Machell of London

[Dave D.]

I want to begin by thanking John Brandon for pointing out the book:

Victor Belcher, Richard Bond, Mike Gray & Andy Wittrick, eds., _Sutton House: A Tudor Courtier's House in Hackney_ (London: National Trust/ English Heritage, 2004).

There is a National Trust property in Hackney "Sutton House" that was owned by the Machells of London in the second half of the 16th century. The National Trust and English Heritage have published an interesting and well sourced book concerned with the history of the house and the people that owned it. I will excise a few quotes about Machells, but it is worthy of additional study.


John Machell (sheriff and alderman) purchased the house "The Bryk Place" (now Sutton House) from Ralph Sadleir in 1550. John's several positions are described in some detail as are his marriages (first to Ellen Castlelock, second to Joan Luddington, the latter being the mother of the Machell brothers, John, Matthew and Thomas). John M died in 1558. [p 91]

Then there is an extended discussion of John's Will. The house passed to John Jr as a minor in 1565. Matthew had a "small amount of property" in Kingshold Manor. Youngest brother Thomas received a cottage or tenement to the East of Sutton House. [p 92]

John Jr is extensively discussed next. It is argued that he was not the Captain of Horse, this being a misreading from his activity as Justice of the Peace. The text continues:

"in fact he seems to have played no significant part in the life of the city and no achievements in any other field are recorded. Were it not for the many legal disputes i which he was embroiled and which cast some light on his character and activities, he would be a very shadowy figure indeed". [p 93]

On p. 96, disputes with Matthew are discussed. Among other things it is mentioned that Matthew lived nearby at Shackelwell. There is a complicated array of lawsuits involving properties, especially the "Tanhouse", and most certainly they were bitter and acrimonious. There was litigation up to the time of Matthew's death.

The most remarkable discussion is concerned with John Jr.'s financial overreach, purchasing expensive properties in Cambridgeshire (Hinxton and Woodbury) beginning in the 1570s, possibly influenced by the Hynde links to Cambridgeshire. This led him into possibly armed (!) conflict with Sir James Deane. It is a long story but the upshot is that John Machell Jr spent six years at the King's Bench Prison. [p98] He retired to Cambridgeshire, bitter and he turned even on his own oldest son John, who pre-deceased him. While it is not quite certain, it is believed that John Jr. was out of Sutton House about 1605.

Some other aspects of this are treated by Bernard O'Connor at this link, with several references and discussion of John Machell's activities leading to his imprisonment. I also include the link because the book is hard to get (even the Cambridge U. library could not find their copy and had to get the book via interlibrary loan).

http://www.bernardoconnor.org.uk/Everton/THE%20MANOR%20OF%20CANONS%20OR%20TETWORTH.htm

David Drabold

[ravinma...@yahoo.com]

Thanks for the update. Interesting!

It sounds as though John Machell Jr., and his brother Matthew to a lesser extent, were very litigious and generally difficult people. Perhaps this is why the Visitation accounts of their respective families are so "skimpy" or under-reported. If John Jr.'s heirs (son and grandson) were disaffected from him, perhaps that is why their family trees were reported to the Heralds in only the most basic fashion.

It should be noted that the 1634 Essex Visitation shows neither John Jr. nor Matthew with a daughter named Mary.

https://books.google.com/books?id=0m1KAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA441&dq=hynde+essex+lewknor&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj_wdbox6jaAhWixVkKHZdABWsQ6AEILjAB#v=onepage&q=hynde%20essex%20lewknor&f=false

It's my theory that Matthew's daughter "Jane" may be a mistake for Mary in the above. Mary did in fact have a daughter Jane living in 1634. This could just be a careless mistake by someone who did not care very much about accuracy concerning this particular family.

[ravinma...@yahoo.com]

Information on Frances (Cotton) Machell's death date is given in Stow's _Survey_ under St. John's, Hackney:

In this Church was buried Frances, the Wife of John Mauchel, or Machel, of Hackney, Esq; Daughter to Will. Coton of Panfield in Essex, Esq; Dyed at her House in Homerton, May 11, 1574, in Childbed: Deliver'd of two Children, John, Son and Heir, and Frances. Buried May 21. But her Monument (if she had any) is gone.

https://books.google.com/books?id=SKAGLi1j7ugC&pg=PA786&dq=stow+dyed+mauchel&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi6oa6Myq3aAhWFy1MKHTJbD8QQ6AEIJzAA#v=onepage&q=stow%20dyed%20mauchel&f=false

Frances Coton/Cotton was John Machell's first wife (Ursula Hynde was his second wife).

[johnschm...@gmail.com]

Thanks David and ravinma. I have added notes to John Machell's wikitree profile: https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Machell-38

(That profile has become a rather disorderly but well-documented collection of notes from various sources; I might get around to reorganizing it eventually if nobody else does.)

[ravinma...@yahoo.com]

On Monday, April 9, 2018 at 5:03:44 PM UTC-4, johnschm...@gmail.com wrote:
> Thanks David and ravinma. I have added notes to John Machell's wikitree profile: https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Machell-38
>
> (That profile has become a rather disorderly but well-documented collection of notes from various sources; I might get around to reorganizing it eventually if nobody else does.)

Given that the birth records of St. John's, Hackney, don't name any parents in the records from the 1580s, isn't there some chance the Mary baptised there (less than a year after another Machell child) isn't John's but rather his brother Matthew's child? After all, we know Matthew Machell was in the vicinity of Hackney, as well.

Given that David Drabold has provided information that John and Mathew "enjoyed" a very fraught and legally perilous relationship, isn't it stretching to believe that Matthew's known son willed 125 pounds to one of John's grandchildren, rather than to his own niece?

[ravinma...@yahoo.com]

At least we are pretty confident Mary couldn't be the child of the brother Thomas, as he was buried 3 July 1581 at St. John's, Hackney, leaving a four-month-old son Francis Machell.

https://books.google.com/books?id=m1xIAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA16&dq=machell+tunsted&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjs-7r7kLDaAhUO2FMKHZNzCosQ6AEIKTAA#v=onepage&q=machell%20tunsted&f=false

[ravinma...@yahoo.com]

Reference to Thomas and Matthew Machell ...

https://books.google.com/books?id=XWPlAAAAMAAJ&q=newington+machell&dq=newington+machell&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjz6vemnbDaAhVO7FMKHYYHCy0Q6AEIVjAI

Okay, this is my last word on this topic. It's up to Machell descendants to discover, if they can, what is the correct Machell lineage.

[ravinma...@yahoo.com]

Oops, I lied ...

25/01/1634 [....] London to apprehend Ursula Machell, widow for William Baber, Esq.

https://books.google.com/books?id=YPIMAQAAIAAJ&q=machell+%22william+baber%22&dq=machell+%22william+baber%22&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj7ot_YrbDaAhWIuVMKHUDDCMsQ6AEIOTAD

Presumably this was Ursula Machell's daughter Judith's husband. I assume this has something to do with debt.

Have you verified Ursula doesn't have a will 1634 or later?

[ravinma...@yahoo.com]

https://books.google.com/books?id=mFc4AQAAMAAJ&pg=PA254&dq=%22ursula+manchell%22&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiLyYrssrDaAhWK7VMKHXLsCOAQ6AEILDAB#v=onepage&q=%22ursula%20manchell%22&f=false

[ravinma...@yahoo.com]

John Machell was married to Frances Cotton by 1568:

https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=hvd.32044090374695;view=1up;seq=44

Okay. That's all I can find.

[ravinma...@yahoo.com]

Oops, fibbed again.

It looks like John Machell may not have been on too good terms with the Hynde family starting sometime in Elizabeth I:

Plaintiff: William Hynde esq.
Defendant: John Manchell esq.
Object of the suit: For the performance of articles made on marriage.
Premises: Lands in Gamlingay in co. Cambridge, and in Everton in co. Huntingdon and Bedford, which defendant, by articles, made on his marriage with Ursula, plaintiff's sister, covenanted to settle as therein mentioned.

https://books.google.com/books?id=s3pEAAAAcAAJ&pg=PA76&dq=%22of+articles+made%22+manchell&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj1to_Kx7DaAhUGy1MKHc8-A8oQ6AEIKTAA#v=onepage&q=%22of%20articles%20made%22%20manchell&f=false

[ravinma...@yahoo.com]

Manchell's two suits with Walter Hill, and one with Chamberlayne, are on pp. 11, 31, and 47:

https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt/search?q1=manchell;id=njp.32101074434604;view=1up;seq=7;start=1;sz=10;page=search;orient=0

Presumably this is Ursula, given the time period (... 1625-1649).

[ravinma...@yahoo.com]

Mundy's Middlesex pedigrees doesn't even show the daughter Judith Machell who married William Baber of Lincoln's Inn, instead giving Ursula Hynde's children as (1) William Machell, ob. s.p., (2) [son] Machell, and (3) Jane Machell (married ...).

https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=pst.000023822511;view=1up;seq=23

Wow, difficult family. Such widely varying records.

[ravinma...@yahoo.com]

Mrs. Ursula Machell died in 1639 in the city of Cambridge, apparently.

https://books.google.com/books?id=ofMVAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA257&dq=%22mris+ursley+machell%22&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjmiLHi0rDaAhUG3VMKHT09AjIQ6AEIJzAA#v=onepage&q=%22mris%20ursley%20machell%22&f=false

I would definitely check to see if she had a will proved locally.

Glad to help.

[Dave D.]

There is a lot of new information here to digest, thank you! It really does seem that the Machells were an exceptionally troublesome lot, especially John Jr. Just to make an obvious comment, supporting yours, we know that John Machell Jr was in prison from 1606-1612. Now we have evidence of conflict with Wm Hynde. So the daughter of an imprisoned troublemaker is "nurse" (whatever that means as John S discusses) the Prince of Wales? This seems more consistent with D. Richardson's interpretation.

Let me add that I happen to be in Cambridge at this time. I am a physicist not a genealogist, but if an expert can tell me where to look locally for a Will, I will try. There is of course an outstanding library here.

[Dave D.]

