C.P. Addition: Isabel de Gressenhall, wife of William de Huntingfield, Magna Carta baron

[celticp...@gmail.com]

Dear Newsgroup ~

Complete Peerage 6 (1926): 671, footnote a (sub Huntingfield) includes information regarding Sir William de Huntingfield, the famous Magna Carta baron (died c.1221). Regarding his wife, Isabel, the following information is provided:

"William de Huntingfield, presumably son of Roger, with Isabel his wife, appear in 1194/5 and 1203 (Abbrev. Plac., pp. 3 and 38). She was Isabel, widow of Osmund de Stuteville, better known as Isabel de Gressinghall (Farrer, Honors and Knights' Fees, vol. iii, p. 396. In Harl MS. 506 she appears as Isabel de Fréville and is stated to have died in 1209." END OF QUOTE.

Complete Peerage does not say so, but Isabel is known to have been the daughter and heiress of William Fitz Roger, of Gressenhall and Castle Acre, Norfolk, by his wife, Aeliva. See Carthew, Hundred of Launditch & Deanery of Brisley 1 (1877): 189–196 (Gressenhall-Stuteville-Foliot ped.), which may be viewed at the following weblink:

https://books.google.com/books?id=iytSAQAAMAAJ&pg=PA189

Isabel de Gressenhall's family and marriages are also discussed in Brown, Sibton Abbey Cartularies & Charters 1 (Suffolk Charters 7) (1985): 21–22 (re. Cressy fam.), 64, 91–92; 2 (Suffolk Charters 8) (1986): 53–56; 3 (Suffolk Charters 9) (1987): 152; 4 (Suffolk Charters 10) (1988): 4–5.

As noted by Complete Peerage, William de Huntingfield and his wife, Isabel, occur together in 1194/5 and 1203. The reference provided for these dates is "Abbrev. Plac., pp. 3 and 38." The full title of this work is Placitorum in Domo Capitulari Westmonasteriensi Asservatorum Abbrevatio (1811). Pages 3 and 38 may be viewed at the following weblinks:

https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=umn.31951002064556u;view=1up;seq=31

https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=umn.31951002064556u;view=1up;seq=66

The first item is also abstracted in Proceedings of his Majesty’s Commissioners on the Public Recs. (1833): 348, which may be viewed at the following weblink:

https://play.google.com/books/reader?id=HCVDAAAAcAAJ&printsec=frontcover&output=reader&hl=en&pg=GBS.PA348

The antiquarian William Dugdale included two Castle Acre Priory charters which involve William de Huntingfield's wife, Isabel, in his monumental work, Monasticon Anglicanum, 5 (1825): 52. These charters may be viewed at the following weblink:

https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=uiug.30112109884418;view=1up;seq=84

The first Castle Acre charter was issued by Isabel's 2nd husband, Osmund de Stuteville (died c.1187), with the "advise and consent of Isabel my wife." Osmund confirmed all the gifts made by Wimar [Isabel's ancestor] and his successors. The charter was granted for his soul and that of his wife, Isabel.

The second Castle Acre charter is labelled "Carta Ysabellae Uxoris Berengari de Cressi." Berenger de Cressy was the name of Isabel's first husband, although he is no where named in the charter. The charter was issued by "Ysabella de Gressingehale" [Isabel de Gressenhall] with the advise and consent of her third husband, WIlliam de Huntingfield. In this charter, Isabel gave the monks of Castle Acre the homage of Hugh de Crec, etc., with his tenement in Weseham.

In addition to the above two charters, a third charter dated 1195 involving William and Isabel is published in Davis, Kalendar of Abbot Samson of Bury St. Edmunds & Related Docs. (Camden 3rd Ser. 84) (1954): 159. The charter is a grant dated 1195 made by Samson, Abbot of Bury St. Edmunds to William de Huntingfield and Isabel his wife and her heirs. This charter is available at the following weblink:

https://deeds.library.utoronto.ca/charters/00290144).

Some time before 1221, William de Huntingfeld also made a grant in free alms to the Monks of St. Mary of Mendham, Suffolk for salvation of souls of himself, his wife Isabel, and his parents and all ancestors. In this charter, William granted the monks all his wood in Metfield, Suffolk called Haute. Reference: Suffolk Record Office, Ipswich Branch: Iveagh (Phillipps) Suffolk MSS, HD 1538/301/1, available at http://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk.

