Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
A despicable and most infamous hoax
1,083 views
Skip to first unread message
Vance Mead
Apr 23, 2016, 11:08:22 AM4/23/16
to
Since we are on the subject. A distant ancestor of mine is one Prudence Kellogg, of the corn flakes family. Her earliest known ancestor is Nicholas Kellogg or Kelhog, of Debden, Essex. He was a humble husbandman, with goods worth 40 shillings in the 1525 lay subsidy. Now some genius has decided that he was the only legitimate son of Lord Audley, who somehow changed his name from Tuchet. This idiocy is all over the internet.
Richard Smith
Apr 23, 2016, 12:52:14 PM4/23/16
to
while researching the 6th and 7th Barons Audley (the real ones, not some
fictional ones that came free in a box of Kelloggs). It appears in
Elizabeth M Leach Rixford's /Three hundred colonial ancestors/ (1934).
She says on p. 182,
The Manor of Debden Hall in the Town of Debden hath an elegant
and commodious Mansion. The Manor was siezed by King Henry II
in 1155 and was granted to his son, King John who granted it
to Lord Cromwall [sic], Earl of Essex. It came back to the
Crown as part of the dowry of Mary, Bohan [sic], wife of
Henry IV and remained through the reignes [sic] of Henry V,
Henry VI, Edward IV and Henry VIII, who granted it to Lord
Audley, Nichols [sic] Kellogg, senior, born Debon, [sic] 18
Oct. 1558.
It doesn't take much wit to see this is nonsense from beginning to end.
The only Cromwell to have been Earl of Essex was Thomas Cromwell,
centuries after King John's reign, and we can be pretty sure Henry VIII
(who died in 1547) didn't grant anything to a man born in 1558. In any
case, as you say, the Barony of Audley was in the Tuchet family.
Richard
Matt Tompkins
Apr 25, 2016, 7:48:12 AM4/25/16
to
On Saturday, 23 April 2016 16:08:22 UTC+1, Vance Mead wrote:
> Since we are on the subject. A distant ancestor of mine is one Prudence Kellogg, of the corn flakes family. Her earliest known ancestor is Nicholas Kellogg or Kelhog, of Debden, Essex. He was a humble husbandman, with goods worth 40 shillings in the 1525 lay subsidy. Now some genius has decided that he was the only legitimate son of Lord Audley, who somehow changed his name from Tuchet. This idiocy is all over the internet.
>
_________________
> Since we are on the subject. A distant ancestor of mine is one Prudence Kellogg, of the corn flakes family. Her earliest known ancestor is Nicholas Kellogg or Kelhog, of Debden, Essex. He was a humble husbandman, with goods worth 40 shillings in the 1525 lay subsidy. Now some genius has decided that he was the only legitimate son of Lord Audley, who somehow changed his name from Tuchet. This idiocy is all over the internet.
>
Tompkins genealogy is similarly bedevilled by multiple repetition of one man's fake pedigree. About 50 years ago one Robert A. Tompkins expended great effort in trying to work out a single unified family tree for all American Tomkinses and Tompkinses (a task doomed from the start, as it is clear the surname has multiple origins). I'm told he made a reasonable fist of working out the genealogy of all the Tom(p)kins families in America, but when he tried to take it back to early modern and then medieval England he was completely out of his depth. For the 16th, 15th and 14th centuries he just collected all the isolated Tompkins references he could find in printed sources and then joined them together in family trees without any regard for geographical or historical likelihood or indeed common sense - the results are worthless.
But then he came up against a barrier - there are no recorded occurrences of the surname before the early 14th century. He solved that by discovering that two generations of the baronial Charltons had really been Tomkinses. These were John Charlton, lord of Powys, his brother Thomas, bishop of Hereford, and their father Robert, d. 1300. However the Charltons' origins were too obscure, and he really wanted to be descended from Charlemagne, so he achieved his desire by discovering that the father Robert was in fact a brother of Thomas de Cantelupe, bishop of Hereford, who apparently 'took Tomkyns as surname tho Catholic books call him Thomas de Cantelupe'.
In an earlier iteration of his theories he had declared that all Tom(p)kinses are descended from one 'Thom the Saxon', who despite his ethnicity still managed to come across with William the Conqueror and fight on the winning side at Hastings.
I have never been sure whether he knew what he was doing or was just incredibly naïve.
Matt Tompkins
Vance Mead
Apr 25, 2016, 8:09:26 AM4/25/16
to
In the quest for noble roots, there was a genealogy of the Mead family printed in about 1900. The author is reasonably accurate on the American side, but on the English side soon takes leave of his senses. A quote:
"It appears that the name Mead is the English form of the Norman de Prato, and to say that a family is Norman is nearly equivalent to saying that it is amongst the oldest of the old, and noblest of the noble."
