Is James Cudworth a false gateway ancestor?

Question

Is James Cudworth a false gateway ancestor?

2.4k views

The Magna Carta Project, following the books of Douglas Richardson, currently recognizes James Cudworth, early immigrant to Plymouth Colony as a "gateway ancestor" with a lineage going back to Magna Carta barons.

This lineage depends on the dubious assumption that James Cudworth's mother, Mary Machell, was the daughter of Mary Lewknor (whose marriage to Mary Machell's alleged father took place 47 years before Mary's own marriage to Dr. Ralph Cudworth).

It appears that there isn't a shred of evidence in Richardson's books supporting this supposition. Furthermore, a plausible counter-proposal for the mother of Mary Lewknor, specifically questioning Richardson's apparently groundless conclusion, appears in Adrienne Boaz's Specific Ancestral Lines of the Boaz, Paul, Welty & Fishel Families (2014), p. 480 and following.

It seems like Richardson's lineage for James Cudworth fails with the lack of evidence for the mother of Mary Machell. If this is indeed the case, then presumably the Magna Carta Project should remove Cudworth as a gateway ancestor.

WikiTree profile: James Cudworth

asked Feb 27, 2018 in Genealogy Help by Living Schmeeckle G2G6 Pilot (105k points)

8 Answers

Best answer

update: I've completed my edit of Machell-1. The bullet point idea didn't fly, but I believe the profile is as good as it can be pending further research that would sway researchers to clearly support one theory (of who her parents were) over another. ~ Liz, 3 July 2018

I had not been following this discussion after the initial post. My apologies for jumping in late.

I have edited James Cudworth's profile to present the different Magna Carta trail connections (with John & Ursula as James's grandparents instead of Matthew & Mary) under the Magna Carta Project section of that profile.

Mary Machell's profile is a bit more problematic in figuring how best to present the two opposing theories as to her parents. I have done an initial edit, to include detaching the profiles for her parents. The edit is continuing on a Space page.

For suggested edits to Mary's profile, it would be easier for me if they were made as a comment on the Space page. If you prefer, however, you can post suggestions as a comment to this answer (and please, just this answer - and please, be polite and courteous ... this discussion has gotten a bit out of hand, both in trying to follow the various threads & the adherence to WikiTree's Honor Code).

Thanks in advance,
Liz (co-leader, Magna Carta Project)

answered Jun 20, 2018 by Liz Shifflett G2G6 Pilot (629k points)
edited Jul 3, 2018 by Liz Shifflett

Starting back in February, I demonstrated that there was no evidence for Douglas Richardson's published parents for Mary (Machell) Cudworth. I also provided a proof by circumstantial evidence for Mary's correct parents, as part of extended discussion on this G2G thread. I got consensus to correct the parents, and then I invited people to help edit what I wrote. Some of this has since been undone, without any discussion.

It wouldn't surprise me if many people are unfamiliar with a proof by circumstantial evidence, so I will explain as follows:

First of all, there is an article from the New York Law Journal, titled "Circumstantial Evidence: An Important Source of Proof."

A particularly thorough example of a proof by circumstantial evidence is the parentage of my ancestor William Young (1809-1872) of Iowa County, Wisconsin. The relevant points:

1. Census records repeatedly show that he came from Kentucky.

2. There is a William Young, "residence unknown," who appears in an 1844 property settlement of Henry Young of Pike County, Missouri, who married in Kentucky in 1806. Is this the same William Young as the William Young who married in 1845 in Iowa County, Wisconsin? That is the essential question here.

3. William Young and Hiram Young jointly patented land in Iowa County on Nov. 1, 1849, on the same day and in the same section of the same township that Amos Young patented land for himself.

4. The 1844 property settlement of Henry Young (mentioned in #2 above) lists sons Hiram and Amos.

5. Amos Young, in Iowa County, was the business partner of Uriah Groshong, who married Hiram Young's daughter Celia. Celia was a family name coming from Henry Young's wife's family, and William Young of Iowa County also named a daughter Celia.

6. William Young of Iowa County, Wisconsin named his eldest son "William Henry," reinforcing the already-strong supposition that Henry Young was William's father.

7. Finally, Mary Etta Triplett, the orphaned daughter of Nathaniel Triplett --son-in-law of Henry Young and administrator of Henry's estate before Nathaniel suddenly died -- appears in the 1850 census in Iowa County, Wisconsin in the household of William Young.

There is no written documentation stating that William Young of Iowa County was the son of Henry, but there can be no reasonable doubt that William Young was the brother of Hiram and Amos, and the uncle of Mary Etta Triplett, and the uncle of Celia (Young) Groshong, and the William Young "residence unknown" who was listed as a son in the property settlement of Henry Young.

I have done other proofs by circumstantial evidence: See, for example:

--The parentage of Edward Prideaux (m. 1672) of Camborne, Cornwall.

--The parentage of Jane/Honour (Pearce) Rogers (1776-1849) of Illogan, Cornwall.

Now here is an example of an attempted proof by circumstantial evidence that doesn't work:

1. Douglas Richardson assumes that alleged gateway ancestors Richard and Edward Kempe were the sons of Robert Kempe of Gissing, who definitely had sons Richard and Edward (per his and his wife's wills). There is no further evidence, or is there?

2. By inference, Richardson assumes that Richard and Edward's nephew Edmund Kempe, another alleged gateway ancestor, was the grandson of Robert Kempe of Gissing. This Edmund Kempe, immigrant to Virginia, had a power of attorney in Virginia from Sir Robert Kempe, eldest son of Robert Kempe of Gissing. This provides strong evidence supporting the natural conclusion that Richard and Edward, as well as Edmund, were related to Robert Kempe of Gissing, but does it qualify as proof beyond a reasonable doubt? At the very least, we know that Edmund Kempe was authorized to handle Sir Robert's business in Virginia.

3. There was a Bridget Kempe, widow of an older Edmund Kempe in England, who granted a power of attorney in Virginia in 1651. Douglas Richardson assumed that this couple -- Edmund and Bridget Kempe -- were the parents of immigrant Edmund Kempe of Virginia. Richardson further assumed that the senior Edmund Kempe was the same as the Edmund Kempe who was mentioned as a son in the wills of Robert Kempe of Gissing and his wife.

4. The problem is, Richardson's second assumption, about the parents of the senior Edmund Kempe, has been conclusively proven to be false. See this SGM thread.

5. Furthermore, Richard and Edward were family names in the Kempe family, and there was a fistful of first and second cousins of Robert Kempe of Gissing who could have had sons Richard and Edward who immigrated to Virginia. And we know that widow Bridget Kempe, who was NOT a daughter-in-law of Robert Kempe of Gissing, had dealings in Virginia.

Bottom line: Richard and Edward Kempe MIGHT have been the sons of Robert of Gissing, but we just don't know. There is no proof by circumstantial evidence here. There is just a guess, and by wikitree standards the parents of alleged gateway ancestors Richard and Edward and Edmund Kempe should all be detached.

In another post (as time permits), I will summarize the proof by circumstantial evidence for the parents of Mary (Machell) Cudworth. After that is presented, I hope to move forward by reattaching Mary (Machell) Cudworth's correct parents and undoing most (if not all) of the recent unilateral changes to her profile.

commented Jul 7, 2018 by Living Schmeeckle G2G6 Pilot (105k points)

1. The first element in this proof by circumstantial evidence of the parentage of Mary (Machell) Cudworth is the mention of 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).

There are two points here. First of all, Jane Cudworth must have been the granddaughter of Alderman John Machell, and daughter of either John Machell (1545-1625) or his younger brother Mathew (1543-1593). The second point here is that when John Machell, son of Mathew, made his will in 1646, his father Mathew and his uncle John and his cousin John were all dead. He was the only surviving Machell of his generation. Was “cosen/kinswoman” Jane Cudworth the niece or the first cousin once removed of John Machell? His will, by itself, cannot answer that question.

2. An important part of proving parents by circumstantial evidence is to demonstrate that a competing supposition is without foundation. And in this particular case, there is a published competing supposition, made formidable by the reputation of Douglas Richardson as a leading medieval genealogist. (To be continued)

commented Jul 9, 2018 by Living Schmeeckle G2G6 Pilot (105k points)

(continued)

Douglas Richardson’s sole scrap of documentary evidence for the parents of Mary (Machell) Cudworth was a pedigree chart of the Machell family of Kendal and London, attached to the back of Edward Bellasis’s 1886 “The Machells of Crackenthorpe.” That’s it. Nothing else.

Richardson, in an SGM post on March 23 of this year, “certified” that his Cudworth/Machell lineage was correct, as he falsely or mistakenly stated that Bellasis’s 19^th-century pedigree chart gave a source for Mary Machell's parents. Anyone can click on “The Machells of Crackenthorpe” and scroll down and check for themselves: The pedigree chart is full of sources mentioned next to almost every name, and it gives sources for some of Mary’s alleged siblings, but no source for Mary herself. In other words, it would seem that Bellasis – an experienced genealogist – was silently indicating that his proposed placement of Mary as daughter of Mathew was a conjecture.

However, there was that 1646/7 will of John Machell of Wonersh, mentioning his “cosen” and “kinswoman” Jane Cudworth, which (as mentioned in the previous post) places Mary (Machell) Cudworth as the granddaughter of Alderman John Machell of London.

Richardson, in addition to his blunder regarding Bellasis’s source, asserted that “cousin/kinswoman” meant niece. Back then, “cousin” definitely COULD mean niece or nephew, but not necessarily.

