Jane/Joan Raymes married John Claverling circa 1498

[Michael Rochester]

On many internet sites (don't worry I don't take too seriously), it says Robert Clavering (ca. 1479-ca. 1518) of Callaly, Northumberland, England, married Joan/Jane Raymes/Reims of Aydon/Shortflatt, Northumberland, I would guess the marriage occurred around 1498. The Reims/Raymes/Rames family have several pedigrees, none of which connect Jane/Joan to John Raymes/Reims, although the pedigree in many Histories of Northumberland go back quite far.

Raymes of Aydon have the best pedigree here although it is "washed out" and hard to read.

https://www.electricscotland.com/northumberland/historyofnorthum10nort.pdf

It does show a John Raymes of the correct age to be the parents of Joan/Jane, but is there an IPM or any evidence to connect her to the extensively traced Raymes family of Shortflatt?

[Michael Rochester]

That Robert Clavering married Joan Raymes is shown in:
Clavering of Callaley, (Vis. of Northumb., 1666)

[Michael Rochester]

I think the pedigree is hard to read, but it MAY show Joan marrying Robert Clavering.

Robert Clavering of Callaly 1479-1518
14th great-grandfather
John Clavering of Callaly 1503-1536
Son of Robert Clavering of Callaly
Elizabeth "Isabell of Callalye" Clavering 1536-1612
Daughter of John Clavering of Callaly
Robert Ogle 1568-
Son of Elizabeth "Isabell of Callalye" Clavering
Dorothy Ogle 1605-
Daughter of Robert Ogle
Isabell Widdrington 1620-1705
Daughter of Dorothy Ogle
Philadelphia Fenwick 1652-1719
Daughter of Isabell Widdrington
Robert Harle 1675-1747
Son of Philadelphia Fenwick
Robert Harle 1709-1743
Son of Robert Harle
Margaret Harle 1734-1818
Daughter of Robert Harle

[Carl-Henry Geschwind]

Post by Michael Rochester
On many internet sites (don't worry I don't take too seriously), it says Robert Clavering (ca. 1479-ca. 1518) of Callaly, Northumberland, England, married Joan/Jane Raymes/Reims of Aydon/Shortflatt, Northumberland, I would guess the marriage occurred around 1498. The Reims/Raymes/Rames family have several pedigrees, none of which connect Jane/Joan to John Raymes/Reims, although the pedigree in many Histories of Northumberland go back quite far.
Raymes of Aydon have the best pedigree here although it is "washed out" and hard to read.
https://www.electricscotland.com/northumberland/historyofnorthum10nort.pdf
It does show a John Raymes of the correct age to be the parents of Joan/Jane, but is there an IPM or any evidence to connect her to the extensively traced Raymes family of Shortflatt?

I had technical difficulties with the PDF at electricscotland; however, the same book, that is, vol. 10 of the Victoria County History of Northumberland (opened up to the pedigree you are interested at, which is facing p. 349) can be seen at https://archive.org/details/historyofnorthum10nort/page/n393/mode/2up

This pedigree indeed shows a Joan, daughter of John Raymes of Shortflat, as married to Robert Clavering of Callaley; the only evidence given for this, though, is Dugdale's Visitation of 1666 (which you have referenced in another post).

[Michael Rochester]

Thank you Mr Geschwind. I am anxious to study this family! Mike

[John Higgins]

Post by Carl-Henry Geschwind

Post by Michael Rochester
On many internet sites (don't worry I don't take too seriously), it says Robert Clavering (ca. 1479-ca. 1518) of Callaly, Northumberland, England, married Joan/Jane Raymes/Reims of Aydon/Shortflatt, Northumberland, I would guess the marriage occurred around 1498. The Reims/Raymes/Rames family have several pedigrees, none of which connect Jane/Joan to John Raymes/Reims, although the pedigree in many Histories of Northumberland go back quite far.
Raymes of Aydon have the best pedigree here although it is "washed out" and hard to read.
https://www.electricscotland.com/northumberland/historyofnorthum10nort.pdf
It does show a John Raymes of the correct age to be the parents of Joan/Jane, but is there an IPM or any evidence to connect her to the extensively traced Raymes family of Shortflatt?

I had technical difficulties with the PDF at electricscotland; however, the same book, that is, vol. 10 of the Victoria County History of Northumberland (opened up to the pedigree you are interested at, which is facing p. 349) can be seen at https://archive.org/details/historyofnorthum10nort/page/n393/mode/2up
This pedigree indeed shows a Joan, daughter of John Raymes of Shortflat, as married to Robert Clavering of Callaley; the only evidence given for this, though, is Dugdale's Visitation of 1666 (which you have referenced in another post).

A small bibliographic point: This volume 10, and the series which contains it, are not part of the Victoria County History project. A separate 15-volume "History of Northumberland" was published by the Northumberland County History Committee between 1893 and 1940. Since these very excellent volumes were already underway when the VCH effort began, The VCH project did not publish any volumes for Northumberland.

https://www.history.ac.uk/research/victoria-county-history/county-histories-progress/northumberland

https://www.familysearch.org/search/catalog/254311?availability=Family%20History%20Library

[Michael Rochester]

Thank you! Thank you for the links: Northumberland research is thankfully rich due to these histories, pedigrees, and other resources. Thankfully a majority of my British ancestry resided in this county.