From the book I referenced at the beginning of the thread: Wm Hynde (brother of Ursula) took a Chancery suit against John M in 1598 complaining that Machell had agreed to convey property in Woodbury for him in trust for Ursula and thought that there was "great danger" that Machell would not honor the deed (presumably because of the great financial pressure he was under). [p. 96]

There is an implicit hint of estrangement between Ursula and her husband, since her brother felt that he had to protect her interests against him. It is suggested that after Sir James Deane took Sutton House (probably late 1605) that Ursula and John were kept apart, and that Ursula may have continued to live in Sutton House under the protection of Deane.

It's also stated that Sir William Deane was a founder of the East India Company along with Sir Wm Hynde. Here is an alliance between Ursula's brother and John Jr's nemesis.

[ravinma...@yahoo.com]

You may have better luck using LDS sources for a will (or London area sources). Nathan probably knows more about where Cambridgeshire wills can be found if not in the PCC.

I would also check Ursula's burial record just to make sure there's no mention of Cudworths (Ralph Cudworth, Mary's son, was finishing up his Cambridge degree in 1638/9). I suppose that is just coincidence. (?)

I agree that both John and Ursula seem to be very difficult people. It would be interesting to know what William Baber wished her arrested for in 1634.

I do tend to think Matthew is a better choice for father of the Prince's nurse.

Do we know for certain what sort of nurse she was? Did James VI/I continue the Scottish tradition of "rockers" for infants? Maybe that is what is meant.

Machyn's London diary gives an exact date in 1565 for the death of Joan (Loddington) (Machell) Chamberlayne.

[Dave D.]

This is odd. I have walked by the churchyard [All Saints, Cambridge] that Ursula Machell is buried in many times with no clue that she was there. It is very close to Christ's College, not far (but not adjacent) to Emmanuel (the relevant point -- Ralph Cudworth Jr, brother of James of Scituate, was a student and Fellow in Emmanuel, and many years after Ursula's burial, the Master at Christ's). I'm going to go find [~11th great aunt] burial tomorrow!

Dave

[Nathan Murphy]

Ursula Machell's will was proved in the Archdeaconry Court of Ely in 1639. I'm not in SLC this week, but it should be on FHL film 186638 (digitised, restricted).

Nathan

[jamesr...@googlemail.com]

Greetings,

I'm researching the Lodington family and believe there maybe a connection here as many Lod(d)dingtons were also Luddingtons. I note the 1634 Visitation of Essex Pedigree of Machell notes the "Loddington" Arms as "Paly of six argent and gules, on a chief sable a lion passant gardant of the first". I am unsure whether this matches the Arms of the Lod(d)ingtons of Lincolnshire or not. Any help on this matter would be greatly appreciated. Do we know where the Kirkby's originate in Yorkshire?

Per my notes, I note Joan Lodyngton, daughter of Henry Lodyngton, of London (died 1531) and Joan Kirkby, died on 28 April 1565. However, there maybe confusion here because I note Joan's second husband Sir Thomas Chamberlain, M.P., of Prestbury, Gloucestershire has the same death date as Joan. Can anyone confirm the date of Joan Chamberlain (née Machell née Lodyngton)?

Furthermore, I note Joan Lodyngton had two siblings, re. Anne Lodyngton (married to Thomas Lodge) and Nicholas Lodington, of Hackney.

As stated above, I have been unable to determine anything further relating to Henry Lodyngton, of London's family.

James R. Yeowell

[ravinma...@yahoo.com]

On Wednesday, April 11, 2018 at 3:01:57 PM UTC-4, Nathan Murphy wrote:
> Ursula Machell's will was proved in the Archdeaconry Court of Ely in 1639. I'm not in SLC this week, but it should be on FHL film 186638 (digitised, restricted).
>
> Nathan

Thanks, Nathan. I suppose we shouldn't get our hopes up too much, as so many wills are brief.

Here is a letter from John "Mawchell" to Lord Cecil, written from the Fleet:

https://books.google.com/books?id=UAoRAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA286&dq=london+mawchell&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwip5cD6g7PaAhUKzFMKHVGjDHwQ6AEINDAC#v=onepage&q=london%20mawchell&f=false

Would his "father-in-law" be Sir Thomas Chamberlayne? Francis Hynde, his wife's father, had died in 1596.

[ravinma...@yahoo.com]

Reference: Ep/II/29/1
Post 1590


Ff. 52 & 53 Richard Davyes v. John Mawchel.


Libel in cause about pew in Sawston Church (Ely diocese).


http://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/details/r/874d3328-89e5-4566-8360-5d01f0ff1823

[jamesr...@googlemail.com]

Sir Thomas Chamberlayne, M.P., of Prestbury, Gloucestershire was Joan Machell's (née Lodyngton/Luddington) second husband and thus father-in-law of John, Matthew and Thomas Machell.

James R. Yeowell

[ravinma...@yahoo.com]

Well, no, that wouldn't work, as the HOP account of Thomas Chamberlaine indicates he died in 1580. The letter was written in 1598.

http://www.historyofparliamentonline.org/volume/1558-1603/member/chamberlain-sir-thomas-1504-80

Perhaps it just indicates that John Machell took up to two years to get around doing what his father-in-law Hynde had asked (something to do with a hound).

Maybe that was why he was in the Fleet Prison.

[John Higgins]

On Wednesday, April 11, 2018 at 12:01:57 PM UTC-7, Nathan Murphy wrote:
> Ursula Machell's will was proved in the Archdeaconry Court of Ely in 1639. I'm not in SLC this week, but it should be on FHL film 186638 (digitised, restricted).
>
> Nathan

"(digitised, restricted)" --

Does this mean that the digitized version of the film can be viewed only at the FHL or at an FHC, or is there some further restriction as well?

[jamesr...@googlemail.com]

Thanks to Ravinma, for supplying the HoP article for Sir Thomas Chamberlain, I have now updated his death as 1580.

One further query: is the Thomas Lodge who married Ellen Castlelock (as her first husband), the same Thomas Lodge who married Anne Lodyngton, daughter of Henry Lodyngton, of London and sister of Joan Luddington/Lodyngton (second wife of John Machell, Sheriff of London, first married to Ellen Castlelock above)?

If so, do we know anything further about him?

James

[jamesr...@googlemail.com]

Ignore my last query. I have just looked further into Thomas Lodge and it is clear he is the Sir Thomas Lodge, Lord Mayor of London (c. 1509-28 Feb. 1584) who married three times (lastly to Anne Luddington).

However, the question still remains as to the Thomas Lodge who married Ellen Castlelock. Presumaby he is related to the Lord Mayor of London?

James

[johnschm...@gmail.com]

On Wednesday, April 11, 2018 at 3:56:15 PM UTC-4, jamesr...@googlemail.com wrote:
> I note the 1634 Visitation of Essex Pedigree of Machell notes the "Loddington" Arms as "Paly of six argent and gules, on a chief sable a lion passant gardant of the first". I am unsure whether this matches the Arms of the Lod(d)ingtons of Lincolnshire or not. Any help on this matter would be greatly appreciated. Do we know where the Kirkby's originate in Yorkshire?
>
> Per my notes, I note Joan Lodyngton, daughter of Henry Lodyngton, of London (died 1531) and Joan Kirkby, died on 28 April 1565. However, there maybe confusion here because I note Joan's second husband Sir Thomas Chamberlain, M.P., of Prestbury, Gloucestershire has the same death date as Joan. Can anyone confirm the date of Joan Chamberlain (née Machell née Lodyngton)?

I would check Charles Evans, "Sir Thomas Chamberlayne and his Wives and Children," in The Genealogist, vol. 3 (1982).

The Kirkby family came from Kirkby Irelith, Lincolnshire. You can find some clues in the ancestry chart for Jane (Luddington)(Machell) Chamberlayne at https://www.wikitree.com/genealogy/Luddington-Family-Tree-75

[johnschm...@gmail.com]

On Wednesday, April 11, 2018 at 9:16:29 PM UTC-4, johnschm...@gmail.com wrote:

>
> The Kirkby family came from Kirkby Irelith, Lincolnshire. You can find some clues in the ancestry chart for Jane (Luddington)(Machell) Chamberlayne at https://www.wikitree.com/genealogy/Luddington-Family-Tree-75

Oops, Lancashire. The Kirkby family that intermarried with Luddington has the same arms as the Lancashire family; you can judge for yourself the likelihood of the lineage, marked "uncertain" in that wikitree chart.

[Dave D.]

For those of you that know Cambridge, UK, there is a space between the Great Gates of Trinity and St John's. Across St John's St from this is a small park in which art fairs etc are held on the weekend, an alley, "All Saints Passage" runs on the side toward Trinity to Jesus Lane. The park is in fact what remains of the churchyard of "All Saints in the Jewry", a medieval church that was demolished in the 19th century, and moved to Jesus Lane. Even findagrave has a listing for the burial of Ursely Machell (no photo). I am sitting in Trinity College as I type, when the (never ending) rain stops I am going hunting it's about a three minute walk from my office. There are some Woodruffs there too.

https://www.findagrave.com/memorial/186725349/ursley-machell

[ravinma...@yahoo.com]

I suppose another possibility is that Sir Francis Hynde's widow Jane had remarried after his death. I had thought the record below might apply to her, but maybe not ...

https://books.google.com/books?id=0_sqAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA129&dq=%22jane+hynde%22&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi01d-L87DaAhWDvlMKHWrrDUcQ6AEIRzAF#v=onepage&q=%22jane%20hynde%22&f=false

[ravinma...@yahoo.com]

> I agree that both John and Ursula seem to be very difficult people. It would be interesting to know what William Baber wished her arrested for in 1634.
>

Ursula Machell and [son-in-law] William Baber were co-defendants in a suit initiated by Walter Hill, apparently the same Hill Ursula complained of in the _State Papers_ petition, above.

https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=coo1.ark:/13960/t9v12m87j;view=1up;seq=449

Maybe they had a falling-out, and Baber had her arrested for debt?

[Nathan Murphy]

FamilySearch doesn't explain the restrictions. I've noticed the majority of its English collection must be viewed on FHL/FHC computers.

[ravinma...@yahoo.com]

"The Lordship of this towne was heretofore belonging to the Earle of Oxford, and by one of hem sould to Machill and from Machill by a forfeiture of a wager it came to Sir James Doone of London, and by him given to five brothers named Chamberlane ..."

https://books.google.com/books?id=XVdmAAAAMAAJ&q=%22came+to+Sir+James+Doone%22&dq=%22came+to+Sir+James+Doone%22&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiI9YnGk7XaAhVJslMKHet-DBkQ6AEIKTAA

"Doone" should obviously be _Deane_, as in "Sir James Deane." It seems the property referred to here was not lost because of Machell's debts, but because of the "forfeiture of a wager."