In addition to these two errors, Richardson failed to discover that there were TWO Mary Machells. The first one, of course, was the Mary Machell who married Ralph Cudworth in 1611 in London. The second one married Rev. James Harison in 1617 at Kingston Bowsey, Suffolk (far from London) – the same parish where Mary (Lewknor) Machell, widow of Mathew, was buried in 1604. (The Lewknor family owned the estate of Kingston Bowsey.) There arre no other Machells -- or any remote variant of the name, in the transcribed Kingston by sea records at freereg.org.

On the face of it, it would appear that this Mary “Mashall” of Kingston Bowsey was the daughter of Mathew and Mary (Lewknor) Machell, making the other Mary Machell, who married Ralph Cudworth, the daughter of Mathew Machell’s brother John. Whether or not this is correct, it seems crystal clear that Douglas Richardson’s “certification” of the Cudworth/Machell lineage is without foundation.

Richardson’s published lineage is based on the misrepresentation of a 19^th-century source, the misinterpretation of a will, and the failure to observe that there were two separate Mary Machells.

commented Jul 12, 2018 by Living Schmeeckle G2G6 Pilot (105k points)

3. I will now proceed with the positive evidence in this proof that John and Ursula (Hynde) Machell were the parents of Mary (Machell) Cudworth.

Mary Machell married the theologian Ralph Cudworth in Southwark, London in 1611. This couple had several children over the next ten years or so. Mary’s daughter Jane was named as “cousin” and “kinswoman” and received a substantial legacy – payable after her marriage – in the 1646/7 will of John Machell of Wonersh. This John Machell was of the correct age to be either Mary Machell’s brother or her first cousin.; -- depending on whether his father Mathew Machell was Mary's father or her uncle.

Mary Machell and her first husband Ralph Cudworth were the parents of the well-known Cambridge Platonist Ralph Cudworth. This son Ralph was the author of “The True Intellectual System of the Universe.” In 1733 this book was translated into Latin. The preface to this Latin translation stated that Ralph’s father Ralph was a chaplain to King James who participated in translating the King James Bible. The preface also stated that Ralph’s mother Mary Machell was the “nutrix deligeretur” (loosely translated as first-aid nurse) to King James’s eldest son Prince Henry.

Mary Machell had three sons: James, Ralph and John. There was no son named Mathew. It was a common pattern for parents to name the eldest son for the father’s father, and the second son for the mother’s father. However, Ralph and Mary Cudworth varied this pattern: They named their first son JAMES – a name that doesn’t appear in either the Cudworth or Machell families. This son James, who would later emigrate to Plymouth Colony, was clearly named for King James himself. And then Ralph and Mary named their second son Ralph, for Ralph’s father (also named Ralph), and they named their third son John, presumably for Mary’s father.

As we have already seen, after Mathew Machell’s death in 1593, his family had no known London connection, let alone a connection to the royal household. Mathew’s brother John’s family had both, and that is the essence of this proof by circumstantial evidence, together with the 1646/7 will of Mathew’s son John (from which we can infer that Mary had to be the daughter of either Mathew or Mathew’s elder brother John), and the marriage of Mary Machell to Ralph Cudworth in Southwark, London (where John Machell was “residing” at the time), and supported by the names of Mary’s sons, and by John’s widow Ursula being buried in a church across the street from where Mary’s son Ralph Cudworth had just obtained a fellowship.

--

John Machell, eldest son of John Machell (Alderman of London) was born in 1546. His father died in 1559, when young John was in his 14^th year. John married his first wife Frances Cotton by 1568, when he was 22. By Frances he had a son John (his eventual heir, who was dead by 1634) and a daughter Frances. Frances died in childbed in 1574 in Hackney, Middlesex (a London suburb) and John Machell married his second wife Ursula Hynde in 1579. This couple appears to have been the parents of a set of “Mauchell” children baptized in Hackney between 1580 and 1592, including a daughter Mary. (These baptism records will be discussed in a following post.)

John Machell found himself (briefly?) in Fleet Prison in 1596, in a matter involving Sir Robert Cecil (a leading member of Queen Elizabeth’s Privy Council) and a hound. John Machell went into debt to buy an estate in Cambridgeshire (where wife Ursula’s family came from) in the 1570s, which later led to a clash with his eventual creditor Sir James Deane; and John Machell ended up in debtor’s prison from 1606 through 1612. This debtor’s prison was in the London borough of Southwark, where Mary Machell married Ralph Cudworth in 1611. John died in 1625, “worn out with care and grief for his losses.”

All the available snippets point in the same direction – Mary (Machell) Cudworth as the daughter of John and Ursula (Hynde) Machell – and there is not a shred of evidence pointing toward Mathew Machell (younger brother of John) as the father of Mary (Machell) Cudworth. To summarize these snippets of circumstantial evidence:

1. Mary Machell married Ralph Cudworth in Southwark, London, where John Machell was then “residing” (in debtor’s prison).

2. Mary’s first son was named James (for the King, her husband’s patron); her second son was named Ralph (for her husband’s father), and her third son was named John.

3. John Machell’s wife Ursula had two younger first cousins (surnamed Verney) who were listed in 1610 in Prince Henry’s household – the same Prince Henry that Mary Machell served as “nutrix deligeretur” before her marriage to Ralph Cudworth.

4. Ursula (Hynde) Machell was buried in 1639 at a church in Cambridge, across the street from Emmanuel College, where Mary (Machell) Cudworth’s son Ralph had just become a Fellow.

5. If Mary Machell, who married Rev. Ralph Cudworth at Southwark, London in 1611, was indeed the daughter of John and Ursula (Hynde) Machell, then the other Mary Mashall, who married Rev. James Harington in 1617 at Kingston Bowsey, Suffolk fits naturally as the daughter of Mathew and Mary (Lewknor) Machell.

Regarding points 1 and 5, it was almost universal for the place of marriage to have a family association with the bride (rather than the groom, unless of course the groom was from the same locality as the bride). And regarding point #5, the only conceivable family connection for Mary Mashall in Kingston Bowsey is the “obvious” one – she was the daughter of Mary (Lewknor) Machell who was buried in Kingston Bowsey.

--

The following is presented as speculation: Mary Machell, as she planned to marry Rev. Ralph Cudworth, was devoted to her father, John Machell, and insisted that he be allowed to walk her down the aisle. This meant that the wedding had to be held in Southwark, near his debtor’s prison. This leads to the further speculation that John Machell was not a spendthrift or a scoundrel, but rather that he got cheated and ruined when he purchased the Cambridgeshire estate that led him ultimately to debtors’ prison. (Imagine, for example, the witnesses to the payment for the estate perjuring themselves in league with the seller, so John was never allowed to enter the estate, as the lender demanded repayment of the loan, which couldn’t be serviced without the revenue from the estate.) This leads naturally to the supposition that when Ursula’s brother William Hynde sued John Machell, it wasn’t done as an adversary, but rather as a show of family solidarity, ensuring that half of the Woodbury estate would stay in the family (in Ursula’s name as part of her marriage settlement), as John Machell was slowly ground to pieces by the legal machinery and hounding creditors. And this leads to the further supposition that this story of the ruin of Machell was a well-known travesty of justice, and that Ursula, with family connections in Prince Henry’s household, arranged for her daughter Mary to briefly serve Prince Henry, as a way to bestow a token of honor on a respected family name that had been falsely besmirched. And all of this would serve as an explanation for the statement that John Machell died “worn out with care and grief for his losses.”

commented Jul 17, 2018 by Living Schmeeckle G2G6 Pilot (105k points)
edited Jul 24, 2018 by Living Schmeeckle

Regarding my circumstantial proof of Mary (Machell) Cudworth’s parents, there are three further issues to consider:

(1) How did Bellasis make his error in assigning the parents of Mary (Machell) Cudworth?

(2) How did Douglas Richardson assign “Surrey” (instead of Southwark or London) to Mary (Machell) Cudworth’s place of marriage?

(3) The Mauchell/Maushell baptism records (not giving names of parents) in Hackney, Middlesex.

--

First of all, Edward Bellasis was a well-known genealogist. He served as the Lancaster Herald from 1882-1922, which gave him access to records in the College of Arms. In his Machell of Kendal pedigree chart at the end of “The Machells of Crackenthrorpe” (1886), he routinely cites such records. As mentioned earlier, he placed Mary (Machell) Cudworth as the daughter of Mathew and Mary (Lewknor) Cudworth, WITHOUT ANY SOURCE CITATION. Given his profession, this can only mean one thing: it was a supposition. The basis for his supposition is not hard to find: Mary Machell, wife of Ralph Cudworth had the same name as Mary Lewknor, wife of Mathew Machell.

However, Bellasis did not do much research on this branch of the Machell family. He failed to discover that there was another Mary Machell who married in Kingston Bowsey, for example. He also either failed to solve or declined to note the solution to the question of the parentage of John Machell, Alderman of London (my ancestor): John was a younger son of John Machell of Crackenthorpe by a second wife. (I discuss this at the beginning of Alderman John Machell’s wikitree profile, acknowledging the clues that Bellasis put in his charts.) The Machells of London and Kendal were junior branches of the Crackenthorpe Machell family, and these junior branches simply weren’t the focus of Bellasis’s Machell genealogy.

--

Second, regarding the place of marriage of Mary (Machell) Cudworth. As cited and quoted on the Wikipedia page of Mary’s son Ralph Cudworth, Mary married the elder Ralph in 1611 in St. Mary Newington parish, Southwark. However, Douglas Richardson states that this marriage took place in St. Mary Newington parish, Surrey. And of course Mathew Machell’s son John of Wonersh, the one who left a bequest to Jane Cudworth in 1646/7, lived in Surrey. (Wonersh, Surrey is about 30 miles away from St. Mary Newington.)