So far, we have not seen any indication as to why Complete Peerage stated that Isabel de Gressenhall, wife of William de Huntingfield, was also known as Isabel de Fréville. However, in recent time, I located the following charter dated c.1190 issued by Isabel, lady of Gressighehalia [Gressenhall] granting Roger de Freville her brother [fratri meo] her holding in Wellingham, Norfolk. Reference: Stevenson, Report on the Manuscripts of Lord Middleton (Historical Manuscripts Commission 69) (1911): 34–35, which may be viewed at the following weblink:

https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=njp.32101015914086;view=1up;seq=56

The editor appears not to have realized that Isabel, lady of Gressenhall, named here was the same person as Isabel, wife of Sir William de Huntingfield, the famous Magna Carta baron, nor was any attempt made to identify this lady's brother, Roger de Freville. Roger de Freville, however, can be placed as the lineal male line ancestor of the later knightly Freville family seated at Tanworth, Warwickwshire, and also the other branch seated at Caxton and Shelford, Cambridgeshire, and Munden-Freville, Hertfordshire.

Insofar as the exact relationship between Isabel de Gressenhall and Roger de Freville is concerned, it seems likely to me that they were half-siblings, possibly sharing the same mother, Aeliva.

For interest's sake, the following is a list of the 17th Century New World immigrants that descend from Isabel de Gressenhall and her 2nd husband, Osmund de Stuteville:

Elizabeth Alsop,William Asfordby, Anne Baynton, Essex Beville, William Bladen, George & Nehemiah Blakiston, Mary Bourchier, Charles Calvert, James & Norton Claypoole, William Crymes, Francis Dade, William Farrer, Mary Gye, Anne Humphrey, Mary Launce, Anne, Elizabeth & John Mansfield, Richard Palgrave, Herbert Pelham, William Skepper, Diana & Grey Skipwith, Mary Johanna Somerset.

The following is a list of the 17th Century New World immigrants that descend from Isabel de Gressenhall and her 3rd husband, William de Huntingfield:

Robert Abell, Samuel Argall, William Asfordby, Charles Barham, Joseph Bickley, William Bladen, George & Nehemiah Blakiston, Thomas Booth, Elizabeth Bosvile, George, Giles & Robert Brent, Edward Bromfield, Christopher Calthorpe, Charles & Leonard Calvert, Kenelm Cheseldine, Grace Chetwode, William Clopton, St. Leger Codd, Henry Corbin, James Cudworth, Francis Dade, Frances, Jane & Katherine Deighton, Edward Digges, William Farrer, Henry Filmer, John Fisher, Henry Fleete, Edward Foliot, Muriel Gurdon, Elizabeth & John Harleston, Warham Horsmanden, Edmund Jennings, Matthew Kempe, Thomas Ligon, Nathaniel Littleton, Anne Lovelace, Henry, Jane & Nicholas Lowe, Gabriel, Roger & Sarah Ludlow, Anne, Elizabeth, & John Mansfield, Anne & Katherine Marbury, Anne Mauleverer, John and Margaret Nelson, Philip & Thomas Nelson, Thomas Owsley, John Oxenbridge, Robert Peyton, Henry & William Randolph, Katherine Saint Leger, Richard Saltonstall, William Skepper, Diana & Grey Skipwith, Mary Johanna Somerset, Rose Stoughton, Samuel & William Torrey, Margaret Touteville, Margaret Tyndall, Amy Wyllys.