For us the hoi polloi:
Kind hearts are more than coronets
And simple faith than Norman blood.
carterl...@gmail.com
Jan 11, 2020, 1:35:58 PM1/11/20
to
Greetings I’m am direct due to of this same line from corn flake bunch can you find out who father was perhaps in books might help
Vance Mead
Jan 12, 2020, 4:26:42 AM1/12/20
to
If you are asking who is the father of Nicholas Kellogg, then there is no simple answer and it is unlikely to be found in any book.
There are two possibilities: Debden and Bocking, both in Essex.
In Debden, Nicholas Kellogg (or Kylogg, Kelhog, etc) is first mentioned in the will of his father-in-law, William Hall, in 1515. Nicholas is recorded in lay subsidy and muster rolls in the 1520s and 1530s. There is also a William Kellogg recorded as a witness to deeds and in the same lay subsidy and muster rolls from 1518 until 1536. The two are probably related, but whether they are brothers, father and son, or distant cousins I don’t know.
There had been people named Kellogg in Debden and nearby for a long time. For example, there was a John Kilhogge, of Debden, husbandman, in Common Pleas in 1430. There was a William Kylhog, of Wimbish, husbandman, son of Thomas Kelhogg, of Radwinter, (both within a mile or two of Debden), recorded in Common Pleas 1428 to 1433. These might have been the ancestors of Nicholas and William Kellogg, but there isn’t enough evidence to prove it.
On the other hand, it could be that the ancestry of the Kellogg family in America was in Bocking, Great Leighs and elsewhere near Braintree, about 20 miles from Debden. The first certain ancestor is Philip Kellogg, who was in Bocking in 1583 and in Great Leighs in 1585. Philip, according to The Kelloggs in the Old World and the New, (Timothy Hopkins, 1903) is “probably son of Thomas”, but “There is a missing link in the chain of documentary evidence connecting the families of Bocking, Great Leighs and Debden.”
So it is possible that the Kelloggs had been living around Braintee all along. In 1560 and 1561, when Thomas Kellogg the presumed father of Philip was still in Debden (he is recorded there in 1568 and 1571), another Thomas Kellogge and his wife Marion were in feet of fines concerning land in Ulting, Hatfeld Peverell and Boreham. These parishes are about 6 miles south of Braintree and 2 miles from Great Leighs. There is a farm called Kilhogs Farm in the parish of Shalford, just north of Braintree and about a mile from Bocking. It is shown on maps going back to the beginning of the 19th century. There was a Walter Kelhogg, of Shalford, husbandman, in 1418, and a John Kylhogge, of Bocking, husbandman, in 1446, both recorded in Common Pleas.
But for both of these possibilities, Debden and Bocking, there is a gap of at least two or three generations.
https://archive.org/details/kelloggsinoldwo03hopkgoog/page/n6
http://esah1852.org.uk/images/pdf/ffines/F1500000.pdf
https://sites.google.com/site/meadfamilyhistory/home/legal-records/kellogg
There are two possibilities: Debden and Bocking, both in Essex.
In Debden, Nicholas Kellogg (or Kylogg, Kelhog, etc) is first mentioned in the will of his father-in-law, William Hall, in 1515. Nicholas is recorded in lay subsidy and muster rolls in the 1520s and 1530s. There is also a William Kellogg recorded as a witness to deeds and in the same lay subsidy and muster rolls from 1518 until 1536. The two are probably related, but whether they are brothers, father and son, or distant cousins I don’t know.
There had been people named Kellogg in Debden and nearby for a long time. For example, there was a John Kilhogge, of Debden, husbandman, in Common Pleas in 1430. There was a William Kylhog, of Wimbish, husbandman, son of Thomas Kelhogg, of Radwinter, (both within a mile or two of Debden), recorded in Common Pleas 1428 to 1433. These might have been the ancestors of Nicholas and William Kellogg, but there isn’t enough evidence to prove it.
On the other hand, it could be that the ancestry of the Kellogg family in America was in Bocking, Great Leighs and elsewhere near Braintree, about 20 miles from Debden. The first certain ancestor is Philip Kellogg, who was in Bocking in 1583 and in Great Leighs in 1585. Philip, according to The Kelloggs in the Old World and the New, (Timothy Hopkins, 1903) is “probably son of Thomas”, but “There is a missing link in the chain of documentary evidence connecting the families of Bocking, Great Leighs and Debden.”