Post by John Higgins
https://www.history.ac.uk/research/victoria-county-history/county-histories-progress/northumberland
https://www.familysearch.org/search/catalog/254311?availability=Family%20History%20Library

[John Higgins]

Post by Michael Rochester
Thank you! Thank you for the links: Northumberland research is thankfully rich due to these histories, pedigrees, and other resources. Thankfully a majority of my British ancestry resided in this county.

Post by John Higgins
https://www.history.ac.uk/research/victoria-county-history/county-histories-progress/northumberland
https://www.familysearch.org/search/catalog/254311?availability=Family%20History%20Library

If you have a lot of ancestry in Northumberland, you might also want to be aware of John Hodgson's "A History of Northumberland in Three Parts", published in the early 19th century. The three "Parts" consist of Part 1 in one volume and Parts 2 and 3, each in 3 volumes. All the volumes are online at either the Internet Archive or Google Books. It was the predecessor to the [new] "History of Northumberland" mentioned earlier.

https://www.familysearch.org/search/catalog/240018?availability=Family%20History%20Library

[Michael Rochester]

Thank you again....they are extremely detailed books! I downloaded those books you mentioned, as well as many books on the Ogle, Fenwick, Percy, and Mitford families that seem to predominate my ancestry over and over again. Mike

[Will Johnson]

what is the specific evidence that Robert Widdrington, father of Isabel, had as his wife Dorothy OGLE ?

[Will Johnson]

Post by Will Johnson
what is the specific evidence that Robert Widdrington, father of Isabel, had as his wife Dorothy OGLE ?

It does seem to me that *some* one has taken two different Robert Widdrington's (uncle and nephew) and made them into one person

https://www.google.com/books/edition/History_of_the_Berwickshire_Naturalists/hwxBAQAAMAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=robert%20widdrington%20dorothy%20ogle&pg=PA96&printsec=frontcover&bsq=robert%20widdrington%20dorothy%20ogle

[Will Johnson]

Post by Will Johnson

Post by Will Johnson
what is the specific evidence that Robert Widdrington, father of Isabel, had as his wife Dorothy OGLE ?

It does seem to me that *some* one has taken two different Robert Widdrington's (uncle and nephew) and made them into one person
https://www.google.com/books/edition/History_of_the_Berwickshire_Naturalists/hwxBAQAAMAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=robert%20widdrington%20dorothy%20ogle&pg=PA96&printsec=frontcover&bsq=robert%20widdrington%20dorothy%20ogle

The key point here is to look at the settlement of 1684, and *then* the will of 1692

Clearly all the daughters were adults and married off. Dorothy Ogle married in 1681, could not be their mother.

[John Higgins]

Post by Will Johnson

Post by Will Johnson

Post by Will Johnson
what is the specific evidence that Robert Widdrington, father of Isabel, had as his wife Dorothy OGLE ?

It does seem to me that *some* one has taken two different Robert Widdrington's (uncle and nephew) and made them into one person
https://www.google.com/books/edition/History_of_the_Berwickshire_Naturalists/hwxBAQAAMAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=robert%20widdrington%20dorothy%20ogle&pg=PA96&printsec=frontcover&bsq=robert%20widdrington%20dorothy%20ogle

The key point here is to look at the settlement of 1684, and *then* the will of 1692
Clearly all the daughters were adults and married off. Dorothy Ogle married in 1681, could not be their mother.

[John Higgins]

Post by Will Johnson

Post by Will Johnson

Post by Will Johnson
what is the specific evidence that Robert Widdrington, father of Isabel, had as his wife Dorothy OGLE ?

It does seem to me that *some* one has taken two different Robert Widdrington's (uncle and nephew) and made them into one person
https://www.google.com/books/edition/History_of_the_Berwickshire_Naturalists/hwxBAQAAMAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=robert%20widdrington%20dorothy%20ogle&pg=PA96&printsec=frontcover&bsq=robert%20widdrington%20dorothy%20ogle

The key point here is to look at the settlement of 1684, and *then* the will of 1692
Clearly all the daughters were adults and married off. Dorothy Ogle married in 1681, could not be their mother.

Where is this "settlement of 1684" found? It doesn't seem to be mentioned in the source you cited, which instead talks generally about something that happened in 1675.

[Michael Rochester]

1684, 28th May. A settlement whereby Robert Widdrington the elder settled his estates and lands in Hauxley, Amble, Warkworth, Guyzance, Barnhill, Hartlaw, and Hazon upon his nephews Robert Widdrington the younger, the eldest, Thomas the second, and Henry the third, sons of his brother William Widdrington, successively, in tail male, with remainder to Robert Widdrington, son of Samuel Widdrington, gent., who was another of his brothers. The estates are charged with annuities and portions payable to his daughters, Elizabeth, wife of Cuthbert Karns (or Cairns), of Firth-house, gent. ; and Isabel, wife of Robert Fenwick of Nunriding ; and to Robert, Jane, and Frances Forster, the children of his daughter Ann Forster, deceased ; and to Robert Maxwell, son of his daughter Mary, the wife of Edward Maxwell, gent. Certain sums are also to be paid to Henry, Ralph, Elizabeth, and Frances, children of William Widdrington, brother of the said Robert. Mr. S. F. Widdrington's Deeds.


Where is this "settlement of 1684" found? It doesn't seem to be mentioned in the source you cited, which instead talks generally about something that happened in 1675.