Do you descend from Isabel de Gressenhall? If so, I'd appreciate it if you would post your line of descent from her here on the newsgroup.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

[gdco...@gmail.com]

Douglas,

Thank you very much for this post. I'm descended from both Wm Skepper and Rose Stoughton, but I discovered that neither of Skepper's descents from Isabel is in my database. I presume the lines can be found in _Royal Ancestry_? We're in the middle of moving and my books are currently unavailable. My descent from Skepper down to my grandmother Cooke can be seen here: http://gdcooke.org/ss/default.aspx/page/org2-o/ui151.htm

My descent from Rose Stoughton runs thusly:
Rose Stoughton m. Richard Otis
Ann Otis m. Thomas Austin
Nathaniel Austin m. Catherine Neale
Phebe Austin m. John Hansen
John Hansen m. Sally Getchel
William Hansen m. Harriet Browne
Harriet Jane Hansen m. Wm Stevens Robinson
Edward Warrington Robinson m. Mary Elizabeth Robinson
Harriet Hansen Robinson m. Wm Pierce
Dorothy Harriet Pierce m. Donald F. Cooke
Gregory D. Cooke (me)

Again, thanks!

[cmw1...@gmail.com]

Seventeenth century New World immigrant, Audrey (Barlow) Almy, has been omitted from this list. Her descent from Isabel de Gressenhall and her third husband, Sir William de Huntingfield, is briefly outlined below.

1. Sir William de Huntingfield, Knt., of Huntingfield, Co. Suffolk (died 1219/1220); married Isabel, the daughter of William Fitz Roger of Gressenhall, Norfolk. Their son:
2. Sir Roger de Huntingfield, of Huntingfield, Co., Suffolk (born before 1200; died 19 Jun 1257) married Joan de Howbridge. Their son:
3. Sir William de Huntingfield, of Huntingfield, Co., Suffolk (born 24 Aug 1237; died shortly before 2 Nov 1290); married Emme de Grey. Their son:
4. Sir Roger de Huntingfield, of Huntingfield, Co. Suffolk (born circa 1267; died before 5 Dec 1302); married Joyce d’Engaine, daughter of Sir John d’Engaine and Joan Greinville. Their daughter:
5. Joan de Huntingfield married Sir Richard Bassett, Knt., 1st Lord Basset of Weldon (born circa 1274; died before 18 Aug 1314). Their son:
6. Sir Ralph Basset, Knt., 2nd Lord Bassett of Weldon, (b. 27 Aug 1300; d. shortly before 4 May 1341); married Joan, said to be the daughter of, or kinswoman of, William le Latimer, 3rd Baron Latimer (Richardson, Magna Carta Ancestry, p. 115), but in Ancestral Roots, p. 176 (Line 187), is “said to be a Sturdon of Winterbourne, Co. Gloucester.” Their daughter,
7. Joan Bassett (died before 14 Jul 1343); married Sir Thomas Aylesbury, of Milton Keynes, Buckinghamshire (died shortly before 26 Aug 1349). Their son:
8. Sir John Aylesbury, born and baptized Weldon, Northants. 6 May 1334; married first before Michaelmas 1359, Isabel, allegedly a daughter of “Eubaldo [sic] Lord Strange of Knockyn.” He married secondly, before Nov. 1369, Alice. His son by his first wife:
9. Sir Thomas Aylesbury (died 1418), married as his second wife Katherine Pabenham. Their daughter:
10. Eleanor Aylesbury (born circa 1406); married by license dated 2 Jan 1423/4, Humphrey Stafford, Knt., of Grafton, Worcestershire, etc., (born 1400; died 7 Jun 1450). Their son:
11. Humphrey Stafford, Esq., of Grafton, Worcestershire, (born circa 1426–7; died 8 Jul 1486); married after 1462 Katherine Fray (born circa 1447), 2nd daughter and co-heiress of John Fray, Knt., Chief Baron of the Exchequer, by Agnes, daughter of John Danvers. Their son:
12. Humphrey Stafford, Knt., of Cotered and Rushden, Hertfordshire, (born 1 May 1478; died 22 Sep 1545); married (1st) after 1490 Margaret Fogge, daughter of Sir John Fogge, Knt., of Ashford, Kent, by his second wife, Alice, daughter of William Haute, Esquire. Their son:
13. Humphrey Stafford, Knt., of Blatherwycke, Northamptonshire (died 1558); married 1526, Margaret Tame, daughter of Edmund Tame, Knt., of Fairford, Gloucestershire, by his 1st wife, Agnes, daughter of John Greville, Esquire. Their daughter:
14. Eleanor Stafford, married (1st) Anthony Cope, Esq., of Adstone, Northamptonshire. They had no issue. She married (as her second husband) before 1568 Thomas Barlow (or Barlowe), of Huncote, Leicestershire. Their son:
15. Stafford Barlow, Gentleman, of Narborough and Lutterworth, Leicestershire (born circa 1578; aged 62 in 1640). The name of his wife is unknown. He was deposed in a 1640 case heard in the Exchequer between John Waybred, clerk, and Sir William Faunt. His daughter:
16. Audrey Barlow, born circa 1600–1603 (aged 26 in 1626, aged 32 in 1635); married by license dated 17 Jul 1626 William Almy, Gentleman, of South Kilworth, Leicestershire.