It would be interesting to know if the Chamberlanes referred to were connected to John Machell's two half-brothers named Chamberlayne.

[wjhonson]

https://books.google.com/books?id=hZXSAAAAMAAJ&dq=hinxton%20chamberlayne&pg=PA76#v=onepage&q=hinxton%20chamberlayne&f=false

[wjhonson]

"To five of his nephews"

https://books.google.com/books?id=RAAWAQAAIAAJ&q=%22sir+james+deane%22+hinxton&dq=%22sir+james+deane%22+hinxton&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj7iY6Zv7XaAhVBwFQKHWhCCwMQ6wEIPTAE

[Dave D.]

On Thursday, April 12, 2018 at 8:42:52 PM UTC+1, wjhonson wrote:
> "To five of his nephews"
>
> https://books.google.com/books?id=RAAWAQAAIAAJ&q=%22sir+james+deane%22+hinxton&dq=%22sir+james+deane%22+hinxton&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj7iY6Zv7XaAhVBwFQKHWhCCwMQ6wEIPTAE

Five of Deane's nephews. I bought a copy of this book, if anybody needs anything out of it.

[wjhonson]

Jane Luddington who married John Machell and then Thomas Chamberlyne was living in 1558 since that is the year John died. And even later, since she had three children by Chamberlyne.

[ravinma...@yahoo.com]

28 April 1565 is the date she died, according to Machyn's London diary. Somewhere in a footnote in the back of the book.

[wjhonson]

Was this already mentioned

http://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/details/r/C3815847

I had thought it was noted that John Machell died in 1628
Ursula is stated here in 1624 to be widow

[ravinma...@yahoo.com]

Notice that Elizabeth Machell, the widow of Nicholas Machell, had a PCC will proved in 1638 by her mother Lydia Crabbe.

https://books.google.com/books?id=n3ybnXbPtMUC&pg=PA256&dq=%22william+machell%22&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjKhJiW37faAhXLzVMKHXTpCjw4MhDoAQg0MAM#v=onepage&q=%22william%20machell%22&f=false

I believe Nicholas was son of John Machell, son of Matthew Machell (by ? Mary Lewknor).

Lydia Crabbe features in Leslie's and my recent article on Hussey & Scott in TAG.

Lydia Crabbe's maiden name was Hussey, and she was daughter of John Hussey by his wife, Mary Wroth.

Mary Lewknor, presumably wife of Matthew Machell, was daughter of Edward Lewknor by his wife, Dorothy Wroth. Dorothy Wroth was aunt of Mary Wroth, wife of John Hussey.

This means Nicholas Machell and his wife Elizabeth were cousins of some degree, doesn't it? Thereby proving that Matthew Machell's descendants were by his Lewknor wife. Well, not proving ... but "hinting strongly."

[wjhonson]

On the point of Nicholas Machell x Elizabeth Crabbe see

https://books.google.com/books?id=10IEAAAAIAAJ&dq=nicholas%20machell&pg=PA73#v=onepage&q&f=true

[wjhonson]

I can add a few things from my notes
Nicholas Machell and Elizbeth Crabbe married
7 Oct 1630 Saint Mary Putney, London (Batch M017491 wj)

The Vis London names their only child Elizabeth in 1633
but also they had at least
Nicholas /Machell/
bap 5 Mar 1634
Wonersh, co Surrey (Batch C055922 wj)

[wjhonson]

One last point on Nicholas Machell.
I had many years ago extracted the baptism of his eldest sister Griseld
12 Oct 1600
Seale, co Surrey (Batch P013321 wj)

Just to give him a slightly better birthyear range of 1604/1612
Assuming that is that to be a "linen draper" one must be an adult (aged 21 or more)

[johnschm...@gmail.com]

On Wednesday, April 11, 2018 at 3:56:15 PM UTC-4, jamesr...@googlemail.com wrote:
>

> Per my notes, I note Joan Lodyngton, daughter of Henry Lodyngton, of London (died 1531) and Joan Kirkby, died on 28 April 1565. However, there maybe confusion here because I note Joan's second husband Sir Thomas Chamberlain, M.P., of Prestbury, Gloucestershire has the same death date as Joan. Can anyone confirm the date of Joan Chamberlain (née Machell née Lodyngton)?
>
> Furthermore, I note Joan Lodyngton had two siblings, re. Anne Lodyngton (married to Thomas Lodge) and Nicholas Lodington, of Hackney.
>

Charles Evans, "Sir Thomas Chamberlayne and his Wives and Children," in The Genealogist, vol. 3 (1982), pp. 154-61:

Evans doesn't give the death date for Joan (Luddington)(Machell) Chamberlayne, but she died before 28 Oct. 1567, the date of Thomas Chamberlayne's licence to marry his third wife, widow Anne Pyerson (per footnote 35 on p. 160).

Thomas Chamberlayne made his will on 26 June 1580, and it was proved the same year. (per footnote 4 on p. 158)

Thomas Chamberlayne had by his wife Joan (Luddington) Machell a son Edmund who married (1) widow Anne (Woodford) Moulton, whose mother Joan (Lodge) Woodford was daughter of Sir Thomas Lodge, Lord Mayor of London, by his wife Ann Luddington, sister of Joan (Luddington)(Machell) Chamberlayne. (Evans, pp. 156, 157)

[johnschm...@gmail.com]

On Friday, April 13, 2018 at 1:19:17 PM UTC-4, ravinma...@yahoo.com wrote:
> This means Nicholas Machell and his wife Elizabeth were cousins of some degree, doesn't it? Thereby proving that Matthew Machell's descendants were by his Lewknor wife. Well, not proving ... but "hinting strongly."

Nicholas Machell --> John Machell --> Mathew Machell=Mary Lewknor(?) --> Edward Lewknor=Dorothy Wroth --> Robert Wroth.

Elizabeth Crabbe --> Lydia Hussey --> John Hussey=Mary Wroth --> Sir Thomas Wroth (m. Mary Rich) --> Robert Wroth.

Nicholas Machell and Elizabeth Crabbe appear to have been third cousins, which would indeed support the presumption that Mathew Machell's son John at least was by Mary Lewknor. (If I'm not mistaken, it was common for families to arrange marriages between third cousins, which was the closest permitted by the medieval consanguinity laws.)

We already know that Mathew Machell's daughter Dorothy was by Mary Lewknor (Dorothy was mentioned in the will of Mary's mother), so any siblings born between John and Dorothy Machell would also be presumably a child of Mary. (Unfortunately, the secondary sources differ on whether Mary was the first wife or the second wife, and seems plausible to suggest that the "Cotton" wife was just a figment of somebody's imagination.)

[ravinma...@yahoo.com]

> Nicholas Machell and Elizabeth Crabbe appear to have been third cousins, which would indeed support the presumption that Mathew Machell's son John at least was by Mary Lewknor. (If I'm not mistaken, it was common for families to arrange marriages between third cousins, which was the closest permitted by the medieval consanguinity laws.)

Of course after the reformation there was no impediment on first cousin marriages. I.e., after the 1540s in England.

Nathan Murphy has kindly supplied a copy of Ursula Machell's will, which was on the film for loose originals at Ely. I'll make an attempt at transcription. There is considerably bleeding of the ink.

I, Ursula Machell, being aged and weak but of good memory ...
--bequeath my soul to Almighty God ...
--body to be buried when and where it shall seem convenient to my friends here with me if mr [?Shellye/ Strellye] out of his love do not take care of it ...
--to nephew Robert Hynde five pounds and a bed ...
--10 shillings to the poor people of the parish of Madingley, where I was born ...
--10 shillings also to the poor of the parish of Allhallows
--20 shillings to my servant John Hilyard
--remainder of money left after payment for funeral and of other legacies to Elizabeth [?Lloyd], Martha Clifford, and Ann [? Burch/ Branch/??] to be equally divided between them ..
--Minister at her funeral shall receive [?10] shillings if he does not preach, but 20 if he preaches ... [I'm unsure about this.]
--More about her nephew Robert Hynde getting the bed and stuff apertaining to it, pillowbeers and blankets ....
--Loving friend Thomas [? Sanders] Doctor of Divinity to oversee or supervise her will
--aforesaid three maidservants, viz. Elizabeth LLoyd, Martha Clifford, and Ann Burch shall be my executrixes of this my last will dated this [? sixth] day of January Anno Dni 1639 witness my hand & seal the day and yeare above written ...

Usley Machell

{Witnesses} [? Charles] [? Williams], Thomas Muriell

Corrections appreciated.

So ... No Cudworths, Stoughtons, Babers, or Machells (other than Ursula herself).

[ravinma...@yahoo.com]

The NEHGR has information on the identity of Ralph Cudworth, Jr.'s, wife Damaris: "Damaris, daughter of Matthew Craddock by his first wife Damaris ___, was baptized at St. Swithin's, Canongate, London, 1 Nov. 1623. On the death of [1st husband] Thomas Andrews, the leatherseller, she married Rev. Ralph Cudworth, brother of James Cudworth of Scituate, Mass."

https://books.google.com/books?id=2ihAAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA86&dq=%22ralph+cudworth%22+damaris&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjk2rD1lcLaAhXHyVMKHQOdDsEQ6AEIJzAA#v=onepage&q=%22ralph%20cudworth%22%20damaris&f=false

Matthew Craddock of London was of course the well-known early Governor of the Massachusetts Company.

