: the House of Commons 1604-1629, ed. Andrew Thrush and John P. Ferris, 2010

b. c.1573, 1st s. of Charles Bridges of Wilton Castle and Jane, da. of Sir Edward Carne† of Ewenny, Glos.1 educ. St. Alban Hall, Oxf. 1590, aged 17.2 m. 16 Jan. 1620, Mary, da. of Sir James Scudamore* of Holme Lacy, Herefs., 3s. 2da. suc. fa. 1619;3 cr. bt. 17 May 1627.4 d. 2 Sept. 1637.5
Not sure it helps, but it seemed relevant

Robin

Comments

That's a nice find, Robin! It seems likely to be the same family, but not the same Mary. (The Mary under discussion was known to be daughter of William of Upton Bishop, married a French, and lived in New England.) Some kind of cousin perhaps.