For more information, see Richardson, Magna Carta Ancestry: A Study in Colonial and Medieval Families, 2nd Edition, volume 1, pp. 114-123.

I descend from Audrey (Barlow) Almy through her son, Christopher Almy.

Charles Ward

[Adrian Channing]

Much of this is given in K.S.B. Keats-Rohan _Domesday Descendants_ p 488. Here K-R states that Isabel is a daughter of William, dapifer [steward] of William earl Warenne. K-R also states she was sister and eventual heir of Roger fitz William, but does not identfy him as "de Freville "

[joe...@gmail.com]

On Monday, August 20, 2018 at 8:13:57 PM UTC-4, celticp...@gmail.com wrote:

I believe you may be missing two new world immigrant descended from Isabel: William Sargent and Thomas Dudley. Via the following:

1) Isabel de Gressenhall m. Osmond de Stuteville
2) Roger de Stuteville
3) Alice de Stuteville m. Roger de Merlay
4) Agnes de Merlay m. Richard Gobion
5) Hugh Gobion m. Matilda
6) Joan Gobion m. John de Morteyn
7) John de Morteyn m. Joan de Rothwell
8) Lucy de Morteyn m. John Giffard
9) Thomas Giffard m. Elizabeth de Missenden
10) Roger Giffard m. Isabel Stretle
11) Katherine Giffard m. Thomas Billing
12) Margaret Billing m. Edmund Thorne
13) Thomas Thorne m. Alice Arden
14) William Thorne m. Alice Stotesbury
15) Thomas Thorne m. Mary Purefoy
16) Susanne Thorne m. Roger Dudley
17) Governor Thomas Dudley

11) Thomas Giffard m. Eleanor Vaux
12) John Giffard m. Agnes Winslowe
13) Roger Giffard m. Mary Nanseglos
14) Nicholas Giffard m. Agnes Masters
15) Margaret Giffard m. Hugh Sargent
16) Roger Sargent m. Ellen Makerness
17) William Sargent

Interestingly, I don't have the Mary Gye line in my database, despite being a Mary Gye descendant myself. Do you mind sharing?
--Joe Cook

[joe...@gmail.com]

> I believe you may be missing two new world immigrant descended from Isabel: William Sargent and Thomas Dudley. Via the following:
>
> 1) Isabel de Gressenhall m. Osmond de Stuteville
> 2) Roger de Stuteville
> 3) Alice de Stuteville m. Roger de Merlay
> 4) Agnes de Merlay m. Richard Gobion
> 5) Hugh Gobion m. Matilda

<snip>

Oh, yikes, it looks like I made a mess of this confusing two Osborn de Stutevilles, and two Roger de Stuteville.

I believe the correction (to me) is:

1. Robert de Stuteville (died after 1106) m. Beatrix
2. Robert de Stuteville (died about 1140) m. Erneburga
3a. Robert de Stuteville (died about 1183) m. Helewise
4a. Osmond de Stuteville m. Isabel de Gressenhall
5a. William de Stuteville--> (ancestor of Mary Gye)

4b. Hawise de Stuteville m. Hugh de Morville --> (ancestor of Joseph Bolles)

3c. Roger de Stuteville (died bef 1202)
4c. Alice de Stuteville -> Ancestor of William Sargent and Thomas Dudley,etc

Sorry for the confusion,
--Joe C

[johnschm...@gmail.com]

On Monday, August 20, 2018 at 5:13:57 PM UTC-7, celticp...@gmail.com wrote:
> Dear Newsgroup ~
>

