Did Richard Scott d 1681 in Rhode Island descend from aristocracy? [closed]

+9 votes
538 views

Wikitree currently has Richard Scott connected back to the Balliols.  According to a post on Gen-Medieval, Sir Anthony Wagner, in his book, “English Genealogy”, 'disproved the claimed connection to gentry, noble, and royal lines' for Richard Scott of Providence, R.I.

I don't have access to this book.  Hoping someone does and can review what Sir Anthony wrote and let us know.

WikiTree profile: Richard Scott
closed with the note: Issue resolved
in Genealogy Help by Darlene Athey-Hill G2G6 Pilot (435k points)
closed by Darlene Athey-Hill

I see that the Newberry Library has several copies of the book.  Is anyone in Chicago to view it or in the U.S. to request an inter-library loan?

In searching further through the Gen-Medieval archives, I also came across this:  "I do not believe that the parentage of Richard Scott as presented by him is now accepted. Its veracity -- or more precisely, the authenticity of its source documents -- was discounted first by Sir Anthony Wagner in _English Genealogy_ (1960, 1972), 415-6, and then by the editors of TAG in 1988, upon receipt of further evidence from the parish registers of Glemsford, Suffolk, from Harold F. Porter, Jr. ("The Paternal Ancestry of Thomasine Frost, Wife of Deacon Edmund-1 Rice of Sudbury, Mass.,” TAG 63 [1988]: 129-37; editorial note at pp. 135-6).

Does anyone have access to this TAG article?

Bottom line is it looks like we need to disconnect the Scott family, but it would be good to have a synopsis from one or the other sources . . .

Update:  I was able to access the TAG article at NEHGS.  The section in the article on the Scott descent mentions a 'spuriour pedigree roll of ca. 1608."  The editor's note states:  "The pedigree roll purports to show the descent of Edward Scott of Glemsford (died in 1643), father of Richard Scott of Providence, R.I., from the Scotts of Scots Hall, co. Kent, a descent that Wagner proves is both false and fraudulent."  It goes on to state that "Wagner places Edward as son of the Richard Scott, clothier, of Glemsford, who died in 1565 and who the present article proves was the father of Ann (Scott) Frost.  Dr. Porter shows that Richard Scott's son Edward had a son named Edward baptized in 1573/4, hardly old enough to be grandfather of Richard Scott, who was born apparently in 1605."

"False and Fraudulent" what a Load of Crap i am Descended From Richard and His Wife Katherine Marbury.

If Richard was not Descended From the Scott's of Scott's Hall Kent England then Why do i Have Many Wyatt Y DNA Matches see R1b Gr. 4 My Kit# 510220 https://www.familytreedna.com/public/Wyatt?iframe=ycolorized, i also have 3 Bolin Matches - i am in the Boylen Y DNA Group at FTDNA also https://www.familytreedna.com/public/Boylen?iframe=ycolorized

Here is One Wyatt, Scott Connection to a very Distant Cousin, Charles Scott who Married Jane Wyatt. Charles Scott's Father is not my Ancestor his Brother Richard is

https://archive.org/stream/memorialsoffamil00scot#page/184/mode/2up

Richard is #44 His Brother Reginald or Raynold is #38 of this Pedigree

https://archive.org/stream/memorialsoffamil00scot#page/254/mode/2up

Also See this Link about Thomas Wyatt and Anne Boleyn

https://www.theanneboleynfiles.com/sir-thomas-wyatt-the-elder/

Clearly My Wyatt Matches are due to a Non Paternal event from my Scott Line otherwise i would not have 3 Bolin Matches from the Anne Boleyne Files website above "There is no Evidence that Anne Boleyn and Thomas Wyatt where Lovers" i think my Matches verify That.and the Family Tree of one of my Wyatt Matches reflects the Non Paternal Event

also if you think about how Y DNA Passes through Male Lineages with few Mutations over Hundreds of Years from the Past to Present and Vise Versa, Henry Wyatt Married Anne Skinner - i halso have 2 Skinner Matches that would indicate another Non Paternal Event From the Wyatt's see my kit in the Skinner Group also

https://www.familytreedna.com/public/Skinner%20%20Family%20tree%20DNA%20Project?iframe=ycolorized