If you do a google search for “St. Mary Newington parish,” the first thing that comes up is familysearch’s designation of “Newington St. Mary” as being in Surrey. If you click on that link, you will find that this parish is less than two miles from London; and it shows that ancestry.com (correctly) indicates that St. Mary Newington is actually in Southwark Borough. So… is/was Southwark part of Surrey or part of “Greater London?” Historically, Southwark was a separate “borough” (electing its own representative to Parliament) just across the Thames River from London (and this area was indeed part of Surrey). However, by the late 16^th century at least, Southwark was considered part of "greater" London. For example, Shakespeare’s Globe Theater was in Southwark. Ask yourself: Was the Globe in London, or was it in Surrey?

As it became part of the greater London metropolis, Southwark got a reputation as not altogether respectable. In addition to the Globe theater, Southwark was the home of bull- and bear-baiting shows. Marshalsea Prison and nearby King’s Bench Prison were a mile from both St. Mary Newington (on one side) and London Bridge (on the other side).

In other words, in 1611 Mary Machell married Ralph Cudworth in a church within walking distance of the prison where John Machell (clearly her father) was being held as a debtor.

--

The third point that I wanted to discuss is the Mauchell/Maushell baptism records in Hackney. (to be continued)

commented Jul 24, 2018 by Living Schmeeckle G2G6 Pilot (105k points)

This post, discussing the Hackney baptism records, is the final post in my discussion of the evidence for the parents of Mary (Machell) Stoughton. The proof by circumstantial evidence has already been completed, but these baptism records certainly deserve notice.

The biggest problem with the 16^th-century Mauchell/Manchell/Manshall Hackney baptism records is that they don’t give the parents’ names. In addition, I have not seen the original records, and there is at least one big question about spelling in the online transcripts: the “n” in these transcripts was most likely a “u” in the original records -- and “Mauchell” was indeed a common early spelling of the family name. Other than these Hackney baptisms, there is no “Manchell” at all listed in the International Genealogical Index at any location in England, which reinforces the supposition that “Manchell” should actually read “Mauchell.”

Both John Machell and his younger brother Mathew – sons of John Machell (1502-1556), Alderman of London -- lived in Hackney, Middlesex (apparently their childhood home) for part of their adult lives. John Machell, while living in Hackney, appears in records with both spellings: Machell and Mauchell.

Here is a timeline to help situate the Hackney baptism records:

1546 – baptism of John Machell (in London), eldest son of Alderman John Machell.

About 1548 – birth of Mathew Machell, second son of Alderman John Machell.

By 1568 – marriage of John Machell to first wife Frances Cotton. John would have been just over 21. John and Frances had a son John, born before Frances died in 1574. (This is an important clue to identifying the John “Manshall” baptized in Hackney in 1579/80.)

In 1568 – marriage license of Mathew Machell to Mary Lewknor. Mathew and Mary had four(?) daughters (with no known baptism records), and a son John baptized in 1579/80 (see below). It seems natural to assume that all of the daughters were older than son John – the chronology fits nicely. This suggests the further supposition that John (baptized 1579/80) was Mathew’s youngest child.

21 July 1579: John Machell married his second wife Ursula Hynde at Madingly, Cambridge (residence of the bride).

And then come the Hackney baptisms:

First of all John “Manshall” was baptized 21 Jan. 1579 (which would be 1580 using the modern calendar), per the transcription (or copy of a transcription?) in the International Genealogical Index. This was the only record with this spelling, which is close to the spelling “Mashall” of the 1617 marriage record of Mary Mashall (presumed daughter of Mathew Machell) to Rev. James Harington at Kingston Bowsey, Sussex (home of one of the Lewknor estates).

We know that Mathew’s elder brother John had a son John born before 1574 (when his first wife died), so this 1579/80 John “Manshall” baptism would seem to be the son of Mathew. Furthermore, if this was a son of John Machell and his new wife Ursula, she would have been three months pregnant at their wedding. Finally, we know (per a post by Douglas Richardson at SGM on March 23, 2018) that Mathew Machell’s son John was underage in February 1598/9, and of age in July 1602. This means that Mathew’s son John was born between 1578 and 1581, neatly fitting the “Manshall” baptism in 1579/80.

Next comes a set of Hackney baptisms per the transcriptions in the International Genealogical Index. Once again, I presume that the “n” should actually be a “u.”

Joane “Manchell” (Mar. 9, 1580) -- presumably 1581 in the modern calendar.

Lettis “Manchell” (May 22, 1583)

Mary “Manchell” (May 15, 1584)

Martha “Manchell” (Dec. 25, 1585)

Robert “Manchell” (Oct. 7, 1587)

Anne and Ursuley “Manchell” (twins)(30 Oct. 1590)

The first of these baptisms occurs 18 months after the marriage of John Machell to Ursula Hynde. Then, all of these baptisms are spaced to have been the children of a single set of parents. (The one-year-gap between Lettis (1583) and Mary (1584) suggests that Lettis died shortly after childbirth, and her mother was pregnant three months later.) And of course the unusual name “Ursuley” suggests that Ursula (Hynde) Machell, wife of John, was the mother.

There is a final Hackney baptism record. According to Adrienne Boaz’s 2014 “Specific Ancestral Lines” (p. 481), “In the original register (not the transcripts) for St. John’s Church of Hackney, Dr. Plunkett also identified a record of the baptism of Judith Manchell (or Mauchell) in April 1592.”

The supposition here is that Mary “Manchell” baptized in 1584 was the daughter of John and Ursula (Hynde) Machell, and this would be the same person as Mary Machell who married Rev. Ralph Cudworth in 1611. But once again, this discussion of the baptism records is not meant to be conclusive, and the proof of Mary (Machell) Cudworth’s parentage does not depend on the baptism records.

I think that John Machell and Ursula Hynde should be reattached as the parents, in Mary (Machell) Cudworth's wikitree profile.

commented Jul 26, 2018 by Living Schmeeckle G2G6 Pilot (105k points)

Liz, your position seems to be problematic in three separate ways.

1. The parents of Mary Cudworth have already been detached, because it is crystal clear and beyond dispute that Richardson lacks any primary source or any circumstantial argument derived from primary sources for his mistaken parentage of Mary (Machell) Cudworth. It seems to me that, because Richardson's lineage has been cut, this question of Mary's parents now falls outside the scope of the Magna Carta Project. Who decides that?

2. Your interpretation of the current verbiage in the policy of the Magna Carta Project seems to simply place a proof by circumstantial evidence out of bounds. Is it your position that my proof of Mary's parents is not worth serious consideration? So far, you have not engaged with this proof, which uses multiple primary sources. You simply invoke a "rule" that perhaps is defectively written. Are you open to the possibility that the wording of the project policy that you quoted (which is not a general wikitree policy) should be changed? Who decides how the wording of a project policy should be interpreted, when the current leader isn't the person who wrote the policy? I was a founding co-leader of the Magna Carta Project, and I have a Master's degree in History, and I have been doing genealogical research for over 40 years. Shouldn't my proof of Mary's actual parents deserve some discussion and consideration?

3. Regarding consensus, currently NOBODY, either here or at SGM, supports Richardson's false parentage of Mary (Machell) Cudworth. When I exposed Richardson's multiple errors (over at SGM at the beginning of May), others responded with an open discussion of Richardson's habitual refusal to acknowledge his mistakes. There aren't "two opposing theories," because Richardson's supposition regarding Mary's parents doesn't qualify as a theory (theories have to have supporting evidence), and there is zero support among experienced genealogists (eithere here or at SGM) for Richardson's error.

Over the past few weeks, I have provided a step-by-step proof by circumstantial evidence, complete with a detailed explanation of what such a proof is. I gave several examples of proofs by circumstantial evidence. Did you find any of those examples unconvincing?

commented Jul 31, 2018 by Living Schmeeckle G2G6 Pilot (105k points)

Answer 1 · 2018-02-27T07:18:02+0000

I agree that this is a question best asked in SGM.

While the parentage of Mary Machell may not be 100% certain, I do not think Adrienne Boaz's theory is any more likely and is actually much less likely than that found in Royal Ancestry.

The primary evidence that Mary (Machell) (Chudworth) Stoughton was a daughter of Matthew Machell and Mary Lewknor is the 1646 will of John Machell (son of Matthew) in which he gives a very large bequest of £125 to his "cousin" Jane Cudworth on her marriage. Richardson's interpretation was this was to his niece, daughter of Mary Machell/Ralph Cudworth.

Boaz's suggestion is that Mary could be a daughter of Matthew's brother John. However, I don't see any evidence of this. It just seems idle speculation. Contrary to what Mary Machell's profile says, the Visitations do not give John Machell a daughter Mary. If this was true, then the will of John Machell was giving £125 to a first cousin once-removed in distant Cambridgeshire rather than a niece in his own county of Surrey.

The Visitations also do not give Matthew Machell a daughter Mary. However, it needs to be noted that the person giving the Visitation was John Machell of Woodbury (grandson of John). If Mary was a daughter of John, then he failed to name his own aunt despite naming others. If Mary was a daughter of Matthew, then he failed to name a distant cousin.

To me, while not completely satisfactorily proven, Richardson's theory is still more likely and the line is not worth breaking based on what was presented by Adrienne Boaz in his Specific Ancestral Lines...

answered Feb 27, 2018 by Joe Cochoit G2G6 Pilot (258k points)

Joe, in answer to your post:

1. I don't think that this question should be discussed in SGM (the "gen-medieval" google group) because (a) SGM has failed to deal competently with this issue in the past, and (b) my point that Mary Machell's alleged mother Mary Lewknor doesn't meet WikiTree standards, even for "uncertain" parents, has nothing to do with SGM.

2. You state: "The primary evidence that Mary (Machell) (Chudworth) Stoughton was a daughter of Matthew Machell and Mary Lewknor is the 1646 will of John Machell (son of Matthew) in which he gives a very large bequest of £125 to his "cousin" Jane Cudworth on her marriage. Richardson's interpretation was this was to his niece, daughter of Mary Machell/Ralph Cudworth."