The chart below identifies Damaris (Cradock) (Andrews) Cudworth's mother as Damaris WINN, daughter of Sir Richard Winn of Shrewsbury, the first wife of M. Craddock (his second being Rebecca Jordan):

https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=iau.31858044936593;view=1up;seq=203

[Nathan Murphy]

> Nathan Murphy has kindly supplied a copy of Ursula Machell's will, which was on the film for loose originals at Ely. I'll make an attempt at transcription. There is considerably bleeding of the ink.
>
> I, Ursula Machell, being aged and weak but of good memory ...
> --bequeath my soul to Almighty God ...
> --body to be buried when and where it shall seem convenient to my friends here with me if mr [?Shellye/ Strellye] out of his love do not take care of it ...
> --to nephew Robert Hynde five pounds and a bed ...
> --10 shillings to the poor people of the parish of Madingley, where I was born ...
> --10 shillings also to the poor of the parish of Allhallows
> --20 shillings to my servant John Hilyard
> --remainder of money left after payment for funeral and of other legacies to Elizabeth [?Lloyd], Martha Clifford, and Ann [? Burch/ Branch/??] to be equally divided between them ..
> --Minister at her funeral shall receive [?10] shillings if he does not preach, but 20 if he preaches ... [I'm unsure about this.]
> --More about her nephew Robert Hynde getting the bed and stuff apertaining to it, pillowbeers and blankets ....
> --Loving friend Thomas [? Sanders] Doctor of Divinity to oversee or supervise her will
> --aforesaid three maidservants, viz. Elizabeth LLoyd, Martha Clifford, and Ann Burch shall be my executrixes of this my last will dated this [? sixth] day of January Anno Dni 1639 witness my hand & seal the day and yeare above written ...
>
> Usley Machell
>
> {Witnesses} [? Charles] [? Williams], Thomas Muriell
>
> Corrections appreciated.
>
> So ... No Cudworths, Stoughtons, Babers, or Machells (other than Ursula herself).

I've had a chance to look at this now too. Ursula doesn't leave legacies to any children. In the third item, I would read 'mr Stuklye.' I can't make out the overseer's surname either C**b/ler I would read the three servants as Elizabeth Heyt, Martha Clifford, and Ann Brookes. The date the will was written is smeared by an ink blotch. It might say xith (11th). So the full date then would be 11 Jan 1629[/30].

In the Latin probate, Ursula is called a gentlewoman (generaosae foeminae Ursulae Machell ... viduae def[unc]tae). Proved: 10 Feb 1639[/40].

Nathan

[celticp...@gmail.com]

Dear Dave, Nathan, etc. ~

The three servants named in Ursula Machell's will are Elizabeth Heyt, Martha Clifford, and Ann Brooks (not Brookes). As noted, they were the residuary legatees of Ursula Machell's will. No children or grandchildren are named in the will, only a nephew, Robert Hynde.

The overseer of Ursula Machell's will is Thomas Comber (not Sanders), Doctor of Divinity. Below is a reference to Thomas Comber's PCC will proved in 1653 which is taken from the online Discovery catalogue.

The will of Ursula Machell is dated 11 January 1639[/40], not 11 January 1629[/30]. The will was proved 10 February 1639/40.

The probate clause indicates that Ursula Machell, widow, gentlewoman, resided in the vill (town) of Cambridge in Cambridgeshire, which was the residence of Thomas Comber as shown below.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

+ + + + + + + +

Catalogue description

Will of Thomas Comber, Doctor in Divinity of Cambridge, Cambridgeshire
Reference: PROB 11/225/26
Description: Will of Thomas Comber, Doctor in Divinity of Cambridge, Cambridgeshire
Date: 26 April 1653
Held by: The National Archives, Kew
Legal status: Public Record(s)
Closure status: Open Document, Open Description

[Dave D.]

Great work, thank you for this new information. The lack of bequests or reference to family is curious and I would note that Ralph Cudworth Jr was finishing his MA at exactly this time in Emmanuel College, Cambridge, and by 1645 was Master of Clare Hall (now Clare). He would literally have lived a five minute walk from her parish church. I find it very strange that Ralph goes unmentioned in any capacity whatever in this Will if Ursula was, in fact, his grandmother. I think some of the salient points of this thread are (1) John Machell Jr was a person in disgrace, indeed in prison, around or during the time that Mary Machell was associated with Prince Henry (it appears that John Jr was in prison 1606-1612). It seems unlikely to me that the Prince of Wales would have the daughter of such a man as “nurse”. Generally, the reputation of the John Jr/Hynde family is sketchy at best, as amply demonstrated in the perpetual lawsuits both within the family and without. (2) As Douglas R pointed out clearly, there is really no evidence to support a Cotton wife for Matthew, his conjecture that it’s a leftover from Burke seems very reasonable to me. It seems like John S is coming around to this view too. (3) We know that Mary Machell was not the daughter of the youngest Machell brother Thomas. Based upon Douglas R’s detailed work, Bellasis’ conclusions and these additional tidbits, I think the clear inference is that Mary Machell was daughter of Matthew M and Mary Lewknor. By the way, John, I would also say thank you for bringing it up, your query has led to improved understanding of this surprising family.

Dave Drabold

[wjhonson]

Not Ann *Luddington*
She was the half-sister of Joan by their mother Joan's *second* marriage to Sir William Laxton

[johnschm...@gmail.com]

On Wednesday, April 18, 2018 at 10:59:03 PM UTC-6, wjhonson wrote:

>
> Not Ann *Luddington*
> She was the half-sister of Joan by their mother Joan's *second* marriage to Sir William Laxton

Could you double-check that? "William Laxton had no children of his own, but acknowledged three of his wife's children fully in his will. His principal heir however was his niece Joan, wife of Thomas Wanton. His stepchildren were:
•Nicholas Luddington, who married Avice Rowe, sister of Sir Thomas Rowe (Lord Mayor of London 1568–69, died 1570),[44] and by her had three children. Nicholas Luddington, Grocer, became Governor of the Merchant Adventurers at Antwerp,[45] and, after confrontations with Walter Travers and Thomas Cartwright, had dealings with Sir Francis Walsingham.[46] He died in 1595 or early 1596.[47]
•Anne Luddington, who married first (as his second wife) William Lane, Grocer, and secondly (as his third wife) Sir Thomas Lodge, Grocer, who became Lord Mayor of London in 1562. Anne was the mother of the poet Thomas Lodge. Dame Ann Lodge died in 1579.[48]
•Joan Luddington, who married first (as his second wife) John Machell, Clothworker (Sheriff of London 1555–56, died 1558[49] ),[50] by whom she had five surviving children:[51] and secondly (as the second of his three wives) the diplomat Sir Thomas Chamberlayne, by whom she had three surviving children.[52] Dame Joan Chamberlayne died in 1565.[53]"
per https://www.revolvy.com/topic/William%20Laxton%20(mayor)&item_type=topic

[johnschm...@gmail.com]

On Wednesday, April 18, 2018 at 12:08:26 AM UTC-6, Dave D. wrote:
> I find it very strange that Ralph goes unmentioned in any capacity whatever in this Will if Ursula was, in fact, his grandmother.

There are many potential reasons why Ralph could be not mentioned in his grandmother's testament. The testament didn't dispose of significant property. Its intent seems to have been chiefly for Ursula to bestow gifts on her maidservants (perhaps enough for them to find a husband), although she did mention a nephew. Presumably all of Ursula's children were already dead. The fact that Ralph Cudworth was living so close by (as David mentions) is yet another indication that Ursula WAS his grandmother. Why else would she be living in Cambridge in 1639? (She was in London in 1634.) We can imagine that Ralph was at his grandmother's bedside as she died, and she could have easily given him a memento in person as the day approached, so no need to mention him in her testament.

I have gone through this thread and added most of the sources to the wikitree profiles of John Machell at https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Machell-38
and Ursula Hynde at https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Hynde-10

(And now I'm going to take a break from all that. I'll come back to it in a few days, as the mass of information on those profiles still needs better order.)

John Schmeeckle

[Paulo Ricardo Canedo]

I think there's not enough evidence to decide whether Mary Machell Cudworth Stoughton was daughter of John Machell or Matthew Machell. By the way, Matthew Machell's wife's relatives also had some connections to the royal court.

[ravinma...@yahoo.com]

Sensible people are likely to come to a different conclusion than yours. But of course it is your right to think what you please about your own ancestors.

However, you might want to correct the surnames in Ursula's will (see above in this thread).

https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Hynde-10

[johnschm...@gmail.com]

On Tuesday, April 24, 2018 at 12:22:49 PM UTC-4, ravinma...@yahoo.com wrote:

>
> Sensible people are likely to come to a different conclusion than yours. But of course it is your right to think what you please about your own ancestors.
>
> However, you might want to correct the surnames in Ursula's will (see above in this thread).
>
> https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Hynde-10

Thank you, ravinma, for pointing out the spelling of the surnames of Ursula's three maidservants in her testament. The purpose of the testament (not a will) seems to have been to provide marriage portions for her maidservants. She also gives her bed to her nephew Robert Hynde -- was he unmarried at the time?

Your post implies a mistaken assumption that John Machell is my ancestor. Actually, I have a likely descent from his sister Jane (Machell) Rich, so my own Machell connection doesn't put any kings or Magna Carta barons into my family tree, as far as I know. (That conjectural Kirkby/Urswick/Radcliffe connection might lead to something, but I haven't really looked at the Radcliffe ancestry, and the Radcliffe connection is probably impossible to prove.)

Regarding your statement about the likely conclusions of sensible people, I invite you to explain your position.

I suppose it would be a useful exercise to set out, on the Cudworth "unsurmountable obstacles" thread, all of the relevant snippets of evidence and what conclusions can be reasonably drawn from them. For the moment, I'm going to make a list of relevant snippets of evidence. Others are welcome to add any that I missed:

1. The will of John Machell (SON of Mathew) mentioning his "kinswoman" or "cousin" Jane Cudworth.

2. Mathew Machell married Mary Lewknor in 1568. Mary Machell married Ralph Cudworth in 1611.

3. John Machell (elder BROTHER of Mathew) was in debtors' prison during most (but not all) of the period (1603-1611) that Mary Machell could have served as the first aid nurse of Prince Henry (who presumably came to England with his father King James in 1603).

4. Ursula Hynde, wife of John Machell (the elder brother of Mathew), had two younger first cousins who in 1610 were in the the household of the same Prince Henry whom Mary served as a nurse.

5. Ursula Hynde married John Machell in 1579, just before a neat series of Machell children was baptized at Hackney in 1580/1 through 1592, the known residence of John Machell during this entire time period (per Boaz).

6. Ursula (Hynde) Machell was living in London in 1634, but she then moved to Cambridge, where she died in Cambridge in 1639/40. She was a parishoner of a church in central Cambridge very close to the college where Ralph Cudworth had just received his Master's Degree and begun working as a tutor.