[John Higgins]

Post by Michael Rochester
1684, 28th May. A settlement whereby Robert Widdrington the elder settled his estates and lands in Hauxley, Amble, Warkworth, Guyzance, Barnhill, Hartlaw, and Hazon upon his nephews Robert Widdrington the younger, the eldest, Thomas the second, and Henry the third, sons of his brother William Widdrington, successively, in tail male, with remainder to Robert Widdrington, son of Samuel Widdrington, gent., who was another of his brothers. The estates are charged with annuities and portions payable to his daughters, Elizabeth, wife of Cuthbert Karns (or Cairns), of Firth-house, gent. ; and Isabel, wife of Robert Fenwick of Nunriding ; and to Robert, Jane, and Frances Forster, the children of his daughter Ann Forster, deceased ; and to Robert Maxwell, son of his daughter Mary, the wife of Edward Maxwell, gent. Certain sums are also to be paid to Henry, Ralph, Elizabeth, and Frances, children of William Widdrington, brother of the said Robert. Mr. S. F. Widdrington's Deeds.
Where is this "settlement of 1684" found? It doesn't seem to be mentioned in the source you cited, which instead talks generally about something that happened in 1675.

This is presumably the "settlement of 1684" that Will cited without providing a source. But you too didn't provide a Source. What is the source?

Although the settlement mentions the two Robert Widdringtons and clarifies the Isabel who married Robert fenwick is a daughter of the elder Robert, it says nothing about a wife Dorothy Ogle for either man.

[Michael Rochester]

Robert Fenwick of Langshaws and Nunriding Pedigree

Langshaws and Nunriding, Northumberland, England

Pedigree for Robert Fenwick. He married Isabell, daughter of Robert Widdrington. Taken from: "A History of Northumberland, in Three Parts: Part II. Vol II" by the Reverend John Hodgson (1832) - Pages 75 and 76. Book available online at: https://archive.org/details/historyofnortpt202hodguoft/page/76/mode/2up

[Michael Rochester]

https://www.familysearch.org/library/books/records/item/349279-history-of-the-families-of-skeet-somerscales-widdrington-wilby-murray-blake-grimshaw-and-others?viewer=1&offset=1#page=145&viewer=picture&o=search&n=0&q=robert%20fenwick

Post by Michael Rochester

Post by Will Johnson

Post by Will Johnson
https://www.google.com/books/edition/History_of_the_Berwickshire_Naturalists/hwxBAQAAMAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=robert%20widdrington%20dorothy%20ogle&pg=PA96&printsec=frontcover&bsq=robert%20widdrington%20dorothy%20ogle

The key point here is to look at the settlement of 1684, and *then* the will of 1692
Clearly all the daughters were adults and married off. Dorothy Ogle married in 1681, could not be their mother.

Where is this "settlement of 1684" found? It doesn't seem to be mentioned in the source you cited, which instead talks generally about something that happened in 1675.

[Michael Rochester]

No Widdrington - Ogle marriages in 1680s. Plenty of parish register information by that time in Northumberland. A Dorothy Ogle was baptised, 17 Nov 1605 Ponteland, Northumberland, England

https://www.familysearch.org/library/books/records/item/194975-ogle-and-bothal-or-a-history-of-the-baronies-of-ogle-bothal-and-hepple-and-of-the-families-of-ogle-and-bertram-who-held-possession-of-those-baronies-and-other-property-in-the-county-of-northumberland-and-elsewhere-to-which-is-added-accounts-of-several-branch-of-families-bearing-the-name-of-ogle-settled-in-other-counties?viewer=1&offset=2#page=90&viewer=picture&o=search&n=0&q=dorothy

This chart shows the relationships.
I hope this helps.

[Michael Rochester]

Yet another pedigree:
https://www.fusilier.co.uk/hauxley_northumberland/history_of_hauxley.htm

Will can be viewed on familysearch.org...hard to read, though


18 May 1692

Hauxley, England

Robert WIDDRINGTON, senior, esquire, gentleman, of Hawxley in the county of Northumberland [Warkworth, Northumberland] Date of probate: 1692 Further probate: 18 November 1696 copy will, 28 May 1692 (DPR/I/1/1692/W17/1) will bond, penal sum £300, 18 November 1696 (DPR/I/3/1696/B190) administration granted to Robert Widdrington of Hauxley gentleman, nephew and sole executor bond to redeliver the original will, penal sum £2,000, 5 January 1697 (DPR/I/1/1696/W14/1-2) Robert Widdrington of Hauxley gentleman, bondsman

[Carl-Henry Geschwind]

Post by Michael Rochester
https://www.fusilier.co.uk/hauxley_northumberland/history_of_hauxley.htm
Will can be viewed on familysearch.org...hard to read, though
18 May 1692
Hauxley, England
Robert WIDDRINGTON, senior, esquire, gentleman, of Hawxley in the county of Northumberland [Warkworth, Northumberland] Date of probate: 1692 Further probate: 18 November 1696 copy will, 28 May 1692 (DPR/I/1/1692/W17/1) will bond, penal sum £300, 18 November 1696 (DPR/I/3/1696/B190) administration granted to Robert Widdrington of Hauxley gentleman, nephew and sole executor bond to redeliver the original will, penal sum £2,000, 5 January 1697 (DPR/I/1/1696/W14/1-2) Robert Widdrington of Hauxley gentleman, bondsman

Michael:

Thank you for providing all the sources.