In response, perhaps instead of "primary evidence" we could say "the only scrap of pretended evidence." Richardson gives no other evidence whatsoever to support Mary Lewknor as the mother of Mary Machell. Richardson's "interpretation" of the will of John Machell to reach his conclusion about Mary's mother involves two leaps of faith that don't meet WikiTree's standards for "uncertain" parents, which don't allow guessing. First is the groundless assumption that Mary (Machell) Cudworth was the daughter of Matthew Machell and not his brother John. (For a plausible counter-argument, see point #3 below.) Richardson's second leap of faith involves the will to believe that Mary Machell (who married in 1611, therefore probably born in the 1580s or 1590s) was the daughter of a woman (Mary Lewknor) who married the elder John Machell in 1568. We have no idea when Mary Lewknor died. However, Richardson actually lists a source, Walker's Yorkshire Pedigrees, pp. 279-80, stating (as Richardson summarizes) that Matthew Machell married --- Cotton. For whatever it's worth, that old version of Burke's Landed Gentry (which Richardson also cites) likewise states that Matthew Machell married a Miss Cotton, who was allegedly the mother of his son John (the one who wrote the will mentioning Jane Cudworth). Burke's also mentions Matthew's "second" wife Mary Lewknor, who is given as the mother of Matthew's son John in the 1634 Buckingham Visitation. Clearly there is some lack of clarity here. Once again, even if Mary (Machell) Cudworth was the daughter of Matthew Machell, John Machell's will (Richardson's only "source") gives no indication whatsoever regarding which of Matthew Machell's wives was the mother of Mary (Machell) Cudworth. If I am not mistaken, Richardson actually avoids mentioning Matthew Machell's "Cotton" wife altogether, which would seem to be a significant mis-step as Richardson blithely assumes that Mary Lewknor was the mother of all of Matthew Machell's children. As I see things, Richardson's guess about Mary's mother isn't up to WikiTree's standards, and that is the critical issue here (see point #4 below).

3. You write, "Boaz's suggestion is that Mary could be a daughter of Matthew's brother John. However, I don't see any evidence of this. It just seems idle speculation."

In response, you may have skimmed Boaz too hastily. Summarizing Boaz here:
--John Machell married his second wife Ursula Hynd on June 29, 1579 at Madingly, Cambridgeshire.
--Then the following Manchell/Mauchell children (no parents' names) were baptized at St. John's, Hackney, London:
1) Joane (Mar. 9, 1580) -- perhaps 1581 Gregorian
2) Lettis (May 22, 1583)
3) Mary (May 15, 1584)
4) Martha (Dec. 25, 1585)
5) Robert (Oct. 7, 1587)
6) Anne and Ursuley (twins)(30 Oct. 1590)
7) Judith (Apr. 1592)

So here is the baptism of a Mary Ma(u/n)chell in London, of fitting age to have been the nurse/governess of King James's eldest son before marrying Dr. Ralph Cudworth (alleged to have been King James's personal chaplain) in 1611, as part of a series of baptisms that includes the name Ursula, which was the name of John Machell's second wife, whom John married just before the beginning of the string of baptisms. Ursula Hynd seems to be as (if not more) likely a mother for Mary (Machell) Cudworth than Mary Lewknor. WikiTree procedure, when there are two plausible possibilities for somebody's mother, is to not show any mother at all in the data field and add a paragraph to the text explaining the issue. Is there any reason not to do that here?

4. Back when I co-founded WikiTree's Magna Carta Project, I agreed that the Project would follow Richardson because Richardson listed primary sources for every link in a lineage, which meant that we could always go and double-check Richardson's sources and make changes if appropriate. I never thought of Richardson as being akin to holy scripture, but rather a short-cut to reliable sources that could be used to verify his work. In this particular case, Richardson's sources don't support his conclusion about the mother of Mary (Machell) Cudworth, which means that Mary's parents should be detached (and perhaps replaced by John Machell and Ursula Hynd).

commented Mar 1, 2018 by Living Schmeeckle G2G6 Pilot (105k points)

It's separate from the parentage, but the bit about her being nurse to Henry Prince of Wales just doesn't add up.

Henry, the eldest son of James VI/I was born in 1594, so Mary can't have been his wet nurse, if she was born in 1584. He was born in Scotland and lived there until his father became King of England in 1603, so again it is unlikely she was a governess when he was a child, and I'm not even sure governesses existed then, it was mostly male tutors.

Unless she was employed as a 'nurse' during other childhood illnesses, after he arrived in England or during his last illness, though again it would have been male doctors who treated him, though perhaps there was a female attendant who did other duties?

It would be interesting to know where the statement that she was a nurse originated?

commented Mar 1, 2018 by John Atkinson G2G6 Pilot (618k points)

The nurse story then may actually be of some importance. The report on the Marchell family by Edward Bellasis Lancastrian Herald, also states that Mary Marchell, daughter of Matthew Marchell, was nurse to ‘Prince Henry s. of James I.’ This may be the original source of this statement.

Bellasis, E., 1886, 'Machell of Crackenthorpe' in Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society Vol. 8 (1886): 416-463. See chart image 61 of 63.

The brother John Marchell was born in 1546, and as you show married as second wife in 1579 and had a daughter Mary born in 1584. This Mary cannot be the nurse to Prince Henry.

The dates (that I have immediately handy) are not as precise for Matthew, but if he was born say 1548 (as second son with an older brother born in 1546), married say 1570, he easily could have had a daughter Mary born in time to be a nurse to a child born in 1594.

commented Mar 3, 2018 by Joe Cochoit G2G6 Pilot (258k points)

I will reply to comments by both Joe Cochoit and David Draybold. First of all, let us imagine "a daughter Mary born in time to be a nurse to a child born in 1594." This means that Mary Machell was born by 1580 at the latest and probably several years earlier, and then she somehow found her way north of the border to Stirling Castle by 1594, where baby Prince Henry sucked on the young maiden's breasts, which magically produced milk.

A wet nurse is a woman who has recently had a child, who is still lactating. The unmarried Mary Machell could not have been a wet nurse to Prince Henry, apart from the unlikely notion that Mary somehow left England and made her way north to care for the infant heir to the Scottish throne.

Far more plausible to suppose that Mary Machell, a young adult of say 20 years (born *ahem* 1584) and daughter of a minor official in the royal household, was chosen in 1604 to help educate the young Prince Henry, newly arrived in London with his father's accession to the English throne, in the ways of English courtiers.

Regarding Margaret Wroth as a witness to the will of Rev. Ralph Cudworth, that would be Margaret (Rich)(Bowdler) Wroth, a first cousin of Rev. Ralph Cudworth's wife Mary Machell. Margaret (Rich)(Bowdler) Wroth was the daughter of my ancestors Richard Rich and Jane Machell. Jane was the sister of the two brothers John and Matthew Machell, and thus the aunt of Mary (Machell) Cudworth, no matter which brother was Mary's father.

Margaret Wroth's husband Thomas Wroth was the grandson of Mary (Rich) Wroth, great-aunt of Margaret, and a daughter of the notorious Richard, 1st Baron Rich. This baron's grandson Robert, 3rd Baron Rich, was the patron of both Rev. Ralph Cudworth and Rev. John Stoughton, who married Cudworth's widow Mary Machell, who had several connections to the Rich family including Margaret (Rich) Wroth. Thomas Wroth, husband of Margaret (Rich) Wroth, was also the nephew of Dorothy (Wroth) Lewknor, mother of Mary Lewknor, the wife of Matthew Machell.

commented Mar 3, 2018 by Living Schmeeckle G2G6 Pilot (105k points)
edited Mar 4, 2018 by Living Schmeeckle

Good call on the Wrothe reference, John (S). That is quite convincing.

No doubt that we are not talking about a "wet nurse". I like John A's "female attendant". OK, so we have Mary Machell's age bracketed by the birth of Ralph Jr (1617) (so she had to be born after, say, 1575), she was born after her parents are married (Mary L and Matthew married in 1568). I don't see the chronology problem, since the "nurse" stuff must have happened after the accession (I suppose). Nor does it eliminate the other Mary M, I admit.

Not sure I agree with the "minor official" point. I think the associates of Henry would have been chosen with great care. One gets some impression of his early life from his Wikipedia entry: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Frederick,_Prince_of_Wales As I read it, I can see that it was a great misfortune that he died, given the career of his younger brother Charles!

It would be good to find an earlier reference than Bellasis, so far I have not been able to. It might be worth discussing this with Richardson to see if we understand all of his references. Frankly I still find the "cousen Jane" argument pretty convincing, but indeed it does not constitute proof.

commented Mar 4, 2018 by David Drabold G2G Crew (910 points)

I can actually see Mary Machell's biography from Richardson's Plantagenet Ancestry, 2nd ed., pp. 473-474 on Google Books, and he is quoting Chalmers General Biographical Dictionary, 1813, from bio of her son Ralph Cudworth the younger where it states "his mother was of the family of Machell, and had been nurse to prince Henry, eldest son of James I" The actual biography is here

I also came across a biography of Henry Frederick, Prince of Wales, and he was obviously a cultured well-educated Prince, and definitely not the uncouth Scottish yokel in need of some refinement once he came to England.

There is a list of his servants, perhaps from a later period than when he first arrived and there is no Mary Machell listed, in fact it's an all male household.