--
p.s. The 1558 will of John Machell, Alderman (father of John and Mathew and Jane), is presented and deciphered (more or less) here: http://www.rootschat.com/forum/index.php?topic=467569.0

[ravinma...@yahoo.com]

"Sensible" persons are likely to conclude that because Ursula's will mentions no descendants, she had no descendants living in 1639. Hence, Ralph Cudworth and James Cudworth and their sisters were not her descendants.

Residuary legatees, such as the maidservants, are likely to come away, after all expenses are paid, with a few pence, shillings, or pounds, not a full marriage portion. Ursula was quite poor at her death, all moneys having been wasted on lawsuits, or lost in legal judgments. The maidservants were hangers on from earlier, better times, and may have been quite elderly (unmarriageable) themselves.

When you mention the Verney cousins in royal service as so clearly probative, you fail to take into account (1) the standing of the Machells themselves; (2) the numerous courtly connections of the Wroths and Lewkenors, substantial gentry families of long standing.

Because of the squabbles and lawsuits between the brothers John and Matthew Machell, it's unlikely that Matthew's known son John would give the large amount of L125 pounds to his uncle John's granddaughter. Instead, a more sensible interpretation is that Jane Cudworth is his own niece. This would indicate the line runs through Matthew.

I'm sure you'll come up with further improbable reasons for your own "favored" interpretation, however.

[johnschm...@gmail.com]

On Tuesday, April 24, 2018 at 4:19:29 PM UTC-7, ravinma...@yahoo.com wrote:

>
> "Sensible" persons are likely to conclude that because Ursula's will mentions no descendants, she had no descendants living in 1639. Hence, Ralph Cudworth and James Cudworth and their sisters were not her descendants.
>

Um, it wasn't a will. It was a testament. "Technically real estate, or land, was always 'devised'. 'Goods and chattels', or personal estate, was always 'bequeathed'. This represents the medieval distinction between wills, which dealt with real estate, and testaments, which dealt with personal estate. The distinctions between wills and testaments, and 'devise' and 'bequeath' became blurred over time." https://www.nottingham.ac.uk/manuscriptsandspecialcollections/researchguidance/deedsindepth/associated/will.aspx

Furthermore, your supposition that, because Ursula didn't name any descendants, she didn't have any living descendants in 1640, implies that you don't know have much experience doing genealogy. I'm sure that others on this forum can think of instances where proven children aren't mentioned in someone's will.

> Residuary legatees, such as the maidservants, are likely to come away, after all expenses are paid, with a few pence, shillings, or pounds, not a full marriage portion. Ursula was quite poor at her death, all moneys having been wasted on lawsuits, or lost in legal judgments. The maidservants were hangers on from earlier, better times, and may have been quite elderly (unmarriageable) themselves.
>

With your statement that "Ursula was quite poor at death," you are presenting a supposition as an argument. Maybe that's a good strategy for a shady lawyer, or for somebody who is trying to put lipstick on a pig. Ursula's alleged deathbed poverty would seem to clash with the fact that the executor of her last testament was the Master of Trinity College. But perhaps you have a "further improbable reason" for your supposition.

> When you mention the Verney cousins in royal service as so clearly probative, you fail to take into account (1) the standing of the Machells themselves; (2) the numerous courtly connections of the Wroths and Lewkenors, substantial gentry families of long standing.
>

You fail to explain why the "standing" of the Wroths and Lewknors, as opposed to the Machells and the Hyndes, is relevant. You seem to be making up groundless suppositions out of thin air. (Does that qualify as a tautology?) Ursula Hynde's first cousin Francis Verney -- a falconer in Prince Henry's household in 1610 -- is a case in point. Francis Verney was "an English adventurer, soldier of fortune, and pirate" who, while a student at Oxford, "began running huge debts spending as much as £3,000 a year." And then he "challenged his stepmother in court over the terms of his inheritance". See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_Verney

> Because of the squabbles and lawsuits between the brothers John and Matthew Machell, it's unlikely that Matthew's known son John would give the large amount of L125 pounds to his uncle John's granddaughter. Instead, a more sensible interpretation is that Jane Cudworth is his own niece. This would indicate the line runs through Matthew.

No, it's not a more sensible interpretation, unless "sensible" is associated with the sensations felt by one's head as sphinctoral constriction blocks light from the eyes.

As Douglas Richardson suggested earlier, the "large amount of L125" was likely held in trust, given to John Machell (the only surviving male of his generation) by his cousin Mary Cudworth as she died, to be held as a marriage portion for her daughter Jane. And then John Machell passed the money along, in his will, to his cousin's daughter.

[ravinma...@yahoo.com]

Wow, it's amazing to me that someone can deceive themselves to this extent! Yet, of course, I had fully expected it.

This wasn't the medieval period, as you seem to continue believing and insisting. Ursula's will and testament was the disposition of all worldly goods belonging to her. If she had owned anything more than a bed (i.e., any land) it would also have been mentioned in the same document. That's how we know she owned no property/ real estate.

All the "Verney connections: in the world aren't going to help you if your own father is in prison 1598 and 1606-12, merely to name the incarcerations we know of.

Most of your argumentation is quite tendentious and self-serving.

[johnschm...@gmail.com]

On Tuesday, April 24, 2018 at 8:22:18 PM UTC-7, ravinma...@yahoo.com wrote:

>
> Most of your argumentation is quite tendentious and self-serving.

:)

[Andrew Lancaster]

On Wednesday, April 25, 2018 at 4:50:30 AM UTC+2, johnschm...@gmail.com wrote:

I have not read through this discussion carefully, but from experience I think there was indeed a tendency for wills of widows in this period to mention none of their children, or sometimes only the daughters, or sometimes only younger children.

I don't claim to be an expert, or to have done an exact study of when various types of will were more or less popular, but I think the reason is that it was normal for prior documents including the husband's will to account for most of the couple's possessions, especially any intended to go to the adult children. Men's wills obviously often also include special clauses granting use of various assets, and also incomes, to their widows. From the wording of some wills there was clearly a concern to account for as many assets as possible this way so that the widow's next husband might not have a claim. Younger children and un-married daughters were often of course not yet living separately from the family, and might not survive, and so this is why some flexibility was left for handling them in the widow's will. I am sure you both know all that.

So in practice it might be true that the widow would describe all her worldly goods, but in practice often widow's wills are very short, or non-existent, even when the husband's was long, and do not mention all children. My understanding is that this does not necessarily mean they were poor in practice. Of course there were certainly many cases where widows had their own significant assets in hand personally till death and a quite separate job to do in their will.

I did a quick run through my own family tree looking for wills and in approximately this period I find the better off couples mostly seem to have had no widow's will. The small number of widows who did leave a will were in the most well-off category and do seem to have mentioned all living heirs.

I am in any case interested to hear what others know. Because of my lack of certainty, I would for the time being at least be cautious of assuming no children in the widow's will means no children in reality.

Hopefully I've not just totally misunderstood the question!

[Dave D.]

I agree that the evidence, on balance, points to Matthew Machell and Mary Lewknor, and I do believe John, that you weave too many tales to justify your position. It's about Occam's razor -- it requires fewer leaps to accept Matthew and Mary (see the straightforward case presented by Douglas Richardson in the "insurmountable" thread).

John, I think your portrayal of the situation on wikitree is misleading and at the very least you should acknowledge the possibility that John and Ursuala are NOT the parents. Anything else is inconsistent with your own stated principles of "proof" in wikitree. In fact I think the original linkage should be restored.

Having said all that, I do appreciate the new work on this line, including yours, John. There are several interesting new twists. I must admit that I am surprised to see that the overseer of the Will of Ursuala is Thomas Combes, who was indeed Master of Trinity at that time. What "overseer" technically implies at this time I must leave to the real experts here.

Note also in connection with Andrew's comment about the Will that there are various indications that Ursula and John Machell Jr were estranged and probably lived apart, according to comments from John's grandson (a son of John's first [Cotton] wife): "...Ursula Machell had been kept from the sight of his said grandfather (John Machell) and made even as a stranger to him and all his estate during John Machell's time of trouble." (extracted from the Sutton House book, p 97).

Dave Drabold

[Paulo Ricardo Canedo]

For what is worth, I have edited Mary Machell Cudworth Stoughton's wikitree page and removed her parents.

[johnschm...@gmail.com]

On Wednesday, April 25, 2018 at 12:07:16 PM UTC-4, Paulo Ricardo Canedo wrote:
> For what is worth, I have edited Mary Machell Cudworth Stoughton's wikitree page and removed her parents.

Paolo, please keep in mind that Mary Machell's parents were changed after extended consideration on the relevant WikiTree discussion thread. In a case like this, it is bad manners to unilaterally jump in without seeking to move the consensus in your direction.

I have reversed your changes. However, I am willing to discuss your thoughts (here or on the WikiTree discussion thread) on what should be changed and why. In particular, you have repeatedly embraced a particular view without explaining your own chain of reasoning. Such an explanation would seem to be a prerequisite for any further discussion. Otherwise, you're like the baby "Roo" in "Horton Hears a Who," who always and only says, "Me too!"

[Paulo Ricardo Canedo]

Dear John, first, it's "Paulo", not "Paolo". I'm sorry for the way I changed the page, I went a bit too far. The reason is that 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. Also, I removed Mary's parents but did not add any alternive because, once again, I think there is no way to absolutely prove who they were one way or the other.

[Paulo Ricardo Canedo]

I should add that, usually, I'm totally okay with non certain parentages being shown even if there is an alternative however that only applies when there is good evidence for that parentage, and if there is an alternative, only in case the parentage shown has better evidence than the alternative. In my opinion, that is not the case in Mary Machell's parentage. The alternative that she was Matthew and Mary's daughter is equally supported, if not more, when compared to the idea that she was John and Ursula's daughter.

[johnschm...@gmail.com]

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 Ricardo Canedo]

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.

[johnschm...@gmail.com]

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

>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"?

[Dave D.]

John, you have revealed yet another flaw in any attempt to make a universal tree: delusional people who wish to claim that they made a breakthrough (actually just recycling old already discarded notions) and pushing against real evidence. That, John, is you. You are impervious to logic, facts or common sense, instead always offering yet another excuse however Byzantine, and wearing sensible people down, since we have finite time for such nonsense. I am today closing my WikiTree account. It is a waste of time.

[deca...@aol.com]

On Thursday, April 26, 2018 at 1:29:58 AM UTC-4, Dave D. wrote:
> I am today closing my WikiTree account. It is a waste of time.