> The following is a list of the 17th Century New World immigrants that descend from Isabel de Gressenhall and her 3rd husband, William de Huntingfield:
>

> [snip] James Cudworth [snip]

I would like to clarify the supposed descent of James Cudworth from Isabel de Gressenhall. The parentage of Cudworth's mother Mary Machell, as published in "Magna Carta Ancestry" and "Royal Ancestry," has been conclusively disproven. The clincher, on top of all the other evidence, is that Mary Machell married Ralph Cudworth in the unlikely borough of Southwark -- except that St. Mary Newington church (where she was married) was ABOUT A MILE from King's Bench Prison, where her actual father John Machell (not Mathew Machell, as mistakenly assumed earlier) was being held as a debtor. The Cudworth thread is here: https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/soc.genealogy.medieval/5oEUwaUUZBI

This means that the Magna Carta descents of Mathew Machell's wife Mary Lewknor don't apply to James Cudworth. However, the many Magna Carta descents of John Machell's second wife Ursula Hynde DO apply, so maybe Isabella de Gressenhall is still in the mix. [James Cudworth isn't my ancestor -- I'm descended from his great-aunt Jane (Machell) Rich -- so I haven't checked.]

[JBrand]

All you have to do is ask Great Aunt Jane, right?

[deca...@aol.com]

On Tuesday, August 28, 2018 at 11:06:37 PM UTC-4, johnschm...@gmail.com wrote:

The Great Salt Lake near Salt Lake City, Utah, USA would literally have to freeze over first in its entirety before Douglas Richardson would publicly acknowledge or admit any of his errors!

[artie...@gmail.com]

On Monday, August 20, 2018 at 7:13:57 PM UTC-5, celticp...@gmail.com wrote:
> Dear Newsgroup ~
>

> Do you descend from Isabel de Gressenhall? If so, I'd appreciate it if you would post your line of descent from her here on the newsgroup.
>
> Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Douglas,
My descent from Isabel is:
Isabel FitzWilliam, aka Isabel de Gressenhall, married William de Huntingfield,
Sir Roger de Huntingfield married Joan de Howbridge (Hobrugg),
Sir William de Huntingfield married Emma de Grey,
Roger de Huntingfield married Joyce D'Engaine,
Joan de Huntingfield married Richard Basset,
Ralph Basset married Joan (de la Pole ?) ,
Eleanor Basset married John Knyvet,
Robert Knyvet married Joan Castelayn,
Thomas Knyvet married Eleanor Doreward
John Knyvet married Margaret Baynard,
Sir Thomas Knyvet married Elizabeth Lunesford,
Thomasine Knyvet married Sir William Clopton,
Richard Clopton married Margaret Playters,
William Clopton married Margaret Waldegrave,
Walter Clopton married Margaret Maidstone,
Rev William Clopton married Elizabeth Sutcliffe,
William Clopton married Ann Booth,
Anne Clopton married Nicholas Mills II,
Elizabeth Mills married David Overton Anderson Sr. ,
David Overton Anderson Jr. married Amediah Binns,
David Overton Anderson 111 married Sally Drake,
America Columbus Anderson married John Berry,
Dallas Yell Berry married Sarah Ann Southard,
Arthur Yell Berry Sr. married Fannie Lucretia Champion,
Arthur Yell Berry Jr. married Frances Katherine Gearhart,
Arthur Yell Berry III.

Trust this is what you looking for.

[John Higgins]

"The parentage of Cudworth's mother Mary Machell...has been conclusively disproved"? Only according to the view of John Schmeeckle, as expressed in the thread he cites above. A more reasonable view, also discussed in that thread, is that the maternity (and perhaps the paternity) of Mary Machell cannot be conclusively determined at present.

[johnschm...@gmail.com]

On Wednesday, August 29, 2018 at 4:35:24 AM UTC-7, JBrand wrote:
>
> All you have to do is ask Great Aunt Jane, right?

I've been told that Jane (Machell) Rich died before the marriages of the two Mary Machells. But there's no need to go there, with what I consider to be a conclusive proof via circumstantial evidence for the parents of Mary (Machell) Cudworth -- see my next post.