So it is possible that the Kelloggs had been living around Braintee all along. In 1560 and 1561, when Thomas Kellogg the presumed father of Philip was still in Debden (he is recorded there in 1568 and 1571), another Thomas Kellogge and his wife Marion were in feet of fines concerning land in Ulting, Hatfeld Peverell and Boreham. These parishes are about 6 miles south of Braintree and 2 miles from Great Leighs. There is a farm called Kilhogs Farm in the parish of Shalford, just north of Braintree and about a mile from Bocking. It is shown on maps going back to the beginning of the 19th century. There was a Walter Kelhogg, of Shalford, husbandman, in 1418, and a John Kylhogge, of Bocking, husbandman, in 1446, both recorded in Common Pleas.
But for both of these possibilities, Debden and Bocking, there is a gap of at least two or three generations.
https://archive.org/details/kelloggsinoldwo03hopkgoog/page/n6
http://esah1852.org.uk/images/pdf/ffines/F1500000.pdf
https://sites.google.com/site/meadfamilyhistory/home/legal-records/kellogg
Nathan Murphy
Jan 16, 2020, 10:48:40 PM1/16/20
to
On Sunday, January 12, 2020 at 2:26:42 AM UTC-7, Vance Mead wrote:
> If you are asking who is the father of Nicholas Kellogg, then there is no simple answer and it is unlikely to be found in any book.
1381 Poll Tax, Laundr' Maugteleyn' [Magdalen Laver], Ongar Hundred, Essex: Willelmus Kelhog
> If you are asking who is the father of Nicholas Kellogg, then there is no simple answer and it is unlikely to be found in any book.
Source: C. Fenwick, The Poll Taxes of 1377, 1379 and 1381 (1998), Part 1, p. 244 (citing TNA E179/107/60/17).
Nathan
Vance Mead
Jan 17, 2020, 10:49:25 AM1/17/20
to
Thanks Nathan, I've seen that - I have the first two volumes of Fenwick's Poll Taxes.
I don't think they could be related, at least not closely, since the Kelloggs were already in Debden at that time. For example:
Account 1374 (Essex Record Office D/DC 16/32)
Manor of Weildbarns in Debden
Account of John Kelhog from Michaelmas in the 48th year of Edward III to Michaelmas in the 49th year of Edward III.
And of 10 s of farm of land held once by Richard Kelhog demised to John Freman. And of 10 s of land which John Kelhog senior demised to John Kelhog junior.
There are other records of people with this surname in Debden before that, but at some point it's no longer possible to know if it's a surname or a local name for a hog butcher.
Vance
I don't think they could be related, at least not closely, since the Kelloggs were already in Debden at that time. For example:
Account 1374 (Essex Record Office D/DC 16/32)
Manor of Weildbarns in Debden
Account of John Kelhog from Michaelmas in the 48th year of Edward III to Michaelmas in the 49th year of Edward III.
And of 10 s of farm of land held once by Richard Kelhog demised to John Freman. And of 10 s of land which John Kelhog senior demised to John Kelhog junior.
There are other records of people with this surname in Debden before that, but at some point it's no longer possible to know if it's a surname or a local name for a hog butcher.
Vance
johnald...@gmail.com
Jan 21, 2020, 10:09:02 AM1/21/20
to
johnald...@gmail.com
Jan 21, 2020, 10:27:14 AM1/21/20
to
I found this online -- https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=miun.abd5312.0004.001&view=1up&seq=266 (Close Rolls, Henry IV: December 1411', in Calendar of Close Rolls, Henry IV: Volume 4, 1409-1413, ed. A E Stamp (London, 1932)) It refers to "Dec. 10. To the escheator in Staffordshire. Order to take the fealties
Westminster. of John Cokayn and John Tochet son of Richard ..." For what it's worth. :) It's what I could find in an internet search of the last name Touchet/Tuchet
Westminster. of John Cokayn and John Tochet son of Richard ..." For what it's worth. :) It's what I could find in an internet search of the last name Touchet/Tuchet
Vance Mead
Jan 21, 2020, 10:45:10 AM1/21/20
to
Have a look at Richard Smith's post above. This is one of those zombies that keeps getting killed but is still walking around.
johnald...@gmail.com
Jan 21, 2020, 1:17:19 PM1/21/20
to
On Tuesday, January 21, 2020 at 10:45:10 AM UTC-5, Vance Mead wrote:
> Have a look at Richard Smith's post above. This is one of those zombies that keeps getting killed but is still walking around.