Isn't WikiTree free anyway? According to their website, "Everything is 100% free including many benefits for genealogists who sign our Honor Code." Doesn't seem like you'd be losing out of much, except of course, time!

[johnschm...@gmail.com]

On Thursday, April 26, 2018 at 1:29:58 AM UTC-4, Dave D. wrote:

> John, you have revealed yet another flaw in any attempt to make a universal tree: delusional people who wish to claim that they made a breakthrough (actually just recycling old already discarded notions) and pushing against real evidence. That, John, is you. You are impervious to logic, facts or common sense, instead always offering yet another excuse however Byzantine, and wearing sensible people down, since we have finite time for such nonsense.

David, I understand that you are upset at losing your imaginary lineage from King Edward I. The "breakthroughs" that I have made in the Machell ancestry appear to be:
(1) The connection of Ursula (Hynde) Machell to the Hynde/Verney family -- not much of a breakthrough, as the Verney ancestry is already in Douglas Richardson's books.
(2) The parentage of John Machell, father of Alderman John of London (d. 1558), linking John to the Crackenthorpe Machells.
(3) The likely parentage of the "Leybourne" mother of Alderman John Machell.
(4) The Kirkby/Urswick ancestry of Alderman John Machell's wife Jane Luddington, with a potential Radcliffe connection.

I have repeatedly explained the reasoning for my conclusion that the mother of Mary (Machell) Cudworth was Ursula Hynde, not Mary Lewknor. More recently, on this profile I have listed the relevant snippets, one by one, so that others may think through them and explain their reasoning. You haven't done so; instead you simply cast aspersions. Paulo Ricardo Canedo DID share his thoughts, and I answered. Now others can consider the issue in a new light, and perhaps the discussion continues.

Perhaps you are clinging with blind faith to Douglas Richardson's Wizard-of-Oz "certification" that Mary Lewknor was the mother of Mary Machell. If that is the case, then I hope that Mr. Richardson will consider the disservice that he has done to his followers and to the study of medieval genealogy. I hope that he will at the very least concede that a plausible counter-argument has been raised against his presumed parentage of Mary (Machell) Cudworth.

[deca...@aol.com]

On Thursday, April 26, 2018 at 12:12:22 PM UTC-4, johnschm...@gmail.com wrote:
> Perhaps you are clinging with blind faith to Douglas Richardson's Wizard-of-Oz "certification" that Mary Lewknor was the mother of Mary Machell.

This is the first mention I've seen on this newsgroup comparing Douglas Richardson to the "Wizard-of-Oz." I thought he was from Salt Lake City not Emerald City! It does state on Royalancestry.net that, "He [Richardson] brings a fresh creative approach to all research assignments and enjoys a reputation at 'solving the unsolvable.'"

[Dave D.]

John, The ironic part about you is that do make some very good contributions. I have acknowledged that. What you don't understand, for whatever reason is logic. You operate using the principle that "I can make up a story that is consistent with my theory, so that proves it". The rest of the world operates differently, looking at the cumulative evidence.

Rehashing this is a waste of time, since you will just retreat to your mode described above, but here goes (some of the arguments and research are due to others):

1) An eminent expert of his time, Bellasis, visited Crackenthorpe and had access to family papers and other documents of the Heralds. He stated that MM was the daughter of Matthew and Mary L. You made a big deal about Bellasis' Cotton comment, which Douglas R had already laid to rest. You finally seem to have seen this yourself. Do you think Bellasis was irresponsible? Why don't you read about him? As DR implies, the opinion of such an unbiased expert matters. You assert, with no proof whatever, that he was just using secondary sources.

2) John Machell Jr was a man in total disgrace. He was certainly in prison from 1606-1612, and was in serious financial and political trouble at least a decade before that. Let's see, Prince Henry was the hope of the realm, and a most promising child. So the daughter of a prisoner and litigant should be given direct, probably private exposure to the prince? Don't forget that Ursula was also caught up in all this. So just because some (related) Hynds had court connections implies that Ursula is the mother? As Paulo has repeatedly stated, the Lewknors had courtly connections too, and Matthew himself was probably well connected. Hey, at least he didn't spend 6 years (at least) in prison and attack other people's abodes.

3) Neither Boaz or you have any proof whatever that the Machell children born in Hackney were only from John. I have stated exactly where in Hackney Matthew lived. I am willing to suppose it likely that the one daughter Ursula born in Hackney might be from John and Ursula, but that proves nothing whatever about Mary the wife of Ralph Cudworth Sr.

4) By far the most reasonable interpretation of the Jane Cudworth bequest is Douglas' explanation. Again, I doubt that anyone reading the list believed your "name change" argument. Good that you finally dropped that. Just because you can concoct another story does not mean that it has an equal a priori probability with the simple and natural explanation of DR.

5) Lets see -- Grandma Ursula comes to be buried near Ralph Cudworth Jr? He was already an established man. Why wasn't he mentioned at all in the Will (unlike random servants), why did he not oversee his grandmother's Will. Why buried in Cambridge city? I don't know, very possibly because it was then (as it is now!) the cultural and historical heart of Cambridgeshire where she was from?! Add it up. Does it prove that RC Jr was not her grandson? No. Does it collectively make it seem unlikely? To me, yes.

I could go on. But I won't. In a different vein, I do appreciate the thoughtful work of others which has significantly developed this family.

It is not crazy to question the certainty of this line. Fine, that's OK, I have said that too. You mutated it into a crusade to insist that your alternative view is unassailable. I bet nobody else on this list agrees with that. I will say no more. I have productive things to do, let the chips fall where they may.

Dave

[Nathan Murphy]

John Machell Esq. is on Hackney's 1600 pay subsidy. He paid taxes on land.

https://web.archive.org/web/20080906225111/http://socrates.berkeley.edu/~ahnelson/SUBSIDY/M234.html

Nathan

[Dave D.]

Another tidbit. Madingley Hall was the seat of Sir John Hynd (this is correctly discussed in John Schmeekle's wikitree page for him). Madingley is essentially a part of Cambridge city, so it would be reasonable to guess that Ursula Hynde (granddaughter of Sir John, wife of John Machell Jr) was living with her paternal relatives near the time of her death, since she was buried in the city, as discussed elsewhere in this thread. Madingley Hall was built by Sir John in 1543. Here are some details about John Hynde:

http://www.historyofparliamentonline.org/volume/1509-1558/member/hynde-john-1480-1550

Dave Drabold

[johnschm...@gmail.com]

David, thank you for this, and for your previous post engaging with the interpretation of the various snippets of evidence. I will reply to that earlier post later; right now I'll focus on the Hynde family of Madingley.

Madingley is indeed part of "greater Cambridge" these days. Back in the 17th century, it was located three or four miles outside the old city, and there were earlier Hynde connections to the university.

A pedigree of the Hynde family can be found in "The History and Antiquities of the Parish of Bottisham" at https://books.google.com/books?id=uxMVAAAAQAAJ&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false -- scroll down to p. 329.

Additional information on the last generations (of relevance to our question) can be found in the "Supplement to the History and Antiquities of the Parish of Bottisham" at https://books.google.com/books?id=vBMVAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA34&lpg=PA34&dq=sir+edward+hynde&source=bl&ots=ar1Y8pdWib&sig=C8CxOkfrYecSiLj7qL0kTGb30DU&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjc2PTuytraAhUmneAKHdgHCK0Q6AEIaTAQ#v=onepage&q=sir%20edward%20hynde&f=false -- page 34.

Even more useful is the discussion of the ownership of Madingley Hall at http://www.british-history.ac.uk/vch/cambs/vol9/pp166-171

In a nutshell: Ursulay (Hynde) Machell's eldest brother William died without issue, leaving Madingley to second brother Edward. Edward had no children by his first or second wives, but he did have children by his third wife. Edward's son and grandson both died before Edward died in 1633. (At this time Ursula was living in London, not Cambridge.) After Edward's death his infant great-granddaughter Jane Hynde was heir. Jane's mother Agnes married John Stewkley, who moved into Madingley.

In other words, when Ursula moved from London to Cambridge, Madingley was controlled by her deceased great-nephew's widow's second husband. At first glance, there would seem to be little reason for Hynde family connections to draw Ursula to the heart of Cambridge at the end of her life. Perhaps you'll notice something here that I overlooked.

[ravinma...@yahoo.com]

> In a nutshell: Ursulay (Hynde) Machell's eldest brother William died without issue, leaving Madingley to second brother Edward. Edward had no children by his first or second wives, but he did have children by his third wife. Edward's son and grandson both died before Edward died in 1633. (At this time Ursula was living in London, not Cambridge.) After Edward's death his infant great-granddaughter Jane Hynde was heir. Jane's mother Agnes married John Stewkley, who moved into Madingley.
>

EXCEPT that Madingley is exceedingly close-by. What about that do you not understand?

Also, you state: "Jane's mother Agnes married John Stewkley, who moved into Madingley." John Stewkely is plainly the Mr. Stuklye mentioned in Ursula Machell's will of 1639: "my body to be buried when and where it shall seem convenient to my friends here with me if mr Stuklye out of his love do not take care of it."

[Andrew Lancaster]

What an interesting wording!

[johnschm...@gmail.com]

On Friday, April 27, 2018 at 11:39:22 AM UTC-4, ravinma...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> EXCEPT that Madingley is exceedingly close-by. What about that do you not understand?

Um, I don't understand what you're getting at. I observed that Madingley was three or four miles away from Cambridge. Ursula moved from London to Cambridge sometime between 1634 (when her presumed grandson Ralph Cudworth was studying at Cambridge) and 1640 (when Ralph Cudworth began his career as a tutor at Cambridge). The prima facie presumption is that Ursula moved to Cambridge to be close to her grandson, perhaps living with him. Do you think that is implausible?

>
> Also, you state: "Jane's mother Agnes married John Stewkley, who moved into Madingley." John Stewkely is plainly the Mr. Stuklye mentioned in Ursula Machell's will of 1639: "my body to be buried when and where it shall seem convenient to my friends here with me if mr Stuklye out of his love do not take care of it."

And from that wording it seems clear that Ursula Machell suspected that her great-nephew's widow's second husband would NOT be inclined to take care of her body.