The pedigree of the Fenwicks clearly shows that Philadelphia Fenwick was the daughter of Robert Fenwick and Isabel Widdrington. It also states that Philadelphia was married in 1671, so presumably born in the early 1650s or thereabouts (you have "1652" in your pedigree). Her brother Benjamin is said in the same pedigree to have been buried in 1752 aged 84, so was born 1668 or thereabouts. So Isabel Widdrington, their mother, must have been born in the 1620s or 1630s (you have "1620" in your pedigree, probably a bit early for someone with a son born in 1668). She clearly is the Isabel daughter of Robert Widdrington the elder who had an annuity settled on her in the deed of 1684.

We know that a Robert Widdrington had a bond of marriage with a Dorothy Ogle in 1681 (cited in the "History of the Families of Skeet . . . "). This may very well have been Robert the elder, who names a wife Dorothy in his 1692 will.

But if the bond of marriage is from 1681, this would suggest that Dorothy Ogle is a very-late-in-life second wife and could not have been the mother of the Isabel Widdrington born in the 1620s or 1630s.

So what is the evidence for the wife that Robert Widdrington the elder had in the 1620s/30s who would have been the mother of Isabel?

[Michael Rochester]

The numerous pedigrees imply indirectly the connection (I know it may not pass many smell tests, but I used associations with other families, chronology, etc. to come to this conclusion). The numerous Widdrington-Ogle conections of the Causey Park branch point to Robert and Elizabeth (_____) Ogle, including a baptism in the nearby Ponteland church for a Dorothy Ogle, baptised in 1605. (Now we are going into Georgian/Elizabeth-ian genealogy, not Medieval).
No other Dorothy Ogle (bap 1605) was baptized in the right time frame except a Dorothy baptized 1608 daughter of Gawen Ogle of the same parish (this Gawen is ALSO of the Kirkley/Causey Park Ogles.). The Gawen who had THIS DOROTHY had no real connection with Widdrington family: here is the pedigree which includes Gawen: https://www.familysearch.org/library/books/records/item/194975-ogle-and-bothal-or-a-history-of-the-baronies-of-ogle-bothal-and-hepple-and-of-the-families-of-ogle-and-bertram-who-held-possession-of-those-baronies-and-other-property-in-the-county-of-northumberland-and-elsewhere-to-which-is-added-accounts-of-several-branch-of-families-bearing-the-name-of-ogle-settled-in-other-counties?viewer=1&offset=2#page=123&viewer=picture&o=search&n=0&q=%22gawen%20ogle%22

There is a Robert Ogle of Bothal, Robert OGLE, gentleman, of Bothall (Botthall) within the countie of Northumberland [Bothal, Northumberland]

Date of probate: 26 January 1619...may be "my?" Robert, but has not been published by familysearch
nuncupative will, 29 December 1618 (DPR/I/1/1618/O2/1)
inventory, actual total £536 18s, 14 January 1619 (DPR/I/1/1618/O2/2)
endorsed: administration granted [?at Bothal], 19 Jan 1619
commission, 19 January 1619 (DPR/I/1/1618/O2/3)
commission to John Robson, rector of Morpeth, to swear and examine William Clarke of Bothal gentleman, a witness; commission executed at Morpeth by Robson, 26 Jan 1619

[Michael Rochester]

If you can conclude Dorothy Ogle being connected to any other Ogle family, I am all ears. It is pretty convincing she belongs to the Causey Park/Kirkley Ogles. And I doubt the marriage was to an Ogle woman from a poor, impoverished background given HER HUSBAND'S background, or a scandal would/should have made the rounds of a county history, etc. Wish I can get my hands on that Robert Ogle will from 1620, but ordering it is nearly impossible now.

[Michael Rochester]

https://www.familysearch.org/library/books/records/item/194975-ogle-and-bothal-or-a-history-of-the-baronies-of-ogle-bothal-and-hepple-and-of-the-families-of-ogle-and-bertram-who-held-possession-of-those-baronies-and-other-property-in-the-county-of-northumberland-and-elsewhere-to-which-is-added-accounts-of-several-branch-of-families-bearing-the-name-of-ogle-settled-in-other-counties?viewer=1&offset=1#page=127&viewer=picture&o=search&n=0&q=dorothea%20ogle

To me, this points me to the right area for the right Dorothy Ogle based on geography and chronology. Robert Widdrington's will mentions lands in Hauxley. I am not an expert in gifting, seising of land, etc but this does seem like a reasonable conclusion without an outright smoking gun. And if the slight chance it was the Gawen Ogle family that produced MY Dorothy, it still leads me to Ralph Ogle and Margaret Gascoigne marriage.

[John Higgins]

Post by Michael Rochester
If you can conclude Dorothy Ogle being connected to any other Ogle family, I am all ears. It is pretty convincing she belongs to the Causey Park/Kirkley Ogles. And I doubt the marriage was to an Ogle woman from a poor, impoverished background given HER HUSBAND'S background, or a scandal would/should have made the rounds of a county history, etc. Wish I can get my hands on that Robert Ogle will from 1620, but ordering it is nearly impossible now.