If she was his nurse, then maybe she was sent to Scotland when he was a child, in the care of the Countess of Mar? It was a touchy time, it seemed obvious that James was the most likely successor to Elizabeth I but she certainly wasn't encouraging any of her courtiers to have anything to do with him. Perhaps someone thought sending a young girl to act as baby sitter rather than wet nurse, who wasn't directly related to them might be both overlooked by Elizabeth, but still curry favour with James? A bit far fetched I know, but I think it's either something like that or it didn't happen. Again finding something like a primary source would be good or at least something earlier than 1813.

commented Mar 4, 2018 by John Atkinson G2G6 Pilot (618k points)

Okay, now we're getting somewhere...

Thomas Birch's introduction to Cudworth follows the introduction to Johann Lorentz Mosheim's Latin translation of Cudworth's works, first published in Leiden in 1733. (The online google edition is from 1773, page xxvi.) Moheim described Mary Machell as Prince Henry's "nutrix deligeretur." Nutrix means nurse, and deligeretur is the third-person singular imperfect passive subjunctive form of a verb (deligo) that can mean "bind" or "bandage." So presumably Mary was in charge of first aid, patching up the adolescent prince when he got knocked off his horse or got bonked on the side of the head with a wooden sword. With this particular choice of verb, Moheim could have been evoking a similar-sounding verb, diligo, which means respect or esteem (that is, the respected nurse).

David Drabold linked to the infogalactic page on Ralph Cudworth, son of Mary Machell, at https://infogalactic.com/info/Ralph_Cudworth#cite_note-5 This page identifies Mary Machell as being "of Hackney," in a sentence with the following footnote:

" Edward Bellasis (Lancaster Herald), "The Machells of Crackenthorpe," Trans. Cumberland and Westmorland Antiqu. and Arch. Soc., (Kendall 1886), 416-66, Chart 2. See A. Chalmers (Ed.), 'Cudworth' article, in General Biographical Dictionary (Revised and Enlarged edition), 1813, Vol. XI, pp. 104-111, at p. 105; 'Inquiries after Samuel Jones' in Original Communications, Gentleman's Magazine, Vol XCVIII Part 1, p. 388 (May 1828). The nursing of Prince Henry is mentioned in Thomas Birch's Account (by 1744), which cites Mosheim's (1733) preface as authority for it (J.L. Mosheim, Radulphi Cudworthi systema intellectualis hujus universi, 2 Vols (Jena 1733), reprinted Leiden 1773)."

It would appear that somewhere in the sources behind that mass of verbiage is a reference to Hackney as Mary's place of origin.

Mary Machell's grandfather John Machell, who was identified as a London alderman in a lawsuit involving his two sons (see below), bought a country home at Hackney in 1551, per 'Hackney: Homerton and Hackney Wick', in A History of the County of Middlesex: Volume 10, Hackney, ed. T F T Baker (London, 1995), pp. 51-59. British History Online http://www.british-history.ac.uk/vch/middx/vol10/pp51-59 [accessed 5 March 2018].

Adrienne Boaz (p. 481) shows that John Machell's son John appears in Hackney records "from at least 1571 until the year 1594." This is the John Machell who married (1) Frances Cotton and who married (2) Ursula Hynd in 1579.

Once again, John Machell and Ursula Hynd are the presumed parents of the following list of Mauchell children who appear in the Hackney parish register without the parents being named:

St. John's, Hackney, London:
1) Joane (Mar. 9, 1580) -- perhaps 1581 Gregorian
2) Lettis (May 22, 1583)
3) Mary (May 15, 1584)
4) Martha (Dec. 25, 1585)
5) Robert (Oct. 7, 1587)
6) Anne and Ursuley (twins)(30 Oct. 1590)
7) Judith (Apr. 1592)

Once again, the available evidence seems to lean toward the supposition that Mary Machell, wife of Ralph Cudworth, was the daughter of John Machell of Hackney and his second wife Ursula Hynd.

However, Douglas Richardson identifies John's brother Matthew Machell as being of "Shacklewell" in Hackney. What is the source for this? Matthew seems to be generally identified with Hatfield, Hertfordshire (as per Burke's Landed Gentry). And this brings us to the following lawsuit between brothers John and Matthew Machell, sometime between 1587 and 1591, per the National Archives:

Short title: Machell v Machell.

Plaintiffs: John Machell, esq of Hackney, Middlesex (son of John Machell, citizen and Alderman of London and Jone Machell his wife).

Defendants: Matthew Machell.

Subject: manors of Guilden Sutton, Cheshire; and Burneside [Burnside],Westmorland; and property in Wood Street, St Peter Westcheap and elsewhere in London; Tottenham, Middlesex; Hatfield, Hertfordshire; Hinton Admiral, Hampshire and Dorset; Sandbach, Holmes Chapel and Goostrey, Cheshire;.

Document type: Bill and answer.

--

There is no "Shacklewell" in Hackney on this property list, and it makes sense that John, as his father's eldest son, would inherit the elder John Machell's residence in Hackney.

QUESTIONS: Did Matthew Machell later purchase a property named Shacklewell in his childhood home of Hackney? What is Richardson's source for identifying Matthew with Shacklewell? What is the source for the earlier-noted claim that Mary (Machell) Cudworth was from Hackney? How was Matthew Machell's "Cotton" wife related to his brother John's wife Frances Cotton? Was Matthew Machell's "Cotton" wife his first wife or his second wife? Was she the mother of some of his children?

commented Mar 5, 2018 by Living Schmeeckle G2G6 Pilot (105k points)

To answer some of my earlier questions: "Shacklewell" is the name of a neighborhood in the parish of Hackney. Mathew Machell may have lived there at one time, but there doesn't seem to be any contemporary reference. Burke's Landed Gentry claims that Mathew Machell's first wife was a Cotton, and mother of his son John. If this is accurate, then a chronology of Mathew's life would go something like this:
1547 (elder brother John b. 1545): Mathew is born.
1566/7: Mathew marries ---- Cotton.
1567/8: Mathew's son John is born and the mother dies in childbirth or shortly afterward.
July 1568: Mathew Machell marries second wife Mary Lewknor, one of five orphaned daughters of a man who died in the Tower of London, attainted for treason. (The attainder was later reversed, allowing the Lewknors to hold on to their estate in Kingston Bowsey, Sussex.)
1570s and 1580s(?): Mathew and Mary have several children, including at least three surviving daughters. No baptism records known.
Late 1580s: Mathew Machell goes to court in an unsuccessful effort to wrest away some of his brother's inheritance.
1593: Mathew Machell dies. Apparently he owns little or no land.
1599: Mathew's son John marries Jane Woodruff in Seale, Surrey. Jane was 27; her father, a former Mayor of London, had died the year before. John apparently passed his life in Seale, Surrey, further suggesting that he received no land from his father. This is the John Machell who would later, in his 1647 will, leave a sizable bequest for his "kinswoman" or "cosen" Jane Cudworth
1604: Mathew's widow Mary is buried at the family estate in Kingston Bowsey, Sussex.
1608: Mathew and Mary's daughter Elizabeth marries John Cave in Denham, Suffolk, the same parish where Elizabeth's aunt Hester Lewknor married Robert Quarles in 1601.
1617: Apparently the "Marie Mashall" of Kingston Bowsey who married Rev. James Harrington was a spinster daughter of Mathew and Mary (Lewknor) Machell.

commented Apr 29, 2018 by Living Schmeeckle G2G6 Pilot (105k points)

Answer 2 · 2018-02-27T21:34:41+0000

I could see sections of Adrienne Boaz's book on Google Books and she appears to rely on the research of a Dr Steven Plunkett for the sections on the Machell family but the pages that listed exactly what work of his she is citing I couldn't see.

I presume this Steven Plunkett is the same person who provided Douglas Richardson with the source confirming the marriage of Ralph Cudworth and Mary Machell. See here.

It might be worth trying to find out what he has written?

Adrienne Boaz has asked about this family on SGM back in 2012 but a reference to research by Paul Reed in a wiki or article doesn't seem to have ever eventuated.

Answer 3 · 2018-03-02T15:12:43+0000

Thank you David for this reference. The article was written by Edward Bellasis, Lancaster Herald. He was working from the Machell family papers held at Crackenthorpe Hall which date back to the 12th century. The more complete reference:

Bellasis, E., 'Machell of Crackenthorpe' in Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society Vol. 8 (1886): p. 416-466.

The online copy you gave was a reprint of this article. A better copy is here and at HathiTrust here but both appear to be missing the chart referred to on image 61 of 63.

As you note, Bellasis makes Mary Machell a daughter of Mathew Machell by Mary Lewknor. It also states she was a nurse to Prince Henry (not possible if she was a daughter of his brother John), and that she married 1st Rev. Ralph Cudworth DD chaplin to James I and 2nd Dr. Stoughton an eminent preacher.

commented Mar 3, 2018 by Joe Cochoit G2G6 Pilot (258k points)

David, I found it interesting and I agree does show some degree of connection of Ralph Chudworth to the Wrothes. The will is very short and essentially says 'being sick of body and sound of mind I give everything to my dear and loving wife Mary.' I will also say that I don't know who this Margaret Wrothe is, so it is impossible to make any definitive statements as to their relationship.

John, it is a fair point. It is clear that the article was written using a wide range of materials including the family records, the visitations, materials held at the college of arms, parish records, other secondary sources, etc. As far as I can tell, that chart is the only place Mary wife of Ralph Cudworth is mentioned. It supports Richardson's view but does not prove it.

commented Mar 3, 2018 by Joe Cochoit G2G6 Pilot (258k points)

Matt_D · Answer 4 · 2018-03-10T20:40:10+0000

For whatever it's worth, I am ready to detach Mary (Lewknor) Machell as the mother of Mary (Machell) Cudworth. Others may want more time to go over all this, so I'm not in a hurry, but I'll detail my reasoning as follows:

1. There is no primary source evidence naming the mother of Mary (Machell) Cudworth.

2. There appears to be no SECONDARY source evidence naming the mother of Mary (Machell) Cudworth for 300 years or so after Mary's birth.