My Closest Scott Y DNA Matches are on Page 2 of 3 of the STR Results Pages Family V in the Scott Y DNA Surname Group notice 2 Kit #s same ancestor for Norfolk, England Genetic Distance of 1 both of those Kits are administered by the same Person.

https://www.familytreedna.com/public/ScottDNAproject?iframe=ycolorized

To Prove that i am not Part of any Run of the Mill Scott Line my Most Distant Scott matches are Family ZZX our Common Ancestor is Haplogroup R-S673 about 1500 Years ago, before the name of Scott or Balliol. a visual of This can be Viewed on the Big Tree at ytree.net

My Kit#510220 Balliol and my Match in Family ZZX Kit#B274071

Can be Viewed at Far Right of following Page http://www.ytree.net/DisplayTree.php?blockID=588&star=false

if you follow the line UpThrough the Different Blocks from him to the Top one it is R-S673.

Also see France beside my YFull ID #YF09886 (Still HG 19 Not GH38 Yet) find it with Browser Find Function Here https://www.yfull.com/tree/R1b/ 

Al, unfortunately your presumptions regarding your DNA aren't correct.  I have been in touch with an associate that is a DNA expert as to your claims, and he says they are completely unfounded.  I am sending you a private message with the details.

Wills Baptism Records and Pedigree's are recorded in this Book

Collected papers: armorial, genealogical, and historical. ... Bowen, Richard Le Baron.

Also See This Link

Newport Historical Society Image

You are Citing a Source That no digital copy exists for how about Posting Screen Shots of this original Information. if you cannot do so i would have to say you are Stating a Lie and Inserting some quotation marks yourself.

 you need to Provide proof that everyone including Myself that this source really exists from Anthony Wagoner

it looks like you are using His Profession to Back  Your Lie to support your own beliefs https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthony_Wagner

Anthony Wagoner is not a Primary Source even if he did state such a claim it is only an Opinion not a Fact.

See this Source

Road Island History

http://www.rihs.org/assetts/files/publications/1943_Jan.pdf

Also

http://www.rihs.org/assetts/files/publications/1950_April.pdf

Wrong George Scott's Will Proves Otherwise George is The Brother of Richard Scott of Providence

Antony Wagoner is not a Primary Source nor is he a Secondary Source he only Gives an Opinion based on wrong info that he Copied from "The New England Historical and Genealogical Register Volume 51 Page 255 regarding The Parentage of Richard Scott of Providence

George's Transcribed will is on the Previous Page 254

People Pre1500 Certified are supposed to stick to Primary Sources are they Not?

No, pre-1500 certified people don't have to stick to primary sources.  We use many secondary sources.  An example would be the various books by Douglas Richardson.  Anthony Wagner's book is indeed a secondary source.  He analyzed records and prior research.  As noted above (1-1/2 years ago), "... the authenticity of its source documents -- was discounted first by Sir Anthony Wagner in _English Genealogy_ (1960, 1972), 415-6, and then by the editors of TAG in 1988, upon receipt of further evidence from the parish registers of Glemsford, Suffolk."  This is multiple people analyzing source documents.

I am not sure what you are saying Al.  Everyone accepts that the immigrant Richard Scott was the brother of George Scott of Glemsford, Suffolk.  As you say, he was named in the will of George Scott as living in New England. 

Everyone accepts that their father was EdwardA Scott a clothier of Glemsford, Suffolk (d. 1643).  He was named in will of his son George and he himself left a detailed will proving all of the family connections.  It is also supported by baptism records at Glemsford.