A follow-up question is why, if Ralph Cudworth was indeed Ursula's grandson, she didn't turn to him to take care of her burial. It seems the obvious answer is that, as Ralph had just finished studying and had just started working as a low-paid tutor, he didn't have the resources to do so, especially as he was an orphaned second son of a second son who had little property.

[ravinma...@yahoo.com]

On Friday, April 27, 2018 at 2:48:29 PM UTC-4, johnschm...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Friday, April 27, 2018 at 11:39:22 AM UTC-4, ravinma...@yahoo.com wrote:
> >
> > EXCEPT that Madingley is exceedingly close-by. What about that do you not understand?
>
> Um, I don't understand what you're getting at. I observed that Madingley was three or four miles away from Cambridge. Ursula moved from London to Cambridge sometime between 1634 (when her presumed grandson Ralph Cudworth was studying at Cambridge) and 1640 (when Ralph Cudworth began his career as a tutor at Cambridge). The prima facie presumption is that Ursula moved to Cambridge to be close to her grandson, perhaps living with him. Do you think that is implausible?

We don't really know WHEN Ursula moved to Cambridge. You would need to look at those lawsuits to see if they name a location of residence. The fact that Baber requested London authorities to arrest her for debt in 1634 may not mean she lived there, just that Baber didn't know where she was and was covering his bases.

It's believable that she was in Cambridgeshire for many years after she separated from her husband. Cambridgeshire was where the Hyndes lived.

That fact that her will mentions two Hynde relations (Robert Hynde and John Stewkley), while mentioning no Cudworths is quite telling.

NO, I don't *at all* think she went to Cambridge to be with her grandson.

[johnschm...@gmail.com]

On Friday, April 27, 2018 at 3:04:24 PM UTC-4, ravinma...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> We don't really know WHEN Ursula moved to Cambridge. You would need to look at those lawsuits to see if they name a location of residence. The fact that Baber requested London authorities to arrest her for debt in 1634 may not mean she lived there, just that Baber didn't know where she was and was covering his bases.
>
> It's believable that she was in Cambridgeshire for many years after she separated from her husband. Cambridgeshire was where the Hyndes lived.
>
> That fact that her will mentions two Hynde relations (Robert Hynde and John Stewkley), while mentioning no Cudworths is quite telling.
>

I think that your suggestion that further research be done in the court records has merit; hopefully somebody will dig into that. I also think you make too much of who is mentioned in her will, but perhaps we will just have to agree to differ on that point, unless you want to bring up examples of other wills where descendants are or aren't mentioned. (I can think of one in Virginia where the sons aren't mentioned but other relatives are. Is it worth extending the discussion in that direction?)

I think that your speculation about where Ursula lived is conceivable, but you're rowing against the current here with the plain record showing Ursula's residence as London.

Perhaps it would be useful to revisit Ursula's 1627 petition to Thomas Coventry, the Lord Keeper of the Great Seal, at https://books.google.com/books?id=mFc4AQAAMAAJ&pg=PA254&dq=%22ursula+manchell%22&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiLyYrssrDaAhWK7VMKHXLsCOAQ6AEILDAB#v=onepage&q=%22ursula%20manchell%22&f=false

It appears that this treats Ursula's residual lands after the rest of John Machell's estate got confiscated, and it appears clear that Ursula was at risk of losing the whole thing because an untrustworthy tenant was being forced on her. The petition was asking Baron Coventry [Ursula seems to have had friends in high places] to vacate an earlier court ruling that Ursula rent the tenement to her untrustworthy tenant.

It seems reasonable to conclude that Ursula eventually lost this land, and was forced to leave London for the village of Cambridge.

[johnschm...@gmail.com]

David, here is my reply to the first of the points that you raise. I'll be replying to the other points as time permits.

>On Thursday, April 26, 2018 at 1:22:42 PM UTC-4, Dave D. wrote:
>
> 1) An eminent expert of his time, Bellasis, visited Crackenthorpe and had access to family papers and other documents of the Heralds. He stated that MM was the daughter of Matthew and Mary L. You made a big deal about Bellasis' Cotton comment, which Douglas R had already laid to rest. You finally seem to have seen this yourself. Do you think Bellasis was irresponsible? Why don't you read about him? As DR implies, the opinion of such an unbiased expert matters. You assert, with no proof whatever, that he was just using secondary sources.

David, I would like to suggest that Bellasis's eminence is irrelevant to the question of his sources. (The same could be said of Douglas Richardson.) A pedigree of our Machell family of Kendal and London was appended to the very end of Bellasis's work on the Machells of Crackenthorpe, AFTER the pedigree of the Machells of Crackenthorpe. It's online at http://lcweb4.loc.gov/service/gdc/scd0001/2007/20070601066ma/20070601066ma.pdf

If you look at that pedigree, it cites its sources -- various Harleian manuscripts -- at each person on the pedigree. For example, for the marriage of Mathew Machell to Mary Lewknor, it cites "Coll. Arms, C. 21, C. 26, etc." The problem here is, for Mary Machell Cudworth it cites NOTHING AT ALL. This appears to have been Bellasis's conjecture, nothing more.

[johnschm...@gmail.com]

Dave, here is my response to the second point you discuss.

>On Thursday, April 26, 2018 at 1:22:42 PM UTC-4, Dave D. wrote:
>

> 2) John Machell Jr was a man in total disgrace.

No, he was in debtor's prison, which is not "total disgrace."

>He was certainly in prison from 1606-1612, and was in serious financial and political trouble at least a decade before that.

Once again, debtor's prison, and Mary Machell could have been Prince Henry's first-aid nurse starting as early as 1604 (when the Stewarts came to town), and could have continued (or not) after her father got thrown into debtor's prison.

>Let's see, Prince Henry was the hope of the realm, and a most promising child. So the daughter of a prisoner and litigant should be given direct, probably private exposure to the prince? Don't forget that Ursula was also caught up in all this. So just because some (related) Hynds had court connections implies that Ursula is the mother?

Once again, it's not COURT connections, it's connections to the HOUSEHOLD of Prince Henry. Ursula (Hynde) Machell had two younger first cousins who were on the payroll of Prince Henry's household, in a record surviving from 1610. One of these cousins, Francis Hynde, one of Prince Henry's falconers, was a notorious gambler, debtor and freebooter who died, allegedly after converting to Islam, in Morocco. Clearly, sterling reputation wasn't of the essence in Prince Henry's household.

>As Paulo has repeatedly stated, the Lewknors had courtly connections too, and Matthew himself was probably well connected. Hey, at least he didn't spend 6 years (at least) in prison and attack other people's abodes.
>

Paulo has made groundless assertions. Perhaps you or Paulo or somebody else could point out the courtly connections (if any) of the Lewknors in the first decade of the 1600s. And then perhaps you could point out their connections to the royal household (if any). Otherwise, all we have is empty words.

Why do you say that "Mathew himself was probably well connected"? He was a younger son with little or no property. We don't even know if he or his wife were alive in the first decade of the 1600s.

[johnschm...@gmail.com]

Dave, here is my reply to the third point that you discuss.

>On Thursday, April 26, 2018 at 1:22:42 PM UTC-4, Dave D. wrote:
>

> 3) Neither Boaz or you have any proof whatever that the Machell children born in Hackney were only from John. I have stated exactly where in Hackney Matthew lived. I am willing to suppose it likely that the one daughter Ursula born in Hackney might be from John and Ursula, but that proves nothing whatever about Mary the wife of Ralph Cudworth Sr.
>

"Any proof whatsoever" is too strong, I think. Perhaps you are unaware of the concept of a "proof by circumstantial evidence." See https://www.law.com/newyorklawjournal/sites/newyorklawjournal/2017/11/27/circumstantial-evidence-an-important-source-of-proof/
I think that, at the very least, there is a prima facie case that all of those Hackney baptisms were children of John and Ursula Machell, based on the following facts:
1) John Machell was known to be a resident of Hackney through the 1570s and 1580s (per Boaz).
2) John and Ursula Machell were married in 1579.
3) The baptisms began in 1580/1, a year or so after their marriage, and extend through 1592. (And then, sometime after 1590, John Machell appears in a libel suit regarding a pew in the parish church in Sawston, Cambridgeshire.)
4) The spacing of the children is consistent with their all being the children of one couple.
5) The baptisms include the names Ursula, and Judith. The 1634 Essex visitation pedigree shows that John and Ursula had a daughter Judith.

6) There WAS a John "Manshall" (different spelling than the transcriptions for all the other "Manchell" baptisms) baptized at St. John's, Hackney in January, 1579. This would appear to have been Mathew Machell's son and heir. However, there is no other contemporary record, as far as I know, associating Mathew Machell with Hackney. Mathew is commonly associated with Hatfield, Herts, but (unlike his elder brother John) there is no chain of contemporary records giving even an approximate timeline of where he lived and when.

[Paulo Ricardo Canedo]

Em sábado, 28 de abril de 2018 16:02:02 UTC+1, johnschm...@gmail.com escreveu:
> Paulo has made groundless assertions. Perhaps you or Paulo or somebody else could point out the courtly connections (if any) of the Lewknors in the first decade of the 1600s. And then perhaps you could point out their connections to the royal household (if any). Otherwise, all we have is empty words.

Mary Lewknor's father Edward Lewknor was Groom Porter to Edward VI and Mary I and as MP for Horsham in 1553. Yes, I know that was fifty years before Mary Machell became nurse to Prince Harry but it shows her maternal family had court connections. As for more recent connections, Mary Lewknor's brother Sir Edward Lewknor was a MP and connected to the Court of Wards and his son and her nephew Sir Edward Lewknor was a MP too see http://www.historyofparliamentonline.org/volume/1604-1629/member/lewknor-sir-edward-i-1542-1605 and http://www.historyofparliamentonline.org/volume/1604-1629/member/lewknor-sir-edward-ii-1587-1618. Another interesting tidbit is that Mary Lewknor's nephew Edward Lewknor II also studied at Emmanuel College in Cambridge, the same college, that, Ralph Cudworth studied at. Mary Lewknor's first cousin and first cousin once removed respectively both named Roberth Wroth were also MPs and the second one even had his marriage arranged by King James I.

[johnschm...@gmail.com]

Members of parliament are not court connections. And the "Court of Wards and Liveries" is a judicial court, not the royal court. It has been supposed that Edward Lewknor appeared as a lawyer before that court. However, according to his profile in The History of Parliament, "there is apparently no firm evidence that Lewknor was closely associated with the Court of Wards, or even that he practised as a lawyer." You're really scraping the bottom of the barrel here.