3. The first source that I have seen mentioning Mary (Machell) Cudworth's mother is the pedigree chart at the end of "The Machells of Crackenthorpe" by Edward Bellasis (1886). Bellasis was the "Lancaster Herald," so genealogy was clearly part of his official business. Unfortunately, for this particular connection -- the parentage of Mary Machell Cudworth -- Bellasis doesn't list any sources.

4. Bellasis DOES indicate that Mary (Machell) Cudworth's alleged father had two wives, and that sources disagree about which which wife was the mother of Matthew Machell's children.

5. Douglas Richardson's books claim that Mary (Lewknor) Machell was the mother of Mary (Machell) Cudworth. Richardson provides no primary source evidence for this supposition, but he DOES mention Bellasis's work. However, Richardson doesn't acknowledge that Matthew Machell appears to have had two wives. Richardson does not mention Bellasis's comment about disagreement over which wife was the mother of Matthew Machell's children.

CONCLUSION: Because of this clearly-noted disagreement concerning the mother of Matthew Machell's children, combined with the total lack of primary source indicating that Mary was indeed one of Matthew's children (as opposed to the daughter of Matthew's brother John, who appears to have had a daughter Mary -- see below), we don't know who was the mother of Mary (Machell) Cudworth, and Mary (Lewknor) Machell should be detached as Mary's mother.

FURTHER DISCUSSION:

6. Richardson does mention the will of Matthew Machell's son John Machell of Tangley, which mentions Jane Cudworth as his "cosen" and "kinswoman." This would appear to be Jane, daughter of Mary (Machell) Cudworth by her second husband John Stoughton. Stoughton was of a lower social class, so Mary would have kept her widowed name (Cudworth) after marrying him, and her daughter would take her name (Cudworth), if the prevailing custom of earlier centuries still held in the early 17th century.

From this mention of Jane Cudworth in John Machell of Tangley's will, we can conclude that Jane's mother Mary was either John's sister (if Mary was a daughter of Matthew) or Mary's first cousin (if Mary was a daughter of Matthew's brother John Machell of Hackney).

It might be tempting to jump to the conclusion that "Jane Cudworth" must have been the niece of John Machell of Tangley, and not his first cousin once removed. But we should keep in mind that the Machells were part of a kinship network that included the Wroths and the Riches, so Jane Cudworth was part of this network whatever her precise relationship to John Machell.

For example, Margaret Wrothe, who witnessed Rev. Ralph Cudworth's will, was Margaret (Rich)(Bowdler) Wroth, a first cousin of Rev. Ralph Cudworth's wife Mary Machell. Margaret (Rich)(Bowdler) Wroth was the daughter of Richard Rich and Jane Machell. Jane was the sister of the two brothers John and Matthew Machell, and thus the aunt of Mary (Machell) Cudworth, no matter which brother was Mary's father. Margaret Wroth's second husband Thomas Wroth was the nephew of Dorothy (Wroth) Lewknor, mother of Mary Lewknor, one of the wives of Matthew Machell.

Thomas Wroth was also the grandson of Mary (Rich) Wroth, great-aunt of Margaret, and a daughter of the notorious Richard, 1st Baron Rich. This baron's grandson Robert, 3rd Baron Rich, was the patron of both Rev. Ralph Cudworth and Rev. John Stoughton, who married Cudworth's widow Mary Machell.

7. Mary (Machell) Cudworth could well be the Mary Mauchell baptized in 1584 at St. Johns, Hackney, apparently the daughter of Matthew Machell's brother John. This was discussed in Adrienne Boaz's Specific Ancestral Lines of the Boaz, Paul, Welty & Fishel Families (2014), p. 480 and following:

John Machell married his second wife Ursula Hynd on June 29, 1579 at Madingly, Cambridgeshire Then the following Manchell/Mauchell children (no parents' names) were baptized at St. John's, Hackney, London:
1) Joane (Mar. 9, 1580) -- perhaps 1581 Gregorian
2) Lettis (May 22, 1583)
3) Mary (May 15, 1584)
4) Martha (Dec. 25, 1585)
5) Robert (Oct. 7, 1587)
6) Anne and Ursuley (twins)(30 Oct. 1590)
7) Judith (Apr. 1592)

CONCLUSION: There is a plausible argument that Mary (Machell) Cudworth was the daughter of not Matthew Machell but rather Matthew's brother John of Hackney, so Matthew Machell should be detached as Mary (Machell) Cudworth's father.

EDIT: Per the earlier suggestions of Joe Cochoit and Liz Shifflett, I posted the above post in a new thread at the gen-medieval (SGM) website, at https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/soc.genealogy.medieval/5oEUwaUUZBI

answered Mar 10, 2018 by Living Schmeeckle G2G6 Pilot (105k points)
edited Mar 10, 2018 by Living Schmeeckle

A couple further points:

Regarding the origin of this branch of the Machell family (which I am slowly adding to their profiles):

1. A pedigree appended to Bellasis's "The Machells of Crackenthorpe" (1886) shows this family (starting with John Machell and wife --- Leybourne) as the "Machells of Kendall, etc.," without directly linking them to the Crackenthorpe Machells.

2. John Machell's Leybourne wife was presumably a daughter of Thomas Leybourne of Cunswick, Westmorland. John Machell's son John, the London alderman (who named his second son Thomas), bought Burneside, near Cunswick, in 1551. Thomas Leybourne, according to Nicolson's "The history and antiquities of the counties of Westmorland and Cumberland," p. 144, was the grandson of Katherine Bellingham, daughter of Henry of Burnshead (Burneside).

The Bellinghams sold Burneside in the 1530s, so it appears that in 1551 John Machell was buying back his mother's mother's family property. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burneside_Hall

3. Bellasis's "Machell of Kendal" pedigree quotes a 1551 letter from Harry Machell of Crackenthorpe to "his singular and especial good Brother John M., dwelling in Fleet St., &c." So here is a clear connection of the Kendall Machells to Crackenthorpe. But who is this Harry Machell?

4. Bellasis shows, in his pedigree of the Machells of Crackenthorpe, a Rev. Henry Machell whose brother Hugh witnessed his (apparently undated) inventory. This Henry Machell mediated a dispute involving Guy Machell in 1515. The pedigree does not link these two brothers to the rest the family; it apparently places them in the wrong generation. However,

Guy and Hugh Machell were the joint lords of Crackenthorpe in the early 16th century.

To summarize, John Machell the London alderman, son of John Machell by --- Leybourne, had a brother "Harry" (Henry). Rev. Henry Machell had a brother Hugh. Hugh Machell and his brother Guy were sons of John Machell of Crackenthorpe, who must have been the father of both Rev. Henry and his brother John the London alderman.
--

A separate issue, regarding the supposition that the "cosen Jane Cudworth" mentioned in John Machell's will was a daughter of Ralph and Mary (Machell) Cudworth:

If "cousin Jane Cudworth" was the daughter of Ralph and Mary (Machell) Cudworth -- well when was she born? Her parents were married in 1611, and there isn't much room, without a tight squeeze, for the birth of a daughter Jane before 1620 (Mary's last known child Mary seems to have been born around 1619, but perhaps that's just somebody's guesstimate). This would make it appear that Mary Machell had a daughter Jane by her second husband John Stoughton when she already had a young daughter Jane by her first husband Ralph Cudworth.

This seems very unlikely, which inclines me to look "outside the box" for overlooked possibilities. I have seen two cases of non-noble families in the 15th century where a daughter takes the name of her mother, who was clearly of a "better" family than the father. (I apologize for not having an example ready at hand.) Perhaps such a custom could have lasted into the early 17th century. In the case of Mary Cudworth and John Stoughton, not only was Stoughton a step lower socially, he was also several years younger than his wife, the widow of a prominent man. We can imagine mother and daughter sharing a sense of elevated status with the mother's kinsman John Machell, who uses their privately preferred "Cudworth" surname in his will, even if others would have used "Stoughton." (Maybe his using "Cudworth" reflected a private little joke, or a light put-down of Aunt Mary's second husband.) Once again, I'm trying to think outside the box, to get around the problem of Mary Machell having two daughters named Jane.

commented Mar 14, 2018 by Living Schmeeckle G2G6 Pilot (105k points)

How could Mary Machell have become the "first aid nurse" to Prince Henry? Her alleged father Matthew Machell had no known connections to the royal household. Matthew's elder brother John Machell, on the other hand, was a cavalry officer whom Bellasis described as the "Master of the Horse" under Queen Elizabeth. This presumably means that he fulfilled the responsibilities of the office as the deputy of the nobleman who actually held the title, as was common practice. If Mary's father was a cavalier, then it is easy to imagine Mary learning to help her mother deal with her father's occasional scraps, cuts and bruises.

Furthermore, the uncle of John Machell's second wife Ursula Hynde, Francis Verney, became the falconer to Prince Henry. Here is a clear and logical family connection to the royal household, indicating that Mary was the daughter of John Machell, and not his brother Matthew. For Francis Verney as Prince Henry's falconer, see the Dictionary of National Biography, ed. Sidney Lee, vol. LVIII, p. 260 and also the Wikipedia article on Ursula Hynde's father Francis Hynde.

I have gone ahead and changed Mary's parentage, showing her as the daughter of John Machell by his second wife Ursula Hynde.

commented Mar 17, 2018 by Living Schmeeckle G2G6 Pilot (105k points)

Hello John - I have been watching the unfolding disintegration of the Cudworth to Lewknor lineage with fascination. Believe it or not, this week I was in the process of building my own family tree that connects with James Cudworth, who had been identified as a "gateway ancestor," when I decided to check soc.medieval.genealogy to ensure that he was still in good standing. Imagine my dismay when the supposed Edward I lineage was dismantled before my eyes. Your rebuttal to Mr. Richardson was what convinced me that James is almost certainly not a descendant of the Mary Lewknor.