[johnschm...@gmail.com]

On Wednesday, August 29, 2018 at 2:30:46 PM UTC-7, John Higgins wrote:
> "The parentage of Cudworth's mother Mary Machell...has been conclusively disproved"? Only according to the view of John Schmeeckle, as expressed in the thread he cites above. A more reasonable view, also discussed in that thread, is that the maternity (and perhaps the paternity) of Mary Machell cannot be conclusively determined at present.

@John Higgins, the thread that I cited above has evidence scattered around, collected over a period of months. I have gathered all the snippets together in one place, in a series of posts in the Cudworth thread over at WikiTree, together with a step-by-step explanation of a proof by circumstantial evidence.

Perhaps you and/or others would care to review this careful and (hopefully) well-ordered presentation of the evidence. If you do not find this proof convincing, then perhaps you could explain the reason for your skepticism.

WikiTree's Cudworth thread is here: https://www.wikitree.com/g2g/567199/is-james-cudworth-a-false-gateway-ancestor

If you go there and scroll down a bit to the first "answer" (it's in a box highlighted grey with a "best answer" star) and then scroll down past two comments by Liz Shifflett, you will find the beginning of my discussion, in a post dated July 7. My explanation of a proof by circumstantial evidence, detailing the evidence for the parentage of Mary (Machell) Cudworth, continues in a series of posts through July 26 -- a total of six posts.

John Higgins, I welcome a critical review of this proof of the parentage of Mary (Machell) Cudworth, by yourself or by anyone else. Part of my discussion included mention (with links) of three other proofs by circumstantial evidence, together with a supposed proof that (in my view) simply doesn't work. This means that, including the proof for Mary (Machell) Cudworth's parents, there are five separate purported proofs by circumstantial evidence. Which ones do you find convincing, and which ones do you find unconvincing? Among the expert genealogists on this forum, is there general agreement or not?

[JBrand]

Yes, indeed, there's "no need to go there." Total nonsense.

[John Higgins]

I see nothing in the very lengthy WikiTree thread that you haven't presented here before. I also see that a number of people participating in that thread (as well as here in SGM) feel that neither theory regarding Mary Machell's parentage has been proven sufficiently to outweigh the opposing theory. You obviously disagree with this conclusion, and further discussion is clearly unlikely to change your stance. I've made it clear in the past that I don't feel either alternative is satisfactorily proven. You're unwilling to accept that conclusion (from me and others, both in SGM and in WikiTree). So be it...

[Michael Welch]

No only Decca thinks he is right but than again I think they are the same person.

[deca...@aol.com]

Sorry, Decca is not John Schmeeckle. Saying anything to the contrary is simply not true. Who are you? Just another Douglas Richardson disciple who believes that everything Richardson says is a universal truth as it pertains to genealogy? While I don’t agree with everything Schmeeckle says, even the most novice and inexperienced genealogist can see the blatant errors in Richardson’s examination of the evidence in the Mary (Machell) Cudworth parentage case. As I personally believe that her parentage hasn’t been conclusively proven, Schmeeckle’s analysis and presentation of the circumstantial evidence does lean towards John Machell and Ursula Hynde as the correct parents of Mary (Machell) Cudworth.

Only someone blinded by their belief in the myth of Richardson’s infallibility would ignore the obvious errors in his analysis, while dismissing Schmeeckle as some trolling pseudo-psychic genealogist. Furthermore, I have no comment on Schmeeckle’s psychic abilities or whether or not he is ‘punking’ the so-called experts on SGM. However, with that said, he has intelligently and skillfully listed the obvious errors in Richardson’s analysis that renders Richardson's conclusion on the parentage of Mary (Machell) Cudworth very suspect.

[Michael Welch]

Lol Decca your way too tense.

[johnschm...@gmail.com]

On Wednesday, August 29, 2018 at 5:27:30 PM UTC-7, John Higgins wrote:
> I also see that a number of people participating in that[WikiTree] > thread (as well as here in SGM) feel that neither theory regarding > Mary Machell's parentage has been proven sufficiently to outweigh > the opposing theory. <snip> I've made it clear in the past that > I don't feel either alternative is satisfactorily proven.