Everyone accepts that his father was EdwardB Scott a clothier of Glemsford, Suffolk (d. 1627).  He left a long and detailed will proving all of the family connections.

The Scott Pedigree Roll stated that his father was another EdwardC Scott who married Mary Warren.  We have no actual direct evidence of this generation in the way of wills or baptisms outside of the Scott Pedigree Roll.  This Roll is now known to be a forgery, so this generation must be questioned.  The only apparent support is that the will of his son supposedly named a number of children of John Warren of Burgh Castle, Suffolk as kinsman.

This is where Sir Anthony Wagner breaks the line. The Memorials of the Family of Scott, of Scot's-hall, made EdwardC Scott a younger son of Richard Scott by Mary Whetenall.  This is wrong.  On the death of Richard Scott’s mother Anne (Pympe) Scotte, the inheritance was split in gavelkind (a system of inheritance in which a deceased person's land is divided equally among all male heirs).  Half went to the five sons of Reginald Scott, and half went to Reginald Scott as the ONLY surviving son of Richard Scott.  In other words, Richard Scott and Mary Whetenall did not have a surviving son Edward.

That the line is wrong is also proven by simple chronology. Reginald Scott (d. 1599), eldest son of Richard Scott and Mary Whetenall, was born in 1538 (age 38 in 1576).  If he had a younger brother Edward he would have been born 1540 or later.  The immigrant Richard Scott was bp. in 1605; his father EdwardA was bp. 1574; his father EdwardB was born before 1550 as his first child was bp. in 1571; his supposed father EdwardC would have been born 1520-1530 at the earliest.  This last Edward could not have been the brother of Reginald born after 1540.

So, dispensing with the Scott Pedigree Roll as an invention, do we have any other possibilities?  We have an obvious one.  Richard Scott a clothier of Glemsford, Suffolk died in 1565 leaving a will naming among others his son Edward Scott, son-in-law Thomas Warren (thus dispensing with the Warrens of Burgh Castle as kinsman), and son-in-law John Frost.  This is almost certainly the actual father EdwardB Scott.  Right place, right time, names all match, all of Glemsford, clothier just like his son and grandson.  It is also not insignificant that grandchildren of John Frost and Ann Scott also immigrated to New England.

Finally, Sir Anthony Wagner, Garter King of Arms KCB KCVO FSA was one of the great antiquaries and genealogists of the 20th century.  As the head of the College of Arms he had access to ALL of the National Archives of England and to every document ever submitted to the College of Arms.  He was one of the most respected and most prolific individuals in the field of heraldry and genealogy.  Your attempts to impugn his skills and reputation do not help your cause.

Joe, very good analysis. I'm not sure the profile narrative does it as well as you did. Perhaps you could copy this to Edward's profile (father of immigrant Richard )?
Jillaine, I agree.  I already added it earlier this morning. I had added the parents yesterday which Joe is discussing, but the PM removed them.  I have now added them back and added PPP.

Here's another site that discusses the relationships and explains matters relating to Richard Scott.

2 Answers

+6 votes

Sorry Darlene, I don't have access to that book, but there are major problems also between the Scott family of Scott's Hall, and the Balliol family.

See the discussion here about William le Balliol and although there were some dissenting comments, I am still convinced that there is no paper trail that links William either to his current parents or to the Scott family and those changes should be made.

I've also just discovered this genealogy which also has no connection from the Scott to the Balliol families.

by John Atkinson G2G6 Pilot (478k points)

Balliol College Oxford does not Dispute the Scott - Balliol Connection

They only Appear to dispute That William was King John Balliol's Brother as others do, but acknowledge he is a Brother of Alexander http://archives.balliol.ox.ac.uk/History/founders.asp

even they Cite the Source Memorials of the Family of Scott of Scott's Hall

Al, all those books are at best secondary sources, that don't in themselves cite any sources at all, let alone the primary sources needed for medieval genealogy.  Essentially without primary sources, they are worthless in proving that William de Balliol was an ancestor of the Scott family.