There is a consolation prize in Ursula Hynde, who is clearly a descendant of several Magna Carta barons - including the ringleader, Robert FitzWalter. However, I have noticed that you have not mentioned that she must also be a descendant of King Henry II. Isn't it the case that, through the Verney, Iwardby, and Missenden families, she is a descendant of John de Grey K.G. (1300-1359), who in turn is descended from King Henry through his illegitimate son William Longspee? Or is that linkage also under scrutiny? (I know there is some dispute regarding the number of generations between John de Grey and William Longspee - some would argue that the Ida Longspee who married Walter FitzRobert was the daughter of William I Longspee, while others argue she was his granddaughter - but no one seems to dispute that she is a descendant of William I and hence a descendant of Henry II.)

commented Mar 30, 2018 by Matt_D

Hi Paulo - I did some more searching and found that in Plantagenet Ancestry, 2nd edition (2011), Douglas Richardson does list Joan who married Richard Champernon as a daughter of Earl Richard. I reviewed some of the sources he listed and am now fairly confident in this portion of the lineage.

I am actually more skeptical of a different person in the lineage: Oliver Champernon (1290- bef. 1346), who married Eglina Valletort. In older sources he is listed as a son of John Champernon (c 1273-1335), son of William Champernon (c1234-1304). However, Ronny Bodine in 1999 posited that Oliver was in fact a son of Richard Champernon and Joan of Cornwall. His reasoning is explained in the WikiTree entry for Oliver (https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Champernoun-27). It seems plausible but I am not aware of any other direct support for this view. Moreover, I am not certain that John Champernon having been a cleric during the period 1309-1335 implies that he could not have fathered a son -- perhaps out of wedlock in his late teen years -- prior to taking holy orders.

Matt

commented Apr 4, 2018 by Matt_D

Paulo, I am going to reproduce here our recent exchange (April 25) on that SGM thread:

Paulo Canedo wrote: "I, simply, think there is currently no way to absolutely prove Mary's parentage one way or the other. I, also, think it's unfair to show a parentage when there is an alternative that is also supported."

I replied: "Paulo, there are two questions here. First of all, what are the relevant sources and how do you interpret them? You have never given detailed reasoning to support your decision to follow Richardson's conclusion. Second is the question of how to do things at WikiTree.
In this case, because there was extended discussion at WikiTree before the change was made, the correct procedure is to engage with that discussion and not make any unilateral changes unless it is clear that the consensus has shifted in your direction. My personal view is that there is convincing circumstantial evidence pointing toward John Machell and wife Ursula Hynde (and John's brother Mathew and wife Mary Lewknor) as the parents of Mary (Machell) Cudworth. The snippets of evidence include (1) a baptism record for Mary Machell in Hackney, Middlesex; (2) the fact that two first cousins of Ursula Hynde were in the household of Prince Henry, whom Mary Machell also served; and (3) the fact that Ursula Hynde moved to Cambridge (where Ralph Cudworth lived) shortly before her death. All three of those snippets admittedly require further discussion to explain why they point to John and not Mathew Machell as Mary's father. If you want to present a strong enough counter-argument to detach the parents on Mary's wikitree profile, you should engage with all three points, and also you have to provide discussion of whatever snippet of evidence you choose to use as support of your conclusion that Mathew was Mary's father. (That would be, most likely, the will of Mathew's son John; but perhaps you also have something else in mind.)"

Paulo replied: Dear John, to be clear I have not concluded Mary's father to doubtless be Matthew. I simply consider that to be more/most likely possibility. I think that Wikitree should show no parents for her and inclue a discussion of her parentage, showing the points for and against each theory. It's the best idea in my opinion. As for the points you raised: (1) The baptism record does not mention her parents and, as said previously in the thread, Matthew also lived in that area so it may have been his child, instead. (2) Mary Lewknor's family also had connections to the royal court and (3) As it was already mentioned in the thread, Ursula was estranged from her husband John and her family, already, had lands in Cambridge so it might not mean anything.

I replied, answering point by point:

If you continue to hold that opinion, you may want to consider sharing your thoughts on WikiTree's Cudworth/Machell thread

>As for the points you raised: (1) The baptism record does not mention her parents and, as said previously in the thread, Matthew also lived in that area so it may have been his child, instead.

I see two separate issues here. First of all, we know that John Machell lived in Hackney through the entire period that Machell children were being baptized there. We simply don't know about Matthew, who is commonly referred to as being of Hatfield, Herts. Second is the simple fact that the baptisms of the children START shortly after the marriage of John Machell to Ursula Hynde, and they END shortly before John Machell's first stay in prison. The dates of the baptisms are consistent with all of the children being of the same parents. To me it seems an open-and-shut case that the Hackney baptisms were all children of John and Ursula.

>(2) Mary Lewknor's family also had connections to the royal court

First of all, it's not about the royal COURT, it's about the royal HOUSEHOLD, or rather the household of Prince Henry. But with that said, what is your evidence of Lewknor connections to the royal court in the first decade of the 17th century? There might be something there, if you could elaborate. (Otherwise, it might not be a good idea to bring that up.)

> (3) As it was already mentioned in the thread, Ursula was estranged from her husband John and her family, already, had lands in Cambridge so it might not mean anything.

You seem to be confusing Cambridgeshire (with Machell and Hynde land connections) with the town of Cambridge. Ursula didn't have land in the center of the town of Cambridge in the heart of the university district, but she DID live there at the very end of her life, just as Ralph Cudworth began his career in exactly the same place. Do you really think that was "just a coincidence"?

commented Apr 28, 2018 by Living Schmeeckle G2G6 Pilot (105k points)

anonymous · Answer 5 · 2018-04-28T12:19:14+0000

Jillaine, have you reviewed both threads at SGM? There was the original "Insurmountable Problems with the Lineage of James Cudworth" thread.

Then there was a much longer "Machell of London" thread, where discussion is ongoing.

I think that, if there are multiple theories with no obvious choice, then WikiTree policy is clearly to detach any parents and add embedded links. This is no different for Magna Carta lineages.

In this situation, it seems abundantly clear that only one choice is reasonable. The combination of evidence points overwhelmingly to the conclusion that John Machell and Ursula Hynde were the parents of Mary (Machell) Cudworth.

To present a synopsis of the evidence:

1) Mary (Machell) Cudworth's daughter Jane recevied a legacy from her "kinsman" John Machell in his 1647 will. This John Machell was the first cousin of Mary (Machell) Cudworth, and the only living Machell of his generation (among the descendants of Alderman John Machell of London). It appears that this legacy was passing on money held in trust after Jane Machell's mother and step-father died in the 1630s. In any case, this will places Jane Cudworth as the daughter of either John or Mathew Machell, sons of Alderman John Machell of London.

2) The parish records of Hackney, Middlesex give the baptisms of a family cluster of "Manchells' ("Mauchells"), which can only be the children of John Machell by his second wife Ursula Hynde, including a daughter Mary baptized in 1584.

3) Mary for a time was a nurse (apparently a first-aid or 'bandaging' nurse) for Prince Henry, eldest son of King James. Ursula Hynde (wife of John Machell, and presumed mother of Mary, wife of Ralph Cudworth) had two younger first cousins who were in the household of this same Prince Henry -- listed in the payroll of 1610. The combination of the baptism record and the family connection to Prince Henry, in my mind, clinches the parentage of Mary (Machell) Cudworth, especially as the other choice (Mathew Machell and Mary Lewknor) had no known connections to the royal household. And there is one final snippet:

4) Mathew Machell died in 1593, and his widow Mary Lewknor died in 1604 in Kingston Bowsey, Sussex, far away from London. There was a "Marie Mashall" of Kingston Bowsey who married a minister in 1617. The freereg transcripts don't show any other Machells (or any other variant) in or near Kingston Bowsey. This "Marie Mashall" would appear to be a spinster daughter of Mathew Machell and Mary Lewknor, who presumably lived at the Lewknor estate until finally finding a husband.

commented Apr 29, 2018 by Living Schmeeckle G2G6 Pilot (105k points)

Jillaine, for you to use the dismissive phrase "what you believe" while not engaging with the chain of reasoning supporting my conclusion, does not seem appropriate. You state in passing that both views have "pros and cons." Could you please explain your view?

In particular, if you could explain the "cons" of my position and the "pros" of the opposing position, that would be useful feedback.

You state that there is "no obvious choice," which suggests that you may have skimmed the various points without really working through the question. Sometimes a clear choice emerges from careful analysis, even though it isn't obvious from a brief look. If you're not willing to engage with the evidence and the conclusions that others draw from the evidence, then perhaps it would be best to just ask for somebody else to do so, or stay out of the discussion altogether.

Time and again, in this type of discussion, critical evaluation of opposing views leads to new evidence and insights. A respectful exchange with a "devil's advocate" would be helpful, if you or someone else is inclined to go there.

commented Apr 30, 2018 by Living Schmeeckle G2G6 Pilot (105k points)
edited Apr 30, 2018 by Living Schmeeckle

John,

You are reading too much into "what you believe." It was not at all meant to be dismissive. My point is that you have your case and others have theirs. Multiple views have been shared; evidence discussed. The result: two theories, not one.

I have neither the time nor the access to the sources that you all have in order to do my own independent research of this particular challenge beyond a careful read (and reread) of both threads, which I have done.

