Matthew Howard of MD -- Royal Ancestry?

[Hes...@aol.com]

I'm a newcomer to the group, but have kept up with recent postings and
have found them to be very stimulating. Here goes my first entry into the
fray with a question.
Is Matthew Howard (d. ca.1659) of Anne Arundel Co., Maryland a long-lost
descendant of the Howard Dukes of Norfolk? Many genealogists have speculated
as to this possibility -- noticing that he used the Norfolk Howard coat of
arms on official documents. Harry Wright Newman, in his Anne Arundel Gentry
(1971), considers it likely that Matthew was connected somehow, but hesitates
to spell out the connection.
Until 1986! In his To Maryland From Overseas, in a small, barely
noticeable entry on Maryland immigrant Matthew, he adds the world(!):
"Matthew Howard... was the son of Philip Howard and Joan Marriott and
great-grandson of Lady Margaret Douglas by her first marriage to Lord Thomas
Howard; said Lady Margaret married secondly, Mathew, Earl of Lennox." This is
a remarkable addition, in light of the fact that this would make Matthew
Howard the third great-grandson of King Henry VII of England! And the
reference note? Newman writes, "Meticulous English research by the author."
Now I must concede that I have no expertise to judge the likelihood of
this claim, other than that it sounds too good to be true, and why hasn't
anyone discovered this before and included Matthew in a list of immigrants
with royal ancestry? I would appreciate any thoughts on this question.
-- J. Thomas Buchanan

[Nathaniel Taylor]

In article <0.89a3844...@aol.com>, Hes...@aol.com wrote:

> Is Matthew Howard (d. ca.1659) of Anne Arundel Co., Maryland a long-lost
>descendant of the Howard Dukes of Norfolk? Many genealogists have speculated
>as to this possibility -- noticing that he used the Norfolk Howard coat of
>arms on official documents. Harry Wright Newman, in his Anne Arundel Gentry
>(1971), considers it likely that Matthew was connected somehow, but hesitates
>to spell out the connection.
> Until 1986! In his To Maryland From Overseas, in a small, barely
>noticeable entry on Maryland immigrant Matthew, he adds the world(!):
>"Matthew Howard... was the son of Philip Howard and Joan Marriott and
>great-grandson of Lady Margaret Douglas by her first marriage to Lord Thomas
>Howard; said Lady Margaret married secondly, Mathew, Earl of Lennox." This is
>a remarkable addition, in light of the fact that this would make Matthew
>Howard the third great-grandson of King Henry VII of England! And the
>reference note? Newman writes, "Meticulous English research by the author."

Oi!

In reply, here's a paraphrase of something I posted on an identical query
back in '96:

This theory was first advanced by James E. Moss in a (bad) historical
novel, _Providence: The Lost Towne at Severn in Maryland_ published in
1976. The descent from a secret, incognito child of Lady Margaret Douglas
and Lord Thomas Howard smacks of the grassy knoll. Moss amassed a
considerable amount of material in a long search for Matthew's origins,
but it is not a compelling case at all. And what research he had done
(and it is not altogether useless), Moss presented badly by embedding it
in, of all things, a historical novel. Nevertheless in some of what he
assembled Moss may have (inadvertently) signalled the true ancestry of
Matthew Howard in a cadet Howard branch, the Howards of Brockdish, who
were in the affinity of the dukes of Norfolk in the sixteenth century, and
who can, I think, be traced back to the Howard stem in time to connect to
the Howard marriage which adds the Cornwall line to King John.

Mr. Moss was an old man at the time the novel was published, and nothing
on either his theory or anything else well based on systematic work in
this Douglas family has since been published (Newman merely accepted Moss
without, to my knowledge, independently evaluationg it: that's OK, as
Newman's own theory of Howard's royal ancestry was also hairbrained).

So while the Margaret Douglas descent must be regarded as *not proved, nor
likely*, we must wait for someone to make a thorough review of the
evidence, including Moss' own papers (deposited at the Maryland Historical
Society) and other relevant sources more recently available. Until such a
study is made and published, Matthew Howard's ancestry remains *unknown*.

Nat Taylor

[Douglas Richardson]

Dear Mr. Buchanan:

Not to pop your bubble, but I was advised many years ago to be wary of
Mr. Newman who you cite as your Maryland source. As such, if it sounds
too good to be true, it probably is.

All the same, your immigrant's use of the Howard arms is certainly a
good starting place. My own immigrant ancestor, John Baynard, of
Maryland used a seal on his will which proved to be bonafide. And, in
his case, proof of his English parentage was found not in England, but
in Maryland records. So, by all means, keep looking!

I researched the ancestry of the English Howard family this past summer
and it is quite an impressive family lineage. Hope you can make the
right connections.

Best of luck to you. Sincerely, Douglas Richardson

* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!

[Leo van de Pas]

I am sorry to say, this 'assistance' by Douglas Richardson can only be
describe as 'pompous grandstanding'. All he has to say is negative and,
again, he throws out a teaser "I have researched the Howards"......so have I
and I will send Mr. Buchanan what I have. It might help him to look where
the connection could be. If you can't help, isn't it better to remain
silent, and not clutter the airwaves.....
Leo van de Pas

[Reedpcgen]

> My own immigrant ancestor, John Baynard, of
>Maryland used a seal on his will which proved to be bonafide. And, in
>his case, proof of his English parentage was found not in England, but
>in Maryland records.

Doug,

Could you correct me here so I don't follow a false impression? I thought the
arms claimed to have been born by the Maryland family are said to be identical
to the Baynards of Lackham, co. Wiltshire (the senior line), whereas the arms
and crest borne by the Baynards of Blagdon in 1672 are differenced (by an
amulet) and have different quarterings?

I also though it strange that John was not mentioned in the will of his father
Thomas in 1683, and though the immigrant was residing in Maryland in 1672, the
Visitation of Somerset reads "John son & heire Aet 32 Ao 1672" but does not
state that John was not in England.

(I am aware of the evidence Peter Wilson Coldham discovered and published in
NGSQ.)

Could you please address these specific points?

Paul

[Pat McDonough]

I am also related to Matthew Howard married to Anne Howard
who had a son Samuel Howard who married Catherine
who had a daughter Eleanor Howard who married John Maccubbin.
I would appreciate any information you could share or resources you could
direct me to.
pat.mc...@wizinfo.com
or mcdonoug...@bigplanet.com