>
Ahhh... :) OK.. Well, it was worth a shot. :) So, are you saying that the Calendar is wrong or that there is no relation there to the Kellogg family?
> Have a look at Richard Smith's post above. This is one of those zombies that keeps getting killed but is still walking around.
>
wjhonson
Jan 22, 2020, 12:43:14 PM1/22/20
to
Familysearch is one of those websites, which started out with a good idea and then degenerated into a gigantic ridiculous load of utter garbage. It no longer has ANY redeeming value whatsoever.
It is now such a mass of preposterous filth that they should be sued in a class action suit for perpetuating a massive fraud.
I would like to take all the chairpeople of familysearch and try them for genealogical treason. The *sole* way forward is to wipe the entire mass out, and start from zero. There is no way to fix what they have done.
It is now such a mass of preposterous filth that they should be sued in a class action suit for perpetuating a massive fraud.
I would like to take all the chairpeople of familysearch and try them for genealogical treason. The *sole* way forward is to wipe the entire mass out, and start from zero. There is no way to fix what they have done.
wjhonson
Jan 22, 2020, 12:47:59 PM1/22/20
to
This is her profile as written by ONE single amateur genealogist.
Familysearch Trees allows ANYONE, sane or insane, fever-dream-creating ancestor, or careful genealogist, to create ANY person in their tree and then link them to all sorts of complete nonsense.
There is no vetting whatsoever, of any of these entries in "Trees" which should be called "Garbage and Swill"
peter...@yahoo.ca
Jan 22, 2020, 2:04:45 PM1/22/20
to
I find Familysearch and Ancestry both very good if you know what you're doing and if your research concerns the 1600s on. They are lousy for medieval research. Ancestry's search engine leaves a lot to be desire. I've tested it several times by searching for something I know they have. If I use narrow search terms I don't find it. If I use very broad search terms I find it and get a lot of useless items with it. Still, as I say, there is a lot of good sources on there you just have to wade through the crap.
P J Evans
Jan 22, 2020, 2:40:23 PM1/22/20
to
On Wednesday, January 22, 2020 at 11:04:45 AM UTC-8, peter...@yahoo.ca wrote:
> I find Familysearch and Ancestry both very good if you know what you're doing and if your research concerns the 1600s on. They are lousy for medieval research. Ancestry's search engine leaves a lot to be desire. I've tested it several times by searching for something I know they have. If I use narrow search terms I don't find it. If I use very broad search terms I find it and get a lot of useless items with it. Still, as I say, there is a lot of good sources on there you just have to wade through the crap.
I found that Ancestry is good for actual records, but the family trees are quite variable - and a lot of people don't know how to do research, and will cheerfully claim that their person belongs to a family you know they're not in. The search engine is not as good as it could be (I've complained about it before) and their "hint engine" is worse. (Because FTM tended to crash after mislinking records, and there's no easy way to find those, I have about a dozen versions of my files that I'm trying to merge.)
> I find Familysearch and Ancestry both very good if you know what you're doing and if your research concerns the 1600s on. They are lousy for medieval research. Ancestry's search engine leaves a lot to be desire. I've tested it several times by searching for something I know they have. If I use narrow search terms I don't find it. If I use very broad search terms I find it and get a lot of useless items with it. Still, as I say, there is a lot of good sources on there you just have to wade through the crap.
Familysearch can be useful - as you say, for 16th century and later - but some of their data is definitely wrong: I found one where they have a guy dying in 1827, and an 1850 census record. (The 1827 date is for his son of the same name.)
John Higgins
Jan 22, 2020, 5:15:16 PM1/22/20
to
On Wednesday, January 22, 2020 at 11:04:45 AM UTC-8, peter...@yahoo.ca wrote:
> I find Familysearch and Ancestry both very good if you know what you're doing and if your research concerns the 1600s on. They are lousy for medieval research. Ancestry's search engine leaves a lot to be desire. I've tested it several times by searching for something I know they have. If I use narrow search terms I don't find it. If I use very broad search terms I find it and get a lot of useless items with it. Still, as I say, there is a lot of good sources on there you just have to wade through the crap.
The "Community Trees" section of Family Search can be quite useful - IF you take the time to check out its sources which are generally (albeit not always) quite extensive. It may not be perfect but it can be a good starting point for research. And it doesn't deserve the broad-brush denunciation leveled at Family Search as a whole as being "a gigantic ridiculous load of utter garbage" which "no longer has ANY redeeming value whatsoever". (Has Donald Trump started posting to this group?)
John Higgins
Jan 22, 2020, 5:17:45 PM1/22/20
to
0 new messages