Regarding the Wroths, I don't think it is accurate to say that Robert Wroth the younger's marriage was "arranged" by King James, even if the king did officiate at the wedding. The marriage of Robert Wrothe to Mary Sidney took place on 27 Sept. 1604, two months after King James's coronation and four months after his arrival in London. The actual court connection here was through his wife's family the Sidneys; see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Sidney

[Paulo Ricardo Canedo]

Still, this shows Mary Lewknor had enough connections for Mary Machell to have become Prince Harry's nurse, if she was her daughter. Something surprising to me is that Matthew Machell, a younger son of a gentry family, managed to marry such a well-connected woman.

[Paulo Ricardo Canedo]

Also, Edward Lewknor I was quite involved in religion, it would make sense for Ralph Cudworth to have been his grandnephew. Also, Edward Lewknor I studied at Saint John's College that had connections with Christ College where Ralph Cudworth would later work.

[Paulo Ricardo Canedo]

Also, Edward Lewknor I was knighted shortly after King James I's acession and followed closely the campaign to persuade him of the need for further Church reform and participated in the petitioning campaign to persuade him not to enforce the new Canons.

[Paulo Ricardo Canedo]

Em sábado, 28 de abril de 2018 17:41:37 UTC+1, johnschm...@gmail.com escreveu:

The Parliament was connected to the court and very much so as to religious matters, as the ones Edward Lewknor I was involved in, so much that it was also a planned target of Guy Fawkes in 1605.

[Paulo Ricardo Canedo]

According to his parliament's biography, Mary Lewknor's nephew Edward Lewknor became a royal ward in 1605. This fits well for Mary Machell to have been his cousin since she became royal nurse to Prince Harry around that time.

[johnschm...@gmail.com]

On Saturday, April 28, 2018 at 1:23:42 PM UTC-4, Paulo Ricardo Canedo wrote:
> The Parliament was connected to the court and very much so as to religious matters, as the ones Edward Lewknor I was involved in, so much that it was also a planned target of Guy Fawkes in 1605.

Paulo, one is inclined to ask if you know what you are talking about. What do you mean when you say "Parliament was connected to the court"? Obviously leading members of the House of Lords were connected to the court, but not the commoners.

You might be interested in looking through "The Court and Character of King James," at https://books.google.com/books?id=NzsIAAAAQAAJ&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false

You might also take a quick read through the synopsis of "The Household and Court of King James VI of Scotland, 1567-1603" at https://www.era.lib.ed.ac.uk/handle/1842/1727

Part of the issue here, as I have mentioned before, is the distinction between HOUSEHOLD and COURT. Ursula (Hynde) Machell had two cousins who were part of the HOUSEHOLD (not court) of teenage Prince Henry, whom Mary Machell served before her marriage to Ralph Cudworth. You haven't recognized this telling point yet.

On Saturday, April 28, 2018 at 1:40:33 PM UTC-4, Paulo Ricardo Canedo wrote:
> According to his parliament's biography, Mary Lewknor's nephew Edward Lewknor became a royal ward in 1605. This fits well for Mary Machell to have been his cousin since she became royal nurse to Prince Harry around that time.

Once again, it appears that you don't understand what is being referred to here, and you butchered your source by deliberately ignoring the second half of the sentence. When a well-to-do orphan became a royal ward, the crown SOLD the guardianship of the orphan as a source of revenue, and this is exactly what your source states. The whole sentence reads: "Following the sudden deaths of his father and mother from smallpox in October 1605, Lewknor became a royal ward, but his interests were safeguarded by his brother-in-law (Sir) Robert Quarles, who helped purchase his wardship for £300." http://www.historyofparliamentonline.org/volume/1604-1629/member/lewknor-sir-edward-ii-1587-1618

[Paulo Ricardo Canedo]

Dear John, about your first point, I was of course talking about the nobles. About your last point, I agree I misinterpeted the parliament's account's sentence however I now came with an interesting thought about Mary Machell being a nurse to Prince Henry. In 30 Jan 1604, Mary Lewknor died and Matthew had already died a decade before. This is slightly before the time, that, Mary Machell became a nurse to Prince Henry. This would provide an interesting idea that Mary Machell, a young woman, had lost her parents and became a nurse to prince Henry in his househood, with some help from her cousins, that were connected to the court, this is in case her parents were Matthew Machell and Mary Lewknor. As for the relationship between a court and a household, sorry if I'm wrong but, my understanding is that if you were connected with the court, you could become a member of the household.

[Paulo Ricardo Canedo]

A question: Are there any Cudworth documents that may shed light on the question of who Mary Machell's father was?

[johnschm...@gmail.com]

Perhaps, regarding court vs. household, it is a distinction of public vs private. The gentlemen of the bedchamber are part of the king's household, but they are also sons of important lords and therefore also part of the court, which has public functions like receiving ambassadors.

Perhaps you could give your sources for the dates of death of Mathew Machell and Mary Lewknor. I haven't been able to find any sources for the dates given in their wikitree profiles, which perhaps should be removed.

Regarding your speculation about Mary's cousins helping her become Prince Henry's nurse, I think it is important to keep in mind that Mary was NOT part of the prince's household -- it was all male.

You seem inclined to resist the thought that Ursula Hynde's two cousins, who were definitely part of Prince Henry's household, were the connection whereby Mary became a servant of the prince. That, in my mind, is the strongest piece of evidence that we have regarding who were Mary's parents.

[Paulo Ricardo Canedo]

I took the death dates from Wikitree however Matthew Machell's death is also given as 23 August 1593 by Douglas Richardson in https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/soc.genealogy.medieval/5oEUwaUUZBI/ and
https://books.google.pt/books?id=kjme027UeagC&pg=PA473&lpg=PA473&dq=Mary+Lewknor+Machell&source=bl&ots=qwEmMAZgfm&sig=vdms_IkUYDdMSgB1Z5blkCvodw0&hl=pt-PT&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwibzoKU9N3aAhWJWRQKHeWzCGoQ6AEISDAF#v=onepage&q=Mary%20Lewknor%20Machell&f=false and it's also given in https://www.charlemagne.org/Jewels%2010-29-09.pdf. Those are all the same stuff. As for Mary Lewknor's death date, in http://www.genes2.com/scanda/b761.html it's also mentioned she was buried on 30 January 1604 in Kingston Bowsey, Sussex. Also, I do not necessarily resist the thought that Ursula Hynde's two cousins, who were part of Prince Henry's household, were the connection through which Mary became a servant of the prince, I think it's a possibility but in my opinion there are others.

[johnschm...@gmail.com]

On Saturday, April 28, 2018 at 6:09:22 PM UTC-4, Paulo Ricardo Canedo wrote:
As for Mary Lewknor's death date, in http://www.genes2.com/scanda/b761.html it's also mentioned she was buried on 30 January 1604 in Kingston Bowsey, Sussex.

Thank you Paulo; perhaps Mary returned to her family estate after her husband's death in 1593.

Mary died in 1604 and her brother Edward, head of the family, died in 1605. What happened to her children? Where did they all marry?

Her daughter Elizabeth married John Cave on Oct 22, 1608 at Denham, Suffolk, which isn't anywhere near Kingston-by-sea. See https://books.google.com/books?id=hxMYAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA38&lpg=PA38&dq=elizabeth+machell+john+cave&source=bl&ots=OPy-dqYx13&sig=nLclVTY-q9jjDNIJGgJP_zfYueU&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjOkqm8x97aAhVSy2MKHdWWCSsQ6AEIRjAJ#v=onepage&q=elizabeth%20machell%20john%20cave&f=false On the same printed page is a 1601 marriage record of Mary's sister Hester Lewekenor to Robert Quarles, so maybe Elizabeth got farmed out to Denham to live with her Aunt Hester after her mother and Uncle Edward died.

Mary's only son John married the daughter of a Lord Mayor of London, so clearly the family had some sort of continuing London connection.

Perhaps Mary (Lewknor) Machell was the mother of "Marie Mashall" of Kingston Bowsey who married James Harrison on 3 Feb. 1617/8, per https://www.freereg.org.uk/search_queries/5ae5382bf4040b87df024da6

The marriage licence identifies James Harrison as a "clerk" of Stanmer, and gives the wife's name as Mary Mascoll, per https://books.google.com/books?id=zGo_AQAAMAAJ&pg=PA106&lpg=PA106&dq=james+harrison+kingston+sussex&source=bl&ots=GYSfqBNftT&sig=1Xld6auLRUkYYTWd9KZ_4oNwBSU&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiInL22yt7aAhUIllQKHZLEDEcQ6AEIOzAD#v=onepage&q=james%20harrison%20kingston%20sussex&f=false

James Harrison, rector of Stanmer, was buried 19 Mar. 1639. https://books.google.com/books?id=6JTRAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA141&lpg=PA141&dq=james+harrison+stanmer&source=bl&ots=owP89Dvfan&sig=_z95U7Xm2QvZxtqshf23xWsmwIY&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiZ-JTwyt7aAhWHAXwKHVn3BGMQ6AEIVzAI#v=onepage&q=james%20harrison%20stanmer&f=false

[John Higgins]

With respect to Bellasis and whether "He stated that MM was the daughter of Matthew and Mary L", go back and look at my post of March 25 in response to Douglas Richardson. There I pointed out:

"With respect to the manuscripts in the College of Arms, you [Douglas Richardson] note that these manuscripts appear to support Mary Lewknor as the mother of Mary Machell. But you overlook the other College of Arms manuscripts cited by Bellasis for Matthew Machell, which MAY be the ones that make Mary the daughter of Matthew's supposed Cotton wife (and perhaps also say that Mary Lewknor died sp). (Incidentally, the fact that Matthew's brother John married a Cotton doesn't preclude Matthew from also marrying a Cotton). Bellasis clearly indicates that he was uncertain about the maternity of Matthew Machell's children - a fact that's overlooked in the augmented Royal Ancestry account of this descent. Under the circumstances, it's probably unwise to infer simply from the placement on the pedigree chart that he concluded that they were the children of Mary Lewknor."

I continue to believe that, despite this long discussion, there's not enough evidence to conclusively determine who EITHER of the parents of Mary Machell Cudworth were - although I tend to lean toward Mathew Machell by an undetermined wife