I am simply a dispassionate observer pointing out PGM (you say wikitree-wide) practice in the presence of lack of agreement is to detach any parents, summarize the problem in the narrative and-- where there's a lot of detail-- link to a neutral side-by-side comparison of the two theories.

commented Apr 30, 2018 by Jillaine Smith G2G6 Pilot (906k points)

Jillaine, you are doubtless aware that sometimes people cling desperately to groundless cases for illustrious ancestors. In this particular case, an illusory descent from King Edward I is at risk.

In such a case, as well as in general, it is important to consider the relative merits of the opposing arguments.

It appears that you have not done so. Once again, I invite you, and anyone else, to reopen discussion here at wikitree regarding the evidence, and the conclusions that can be reasonably drawn therefrom, regarding the parentage of Mary (Machell) Cudworth.

It is wikitree's policy to detach parents when there is more than one plausible argument. In this case, there is only one plausible argument, but that is not evident at first glance. This situation is compounded by the fact that Douglas Richardson went into print with a shaky supposition without doing the research that I and others have been continuing to do and discuss over at SGM, after discussion ended on this wikitree thread last month. (And a final thought on that, this Cudworth/Machell headache appears to be a new situation where WikiTree and SGM are usefully interacting.)

commented Apr 30, 2018 by Living Schmeeckle G2G6 Pilot (105k points)
edited Apr 30, 2018 by Living Schmeeckle

Jillaine, there is simply no reason, this late in the game, to do what you propose. I get the impression that you have no interest in actually evaluating the evidence and discussing your evaluation.

If you see any strength in the supposition that Mary (Machell) Cudworth was the daughter of Mary (Lewknor) Machell, you are welcome to explain your position. This question has been discussed earlier on this thread, and over at SGM. You have not had any part in either discussion. If you choose to share your evaluation of the evidence, then by all means please do so -- I'd welcome that.

Please keep in mind that Mary (Machell) Cudworth is not my ancestor. I am descended from her aunt Jane (Machell) Rich.

commented Apr 30, 2018 by Living Schmeeckle G2G6 Pilot (105k points)

Jillaine, you say that you don't have the time or the resources to conduct an independent analysis of the evidence. In other words, you don't have an informed opinion. For that reason, it seems silly for you to suggest that the parents of Mary Machell be detached. If you have reservations about the evidence that has been presented here at WikiTree (which I think is convincing beyond a reasonable doubt), then by all means raise your point so that others may consider whether to detach Mary Machell's parents. That is the way things are done at WikiTree. If you don't want to discuss the evidence, then you really don't have any reason to impose your opinion about what should be done.

commented May 2, 2018 by Living Schmeeckle G2G6 Pilot (105k points)
edited May 2, 2018 by Living Schmeeckle

Jillaine, the process involves discussion of evidence on a G2G thread, which is... um, right here. So, if you think that the evidence for Mary (Machell) Cudworth's parents is insufficient to warrant retaining them, then please, by all means, engage with the various pieces of evidence and the chains of reasoning proceeding therefrom. If a consensus emerges to detach John Machell and Ursula Hynde as Mary's parents, then so be it.

Your sense of WikiTree process seems to be confused, and I don't understand your continuing refusal to discuss the facts of the matter. I think that there is a clear and convincing case for the conclusion that Mary (Machell) Cudworth was the daughter of John Machell and Ursula Hynde. Furthermore, there seems to be no evidence pointing toward Mathew Machell and Mary Lewknor being the parents of Mary (Machell) Cudworth; this error is the result of a willful misreading of "cousin/kinswoman" as "niece."

commented May 2, 2018 by Living Schmeeckle G2G6 Pilot (105k points)
edited May 3, 2018 by Living Schmeeckle

John, at least mark the new parentage you’ve assigned to Mary (Machell) Cudworth on her profile as “uncertain”. This would be appropriate given the two prevailing theories concerning her correct parentage. I believe in other profiles where there are two prevailing theories, even when one is more convincing, you have annotated the parents as “uncertain”. You have obviously not done this with Mary, because of the passion and energy you’ve displayed for the current set of parents you’ve assigned to her.

While her correct set of parents could very well have been John Machell and Ursula Hynde, annotating them as “uncertain” on Mary (Machell) Cudworth’s profile would not be irresponsible and definitely not unreasonable.

commented May 20, 2018 by anonymous

Jillaine, the fact that you choose to post anonymously, while continuing to refuse to engage with the evidence regarding Mary Machell's parentage, while continuing to promote your mistaken view regarding "two prevailing theories," doesn't seem appropriate. In addition, your public mischaracterization of my motivation, especially in light of your continuing refusal to discuss the evidence, gives the appearance of violating the WikiTree Honor Code.

Regarding Douglas Richardson's groundless supposition (not "prevailing theory") about the parents of Mary (Machell) Cudworth, my post of May 3 at SGM is copied below:

Richardson appears to have made three separate errors here.

1) Richardson appears unaware that there were TWO marriages of two separate women named Mary Machell: In addition to the well-known marriage 1611 of Mary Machell to Ralph Cudworth just outside of London (where the family of John and Ursula Machell was located), there was the 1617 marriage of Mary "Mashall" of Kingston Bowsey, the Lewknor estate far from London where Mary (Lewknor) Machell was buried in 1604.

2) Richardson falsely assumes that, in the 1646 will of John Machell (son of Mathew), that cosen/kinswoman can ONLY mean niece.

3) Richardson falsely states that "Mr. Bellasis indicated that Mary Machell, wife of Rev. Ralph Cudworth, was duly recorded as a daughter of Matthew Machell and Mary Lewknor in manuscript sources found in the College of Arms, which he styled 'C. 21, C. 26, etc.'"

This statement appears to be a rather gross error. Bellasis indicates sources at various places on his pedigree, including "C.21, C. 26, etc.", but at the location of Mary Machell and Ralph Cudworth his source is NOTHING AT ALL. (Bellasis DOES give specific sources for some of the children of Mathew and Mary Machell, but not for Mary.) Bellasis gives no indication to support Richardson's thin-air supposition that Bellasis had some sort of document indicating that Mathew and Mary (Lewknor) Machell had a daughter Mary who married Ralph Cudworth. However, perhaps one of Bellasis's sources DID indicate that Mathew and Mary had a daughter Mary, whom Bellasis mistakenly assumed was the wife of Ralph Cudworth, because Bellasis was unaware of the 1617 marriage record of "Marie Mashall" to Rev. James Harrison in Kingston Bowsey, one of the homes of the Lewknors.

With that said, Richardson does usefully write that

>"Mary Machell's first husband, Rev. Ralph Cudworth [died 1624], left her certain monies in trust to be used as legacies for their children. This is proven by a contemporary diary entry dated 1635, recorded shortly after Mary Machell married her 2nd husband, Rev. John Stoughton:

>Green, Diary of John Rous (Camden Soc. 66) (1856): 79–80 (sub 1635: “In Oct., Doctor Stoughton, of Aldermanbury, in London, who married Cudworth’s widow, of Emm[anuel] and had the same living given by the colledge in the West country, from when a carrier bringing some monyes for his wives children’s portions, he was traduced (as it seemeth) to be a favourer of New England, and a collector of contributions for those ministers there, &c.”). END OF QUOTE.

>On Mary Machell's death c.1636 and Rev. John Stoughton's death in 1639, the portions for the Cudworth children appear to have passed to her only brother, John Machell, Gent., who in turn left a sizeable bequest (£125) in his will dated 1646 for the marriage of his niece [sic], Jane Cudworth. It is likely this bequest was not John Machell's own money. Rather, it was presumably part of the monies which had been left by Rev. Ralph Cudworth for his children's portions."

This of course brings up the question of why this John Machell, and not somebody else, was delegated to pass on the legacy of Jane Cudworth -- not his niece, but his first cousin once removed. The easy answer is that there was no other Machell relative of his generation in the London area who was alive at the time. It seems clear that he was the head of the extended Machell family, and not the uncle of Jane Cudworth.

Supporting evidence for John and Ursula (Hynde) Machell as the parents of Mary (Machell) Cudworth is the fact that TWO of Ursula's younger Verney first cousins (including the disreputable Francis Verney) were on the payroll as part of Prince Henry's household in 1610, dovetailing nicely with the story (which Richardson has published without comment) that Mary (Machell) Cudworth was a nurse to Prince Henry before her marriage. (This contrasts with the lack of Lewknor connections to the royal household.)

In addition, there is the set of Hackney baptism records presented by Adrienne Boaz -- including a daughter Mary in 1584 -- with a clear circumstantial case that they were all the children of John Machell and Ursula Hynde.

commented May 20, 2018 by Living Schmeeckle G2G6 Pilot (105k points)
edited Jul 10, 2018 by Living Schmeeckle

anonymous · Answer 6 · 2018-06-21T15:49:21+0000

I just read this whole discussion and it reminded me that I should choose my projects carefully. While not a member of this project, I realize that stuff like this is way over my head! But... it’s good to know that there are folks on here who do have the knowledge and expertise. Humbled. Just sayin’.

Answer 7 · 2021-07-01T21:28:00+0000

Your presumption seems to be premised upon a span of years, 47, between marriage of the parents and marriage of the daughter. As I was married to my wife 53 years after the marriage of my parents, and yes, we have since had children. In a time when families might have a dozen children, or more (in my family the number has been as high as 14), the passing of time between marriage of parents and children could be quite long indeed.

As such, I cannot agree that the lineage must be dismissed on that basis alone.

Categories

Is James Cudworth a false gateway ancestor?

Please log in or register to add a comment.

Please log in or register to answer this question.

8 Answers

Please log in or register to add a comment.

Please log in or register to add a comment.

Please log in or register to add a comment.

Please log in or register to add a comment.

Please log in or register to add a comment.

Please log in or register to add a comment.

Please log in or register to add a comment.

Please log in or register to add a comment.

Related questions