At present I don't think it's at all CONVINCING that Dorothy Ogle is from either the Causey Park or the Kirkley branches of the Ogles. For me, it's telling that this very comprehensive book on the Ogles doesn't mention a marriage of a Dorothy Ogle to a Robert Widdrington of Hauxley. And all the pedigrees of Widdrington of Hauxley that we've seen have failed to identify Dorothy Ogle's parentage.

So the bottom line is: you've simply guessed at her parentage. Not a very high standard of genealogy.... And it doesn't pass any "smell tests".

BTW all your messages are shown here in a way that we can't see exactly what message you're replying to. I imagine that's a function of your particular email system - but it would be useful if you could figure out a way to fix this. It's hard to follow the context of your message.

[Michael Rochester]

Not a guess, but an estimation, and using other "standards," like geography, chronology (including a 1605 baptism for a Dorothy), and other Dorothys were eliminated over time. And there is no significant break with the pedigree (you must be steamed)...because I am related to the Ogle-Gascoigne line several times. Believe me, it does not matter "if" I am proven wrong.

I have studied this for over a year. I don't need your credentials to tell me what "standard" to use. The book, pedigrees, and other source material points to the Ogles of Kirkley/Causey Park and the numerous interacts with this branch is NOT just a guest.

Will Johnson likes to do this because he hates people being successful in their pedigrees, and desires to "prove a wrong" rather than point in a more positive direction. Not my idea of helpful, more akin to a horsefly who cannot be swatted.

However, NO ONE has consulted the marriage settlement "supposedly" in 1681 which is apparently in the private hands of the Widdringtons. It may even be a misprint for 1621, or another date. Since there is NO transcript of it, it can be entirely something else beside a marriage settlement. If you can produce it, you will prove me wrong. I am confident what I have is correct.

And the pedigrees all say the ONLY product of a first marriage is the son, William Widdrington. The other children are from Dorothy. Agrees with the book, stirnet, etc.

Do you really think Surtees, Hodgson, the Ogle authors would keep NOT have speculated on a possible third marriage, or two marriages, when it has been consistently linking Dorothy Ogle as the parent of the all the children except William?

BTW all your messages are shown here in a way that we can't see exactly what message you're replying to. I imagine that's a function of your particular email system - but it would be useful if you could figure out a way to fix this. It's hard to follow the context of your message.

Since you are a superior genealogist to me, you should be expected to follow an email trail.

[John Higgins]

Post by Michael Rochester
Not a guess, but an estimation, and using other "standards," like geography, chronology (including a 1605 baptism for a Dorothy), and other Dorothys were eliminated over time. And there is no significant break with the pedigree (you must be steamed)...because I am related to the Ogle-Gascoigne line several times. Believe me, it does not matter "if" I am proven wrong.
I have studied this for over a year. I don't need your credentials to tell me what "standard" to use. The book, pedigrees, and other source material points to the Ogles of Kirkley/Causey Park and the numerous interacts with this branch is NOT just a guest.
Will Johnson likes to do this because he hates people being successful in their pedigrees, and desires to "prove a wrong" rather than point in a more positive direction. Not my idea of helpful, more akin to a horsefly who cannot be swatted.
However, NO ONE has consulted the marriage settlement "supposedly" in 1681 which is apparently in the private hands of the Widdringtons. It may even be a misprint for 1621, or another date. Since there is NO transcript of it, it can be entirely something else beside a marriage settlement. If you can produce it, you will prove me wrong. I am confident what I have is correct.
And the pedigrees all say the ONLY product of a first marriage is the son, William Widdrington. The other children are from Dorothy. Agrees with the book, stirnet, etc.
Do you really think Surtees, Hodgson, the Ogle authors would keep NOT have speculated on a possible third marriage, or two marriages, when it has been consistently linking Dorothy Ogle as the parent of the all the children except William?

BTW all your messages are shown here in a way that we can't see exactly what message you're replying to. I imagine that's a function of your particular email system - but it would be useful if you could figure out a way to fix this. It's hard to follow the context of your message.

Since you are a superior genealogist to me, you should be expected to follow an email trail.

I see no point in continuing this discussion, in light of all these snarky comments. And most of the text which not be snarky doesn't even make sense if one tries to read it. I'm not going to the trouble of trying to understand what you've written here - it's too confused and incomplete..

[Michael Rochester]

Have a great day. The one who insulted my genealogical prowess now takes the "high road." I hope my Esperento becomes more readable with times.

I see no point in continuing this discussion, in light of all these snarky comments. And most of the text which not be snarky doesn't even make sense if one tries to read it. I'm not going to the trouble of trying to understand what you've written here - it's too confused and incomplete..

[Michael Rochester]

What an odd thread. Terrible flow here. :D

[Mark Jennings]

Post by Michael Rochester
If you can conclude Dorothy Ogle being connected to any other Ogle family, I am all ears. It is pretty convincing she belongs to the Causey Park/Kirkley Ogles. And I doubt the marriage was to an Ogle woman from a poor, impoverished background given HER HUSBAND'S background, or a scandal would/should have made the rounds of a county history, etc. Wish I can get my hands on that Robert Ogle will from 1620, but ordering it is nearly impossible now.