My understanding is that, when discussing proofs by circumstantial evidence, the standard of proof is "beyond a reasonable doubt."
Furthermore, it is my understanding that FEELINGS are not an acceptable substitute for reasoned analysis.

Is there anybody who disagrees with me?

Regarding who said what over at WikiTree (and here at SGM), ever since my post on SGM's Cudworth thread on May 3 (repeated on WikiTree's Cudworth thread on May 20, pointing out that there were actually TWO Mary Machells), NOBODY has defended Richardson's broken Cudworth/Machell lineage. Furthermore, since then, NOBODY (either at SGM or at WikiTree) has given any reasoned discussion of the evidence that I have provided.

[joe...@gmail.com]

On Friday, August 31, 2018 at 10:59:42 PM UTC-4, johnschm...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Wednesday, August 29, 2018 at 5:27:30 PM UTC-7, John Higgins wrote:
> > I also see that a number of people participating in that[WikiTree] > thread (as well as here in SGM) feel that neither theory regarding > Mary Machell's parentage has been proven sufficiently to outweigh > the opposing theory. <snip> I've made it clear in the past that > I don't feel either alternative is satisfactorily proven.
>
> My understanding is that, when discussing proofs by circumstantial evidence, the standard of proof is "beyond a reasonable doubt."
> Furthermore, it is my understanding that FEELINGS are not an acceptable substitute for reasoned analysis.
>
> Is there anybody who disagrees with me?

Most people disagree with you. "Beyond a reasonable doubt" is proof needed to convict criminal defendants in United States courts.

Genealogical proof is defined well here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genealogical_Proof_Standard

[johnschm...@gmail.com]

On Saturday, September 1, 2018 at 6:29:00 AM UTC-7, joe...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> Most people disagree with you. "Beyond a reasonable doubt" is proof needed to convict criminal defendants in United States courts.
>
> Genealogical proof is defined well here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genealogical_Proof_Standard

Joe, it appears that you are venturing outside your area of expertise, not to mention misreading that wikitree page, as well as making an ignorant assumption about "most people." The very first sentence of that link you gave expresses "reasonable certainty" as the criterion for genealogical proof.

"Reasonable certainty" means exactly the same thing as "beyond a reasonable doubt."

Thank you for confirming my point.

If anybody wants to doubt my proof for the parents of Jane (Machell) Cudworth, it is important to supply a reason, and "feelings" are not an acceptable substitute for reason.

[joe...@gmail.com]

> "Reasonable certainty" means exactly the same thing as "beyond a reasonable doubt."

Is English your second language, or are you just trolling me?

[joe...@gmail.com]

"Three different standards are used in courts of law. Generally, each of the three judicial standards of proof1 requires a different level of confidence in the facts supporting a decision:

Beyond a reasonable doubt: requires at least 95% confidence that the facts support a guilty verdict
Clear and convincing: requires at least 70-75% confidence that the facts support the decision
Preponderance of evidence: requires at least 50.1% confidence that the facts support the decision

"The intermediate standard of clear and convincing proof requires a “high probability” or “reasonable certainty” that the weight of evidence favors the decision. It is applied in civil cases involving more than “mere loss of money,” such as fraud or other quasi-criminal conduct, deportation, and permanent termination of parental rights"
--https://home.campusclarity.com/standards-of-proof/

[P J Evans]

Coming from someone who claims his distant ancestors talk to him, that has to be taken as a joke.

[taf]

On Saturday, September 1, 2018 at 11:16:19 AM UTC-7, P J Evans wrote:

> Coming from someone who claims his distant ancestors talk to him, that has
> to be taken as a joke.

And this, folks, is why you don't dabble in mystical genealogy, or at least you don't admit to it in public, if you ever want to be taken seriously. While each solution should be evaluated on its own merits, every genealogical hypothesis you put forward, no matter how well reasoned and well supported, will invariably be tainted by association with such mysticism.

taf

[P J Evans]

It was actually that pronouncement on judicial standards that did it. I know they're not the same, and so do you, and most of the other people here. (And, if I *really* need an opinion, one of my nieces has a law degree and passed the bar exam.) The mystical genealogy is fine - as long as he doesn't post it here as if it were fact.