Balliol College doesn't enter into the Scott debate at all and only cites the book Memorials of the Family of Scott of Scott's Hall disparagingly.
As pointed out in my original post, Sir Anthony Wagner reviewed many of the old books (which likely included all of the ones you, Al, are pointing out here) and records and disproved the line.  Those involved with medieval genealogy see this happen all of the time.

Based on the sources and discussion, I am detaching the family at Scott-21133.  If this is incorrect, let me know.  Thanks.

Really John Then why is the John Balliol Heart Shrine in the Scott Chaple

Brabourne Kent, St Mary's Church

https://www.britainexpress.com/counties/kent/churches/brabourne.htm

https://www.kentarchaeology.org.uk/Research/Pub/ArchCant/010%20-%201876/010-21.pdf

The Balliol Archives Site actually Mentions That William is Brother of Alexander Balliol of Cavers. so if you want to Argue with Balliol Collage 

over the Scott, Balliol Connection have fun with That http://archives.balliol.ox.ac.uk/History/founders.asp

Having Said That old Sources with Citations or no Citations That say otherwise hold no merrit. You and Others that Follow a Status Quo can not think for your Selves, i dont care how much experience any one has.

Albert Einstein Quotes

"what is right is not allways popular, and what is popular is not always right."

"A Ship is always safe at Shore but that is not what it is Built For"

"Education is not the Learning of Facts, its Rather the Training of the Mind to Think"

"We cant Solve Problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created Them"

As a student of the Martial Arts i can Vouch for this one also

"Once we accept our Limits we go beyond Them" 

"Dont Listen to the Person who has the Answers, Listen to the Person who has the Answers.

Al, I don't remember every stating that William de Balliol was not the brother of Alexander de Balliol of Cavers and Chilham?  

My argument has always been that William de Balliol is not the brother of John de Balliol, King of Scotland, and there are no primary sources that support William as the ancestor of the Scott family of Scott's Hall (or any Scott family for that matter).
+3 votes

According to this

https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Scott,_William_(d.1350)_(DNB00)

the early history of the Scott's Hall family is obscure prior to the William Scott d 1434 who built the house.  He was an MP in 1430, but he doesn't have a bio, Wedgwood skipped him.  He's assumed to be a descendant of a John Scott who was apparently steward at Brabourne and is said to have been the father of the judge.

But that's an old book.  MIght be worth checking the Oxford DNB to see if they have an update.

by Anonymous Horace G2G6 Pilot (568k points)
Oxford DNB in an article on Scott [Scot] family (per c. 1400 - c. 1525) by Peter Fleming, has a Sir Robert Scott, lieutenant of the Tower in 1424 as the first of the family and he is brother to William Scott who died in 1434.

Sir Robert had a daughter Alice who married William Kemp, nephew of John Kemp, archbishop of York but presumably no sons.

As mentioned above, "the descent of Edward Scott of Glemsford (died in 1643), father of Richard Scott of Providence, R.I., from the Scotts of Scots Hall, co. Kent, a descent that Wagner proves is both false and fraudulent."

Sorry, I sidetracked.  The Scotts of Scotts Hall have genuine descendants including several Virginia gateways, so their origins are still an issue without the alleged Glemsford/RI line.

Related questions

+5 votes
2 answers
116 views asked Nov 23, 2019 in Genealogy Help by T Stanton G2G6 Pilot (201k points)
+3 votes
2 answers
+4 votes
0 answers
+6 votes
1 answer
135 views asked May 25, 2018 in Genealogy Help by Paul Kinney G2G6 Mach 1 (11.0k points)
+5 votes
1 answer
+5 votes
3 answers

WikiTree  ~  About  ~  Help Help  ~  Search Person Search  ~  Surname:

disclaimer - terms - copyright

...