At present I don't think it's at all CONVINCING that Dorothy Ogle is from either the Causey Park or the Kirkley branches of the Ogles. For me, it's telling that this very comprehensive book on the Ogles doesn't mention a marriage of a Dorothy Ogle to a Robert Widdrington of Hauxley. And all the pedigrees of Widdrington of Hauxley that we've seen have failed to identify Dorothy Ogle's parentage.
So the bottom line is: you've simply guessed at her parentage. Not a very high standard of genealogy.... And it doesn't pass any "smell tests".

That's because the presented pedigree, like most of this talented and highly-strung genealogist's "work", is garbage - and it's taken only a year of study for him to be able to pollute the internet with this risible effluvium, which he will doubtless defend to the death, squawking like a plucked parrot.

The marriage between Robert Widdrington and Dorothy Ogle was indeed in 1681, as indicated by one of Will's earlier sources: the marriage bond is held in the University of Durham Special Collections holding of diocesan bonds, and is dated 30 July [sic, per printed index] 1681 (Robert Widdrington of Hauxley and Dorothy Ogle of Warkworth).

COSMIC, LOL.

[Michael Rochester]

Mark, so late for the party! Glad to see you here. If this is so late of a marriage, why the heck isn't she "Mrs. Dorothy Ogle," because by 1681, Mrs was an indication of marital status, and not a title of respect. Now excuse me, squaker, I am finding another (yes another) Ogle line through the marriage of Matthew Bee the elder and Margaret (likely Whitfield) Bee of Ninebanks. Now scram! :)

[Michael Rochester]

By the way, your Twitter feed is "garbage." https://twitter.com/mark66j

[Michael Rochester]

Mark James: "effluvium???"....using Google and dictionary.com to sound educated is so obtuse. ;)
Now, go virtue signal on Reddit for the good of genealogy. :D

[[e-mail]]

Post by Michael Rochester
Mark James: "effluvium???"....using Google and dictionary.com to sound educated is so obtuse. ;)
Now, go virtue signal on Reddit for the good of genealogy. :D

I don't agree with your taste King o France. There are lots of places to see insults on the internet, but so few where you can still see people describe something as risible effluvium. The world would be a tiny bit less interesting without this forum. :)

[Michael Rochester]

Post by ***@gmail.com
I don't agree with your taste King o France. There are lots of places to see insults on the internet, but so few where you can still see people describe something as risible effluvium. The world would be a tiny bit less interesting without this forum. :)

He uses that to impress women; and it must not be effective. He and Will Johnson now owns more cats than most rescue shelters. ;)

[Mark Jennings]

Post by Michael Rochester
By the way, your Twitter feed is "garbage." https://twitter.com/mark66j

Yawn. So is your self-published book on your ancestors George and Jane Meggison:

https://books.google.co.uk/books/about/Meggison.html?id=1NI0AAAAMAAJ&redir_esc=y

(Hint: Merchant mariner George Meggison was not a Captain in the "Royal British Navy"[sic], and his wife was not "Lady Jane Mary Patterson". So much for your vaunted genealogical expertise and published credentials.)

Oh, and by the way, that's not my Twitter feed - but hey, "the name's vaguely the same" is your preferred method of shoe-horning your cack-handed pedigrees together, so it's hardly surprising that you should apply the same yardstick elsewhere.

I wouldn't normally waste my time quibbling over this sort of petty dross, but given your determination to evacuate your defective genealogy into the archives of this Group [talk about "the Smell Test"...], a warning about its nature is justified, in the rare chance that anyone remains who hasn't already been put sufficiently on notice by your puerile japery and the manifest trashiness of your "scholarly offerings".

"LOL"

[Michael Rochester]

Did you show your cats this so-called "gaffe"?

I never said she was "Lady." previous family genealogists said that. It took me years to connect the family to Berwick where they were mainly tradespeople, although one son went into East India Company; and worked in conjunction with his brother in law which became my ancestor. I have many records of their shipbuilding and trade with India and other places.

"LOL"

Seriously? Do you hate yourself? Are you without female company for long periods of time? Do you look pitifully out of a window, wishing for friends and companionship? No feat, you shall be lonely your entire life. You have, like Will Johnson, zero personality.

By the way, the journal NY Genealogical and Biographical Record positively reviewed my book. They usually tear apart genealogies lacking proper documentation.

STILL WAITING for YOU and WILL's publication list. I am patient. I shall wait. ;)

[John Higgins]

Post by Michael Rochester
Did you show your cats this so-called "gaffe"?
I never said she was "Lady." previous family genealogists said that. It took me years to connect the family to Berwick where they were mainly tradespeople, although one son went into East India Company; and worked in conjunction with his brother in law which became my ancestor. I have many records of their shipbuilding and trade with India and other places.

Umm...You say repeatedly in your book that she was "Lady Mary Jane Patterson". Yes, you cite earlier family genealogists, but you never question the accuracy of their references. So, it's just dishonest for you to say that "I never said she was "Lady".

I'm sure that I'll now be the target of your next personal attack..... If you want to talk about "zero personality", look at yourself in the mirror.

[Michael Rochester]

Umm...You say repeatedly in your book that she was "Lady Mary Jane Patterson". Yes, you cite earlier family genealogists, but you never question the accuracy of their references. So, it's just dishonest for you to say that "I never said she was "Lady".
I'm sure that I'll now be the target of your next personal attack..... If you want to talk about "zero personality", look at yourself in the mirror.

You use the word "um"? That is hilarious....pretend to use a word denoting the clearing of your throat. Rich!