[Andrew Lancaster]

On Tuesday, August 21, 2018 at 2:13:57 AM UTC+2, celticp...@gmail.com wrote:

> Complete Peerage does not say so, but Isabel is known to have been the daughter and heiress of William Fitz Roger, of Gressenhall and Castle Acre, Norfolk, by his wife, Aeliva. See Carthew, Hundred of Launditch & Deanery of Brisley 1 (1877): 189–196 (Gressenhall-Stuteville-Foliot ped.), which may be viewed at the following weblink:
>
> https://books.google.com/books?id=iytSAQAAMAAJ&pg=PA189

Douglas,

I think Carthew, like Blomefield before him, actually has some extra generations between Isabella and the William who married Aeliva? Farrer in HKF III seems to be the one who gave a different interpretation which seems to now be the standard, writing:

"The descent of this fee from the younger Roger is not clear, but the main fine ended in an heiress Isabel, apparently Roger's sister and heir. She is said to have been first married to Berenger de Cressi. She married secondly Osmund de Stutevill, with whom she joined in confirming to Castleacre the gifts of her ancestors, namely Wimar the seneschal of Gressenhall, Roger his son, Walter son of Wimar, William son of Roger, Roger son of William and Drew his brother, and Berenger de Cressi."

Note that Farrer seems uncertain how she became the heiress of the younger Roger and his brother Drew (Drogo). If there was a charter where Isabel named her mother this would resolve it better. But without such evidence all we seem to know is that Isabel was daughter of a William, so she might for example be the daughter of Roger's brother named William, rather than Roger's father?

Do any of the Suffolk charters add anything which helps?

Best Regards
Andrew Lancaster

[johnschm...@gmail.com]

Joe, I don't think it is a great revelation to point out that "certainty" means "beyond doubt" -- certainty and doubt are mutually exclusive in common English. If you apply a specialized legal meaning to my initial choice of words, then you can make a nit-picking case for the argument that the standard of genealogical proof is actually somewhat LOWER than the standard that I applied to evaluating proofs by circumstantial evidence. My basic point remains -- you failed to engage with the first sentence in the link that you provided in your misguided attempt at a rebuttal. My underlying point -- my discussion of the evidence supporting my proof by circumstantial evidence for the parents of Jane (Machell) Cudworth -- continues to get ignored.

@Taf -- if you are unable to objectively evaluate my discussion of circumstiantial proofs because elsewhere I have publicly discussed communicating with ancestors, that would seem to show an emotional bias that clouds your judgment.

However, there might be another explanation. Perhaps you and others have heaped scorn on my examples of communication with ancestors as a convenient pretext to protect the reputation of your good buddy Douglas Richardson, who appears to be practicing shoddy genealogy in an effort to sell more books. Hence my earlier reference to Richardson's "Wizard-of-Oz" humbuggery with his public "certification" of his hopelessly broken Cudworth lineage, which you and others, once again, continue to ignore.

[deca...@aol.com]

Everyone on the soc.genealogy.medieval Newsgroup knows that the yellow brick road ends at the entrance to Douglas Richardson’s office at the Family History Library in Salt Lake City, Utah:

"There were several roads nearby, but it did not take John Schmeeckle long to find the one paved with yellow bricks. Within a short time he was walking briskly toward the Family History Library in Salt Lake City, Utah; his Silver Shoes tinkling merrily on the hard, yellow road-bed.”

[P J Evans]

Well, given that your understand of legal standards of proof isn't up to that of reputable genealogists, like E Shown Mills, why should we consider anything you say to be worth our attention?

[Andrew Lancaster]

John,

I am a bit concerned that this subject is now taking so much space in so many threads. To me it seems obvious for practical purposes that...

1. The legal terms quoted, if not perfect, were just someone's quite reasonable attempt to define the way those terms ARE (lets be honest) also used in all thoughtful debates by educated people, and...

2. You can't normally expect to use first hand witnessing of paranormal types of evidence in critical public debates, because no one else can sensibly trust do anything with it. (The un-verifiable is the first thing to criticize and dump when being critical.)

Is not banging your head against these two points really a case of making all threads about you personally? I write this as someone whose simple question about the original post will probably never be answered. :(

Andrew