The top genealogists in the country knew what I was referring to when I put the title in brackets. It was what her own son referred her to, according to family letters. I only recently found her lineage. It took some work, but it is possibly an article I hope to get published in The Genealogist (where I already have two articles published).

STILL waiting your publication list. When will you and Will Johnson produce your publication list?

You await my next personal attack? Good luck for you, Tonto, here is one! :)

[John Higgins]

Post by Michael Rochester
The top genealogists in the country knew what I was referring to when I put the title in brackets. It was what her own son referred her to, according to family letters. I only recently found her lineage. It took some work, but it is possibly an article I hope to get published in The Genealogist (where I already have two articles published).

Since you have such a fixation about publication lists, perhaps you could provide citations for the two articles you say you've had published in The Genealogist. I'm sure we'd all be interested in reading them, but I don't propose to look through all 34 volumes of TG to try to find them. At least you could give us the volume numbers in which they were published. That would be helpful...

BTW, having published articles in genealogical periodicals is not the only measure of a person's contributions to the field of genealogy - particularly in today's world. But that concept may be beyond your understanding or experience...

[Michael Rochester]

Spring 2012, and the subsequent issue.

Glad to assist.

Since you have such a fixation about publication lists, perhaps you could provide citations for the two articles you say you've had published in The Genealogist. I'm sure we'd all be interested in reading them, but I don't propose to look through all 34 volumes of TG to try to find them. At least you could give us the volume numbers in which they were published. That would be helpful...
BTW, having published articles in genealogical periodicals is not the only measure of a person's contributions to the field of genealogy - particularly in today's world. But that concept may be beyond your understanding or experience...

Just admit NOTHING you researched is worth publishing....or you are selfishly keeping everything so when you die, your computer, papers and chart are all tossed into the rubbish bin. I prefer working and publishing information. And critiquing a work done in 2000 (21 years have passed), is ridiculously obtuse. That is like critiquing Donald Lines Jacobus' work because he did not discover breakthroughs in 2010 through 2020. It does not diminish his work; it is a steppingstone for further research, as there is a lot, lot, lot more to learn about anyone's lineage.

[John Higgins]

Post by Michael Rochester
Spring 2012, and the subsequent issue.
Glad to assist.

Since you have such a fixation about publication lists, perhaps you could provide citations for the two articles you say you've had published in The Genealogist. I'm sure we'd all be interested in reading them, but I don't propose to look through all 34 volumes of TG to try to find them. At least you could give us the volume numbers in which they were published. That would be helpful...
BTW, having published articles in genealogical periodicals is not the only measure of a person's contributions to the field of genealogy - particularly in today's world. But that concept may be beyond your understanding or experience...

Just admit NOTHING you researched is worth publishing....or you are selfishly keeping everything so when you die, your computer, papers and chart are all tossed into the rubbish bin. I prefer working and publishing information. And critiquing a work done in 2000 (21 years have passed), is ridiculously obtuse. That is like critiquing Donald Lines Jacobus' work because he did not discover breakthroughs in 2010 through 2020. It does not diminish his work; it is a steppingstone for further research, as there is a lot, lot, lot more to learn about anyone's lineage.

In checking the tables of contents for TG online, I see two articles by you in the Spring 2012 issue (vol. 26) (one short one, and another longer one with a co-author), and none in the subsequent issue. I'm glad for you that you were able to get them published, but neither of them are on topics that are of particular interest to me (although I'm sure they're important to you). It just happens that American genealogy is not a particular interest of mine. That's the way things are...so be it.

I've never felt the need or an interest as to formally publish my particular research. But I certainly HAVE made contributions in other ways. For example, I've given over 50,000 records of my research data to Ian Fettes for the Genealogics database. I'd say that's a pretty significant contribution - but you probably will find a way to cast aspersions on that.

Also, I'd say that the majority of participants here in SGM have never published anything in a printed journal. You seem to overlook the value of this group and its discussions, and the importance of such contributions in the world of new technology. Publishing in dead-tree journals is not the only way to contribute to genealogy these days.

[Michael Rochester]

Do you honestly think you would write: "I saw the article...very impressed!" You did a good job...lots of footnotes; primary sources....

NAH

[John Higgins]

Post by Michael Rochester
Do you honestly think you would write: "I saw the article...very impressed!" You did a good job...lots of footnotes; primary sources....
NAH

(I assume you're replying to me, although once again you failed to include the message you're replying to)

Only the table of contents for TG issues is available online - not the text of the articles themselves. So, I haven't had the, umm, pleasure of reading your undoubtedly excellent article. :-) And, as I mentioned earlier, it's not within my range of interest, and thus I see no point in tracking it down through a library (especially since ILL services are largely not working right now).

[joseph cook]

Post by Michael Rochester
Just admit NOTHING you researched is worth publishing....or you are selfishly keeping everything so when you die, your computer, papers and chart are all tossed into the rubbish bin. I prefer working and publishing information. And critiquing a work done in 2000 (21 years have passed), is ridiculously obtuse.

Please. Please. Stop. These public personal attacks are unproductive, and they say *way* more about the person making the attacks than the subject of those attacks. I think you fail to realize how much insight we are getting into your personal life here. Please just stick to genealogy. Publishing on the Internet, even here is "publishing" and making available research for other people, so in no way is it "selfish". If you want to fight with people, please post in alt.genealogy instead.

--Joe C

[Michael Rochester]

Hey Joe C

Then don't allow psychos and sociopaths like Will Johnson to post here: who produces nothing productive; just attacks and snide personal comments. Because I am better at it, and more cutting, which strips people like him and others to shards, it is a "warning shot" to just (1) tell me where I am wrong, if I am wrong, (2) direct me to a better source or a better possibility, if possible. If there is NOTHING productive, including shots at my genealogical prowess, I will throw the gauntlet. No one will come out unscathed. If you stick to a productive alternative possibility, like "try this mss. or consult this book," we are onto something. But, if someone wants to download my genealogy I wrote in 2000, to find flaws (much less was available to researchers in 2000), and say it is ""self published" (like Random House of Harper's would take on publishing a family genealogy), then bring it on.

Better yet, don't post to me. Be productive or get off my thread. Thanks Joe C!

[joseph cook]

Post by Michael Rochester
Hey Joe C
Then don't allow psychos and sociopaths like Will Johnson to post here: who produces nothing productive; just attacks and snide personal comments. Because I am better at it, and more cutting, which strips people like him and others to shards, it is a "warning shot" to just

<snip the craziest thing I have ever read>

If you think that feeding the trolls makes them go away, or that anyone has been "cut down" by your bizarre outbursts and insults here, I have to tell you that you need help. I am responding only because I haven't decided if you are a troll yet, who is just intentionally saying insane and objectively ridiculous things to get a rise out of people here.

How would you even suggest we "don't allow.." people to post here?
You are free to throw the gauntlet; I am just letting you know to do this in alt.genealogy; not here.

--Joe C

[Michael Rochester]

Says the one who is still posting NOTHING to do with genealogy, acting as a hall monitor. I am ready to go onto other things; it is YOU retorting. And I shall retort until you cease. So just cease.

Because you cannot, tell someone what to post, I have to endure the Will Johnson's of these threads. I will just tell him to eff off unless he is here to be useful. But it won't happen. So either post something productive...or not.

If you think downloading a book that I wrote in 2000 just to "tear it apart;" to go off tangent entirely, to "teach me a lesson,:" is NOT bizarre, I cannot conjure a better one.
I don't think you could come up with a BETTER definition of bizarre, or at least sociopathic.

Post by joseph cook
How would you even suggest we "don't allow.." people to post here?
You are free to throw the gauntlet; I am just letting you know to do this in alt.genealogy; not here.
--Joe C

[Carl-Henry Geschwind]

Post by Michael Rochester
Hey Joe C
Then don't allow psychos and sociopaths like Will Johnson to post here: who produces nothing productive; just attacks and snide personal comments. Because I am better at it, and more cutting, which strips people like him and others to shards, it is a "warning shot" to just (1) tell me where I am wrong, if I am wrong, (2) direct me to a better source or a better possibility, if possible. If there is NOTHING productive, including shots at my genealogical prowess, I will throw the gauntlet. No one will come out unscathed. If you stick to a productive alternative possibility, like "try this mss. or consult this book," we are onto something. But, if someone wants to download my genealogy I wrote in 2000, to find flaws (much less was available to researchers in 2000), and say it is ""self published" (like Random House of Harper's would take on publishing a family genealogy), then bring it on.
Better yet, don't post to me. Be productive or get off my thread. Thanks Joe C!

Actually, Will Johnson was productive on this thread. In your initial post for this thread, you asked for sources on Jane/Joan Raymes, and you did get some good responses to that and were gracious in your responses. However, in your third post in this thread, you also posted a presumed pedigree from Robert Clavering to Margaret Harle. Will Johnson was the first to point out a possible problem with this particular pedigree, which subsequent posts by others have shown to be a definite problem - the Dorothy Ogle who married a Robert Widdrington in 1681 (with the marriage bond of this year in a public repository) cannot have been the mother of Isabel Widdrington born in the 1620s/30s (and there is no other evidence for an earlier marriage of a Dorothy Ogle to a Robert Widdrington).

Incidentally, are you the Michael T. Meggison of Rochester, NY, who was the plaintiff in Meggison v. Paychex, Inc., 679 F. Supp. 2d 379 (W.D.N.Y. 2010), viewable at https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2487026/meggison-v-paychex-inc/ ? If so, I'd be careful about whom you call a psycho or sociopath.

[Michael Rochester]

Okay Carl, you threw the gauntlet. Watch out now.

[Mark Jennings]

Post by Carl-Henry Geschwind

Post by Michael Rochester
Hey Joe C
Then don't allow psychos and sociopaths like Will Johnson to post here: who produces nothing productive; just attacks and snide personal comments. Because I am better at it, and more cutting, which strips people like him and others to shards, it is a "warning shot" to just (1) tell me where I am wrong, if I am wrong, (2) direct me to a better source or a better possibility, if possible. If there is NOTHING productive, including shots at my genealogical prowess, I will throw the gauntlet. No one will come out unscathed. If you stick to a productive alternative possibility, like "try this mss. or consult this book," we are onto something. But, if someone wants to download my genealogy I wrote in 2000, to find flaws (much less was available to researchers in 2000), and say it is ""self published" (like Random House of Harper's would take on publishing a family genealogy), then bring it on.
Better yet, don't post to me. Be productive or get off my thread. Thanks Joe C!

Actually, Will Johnson was productive on this thread. In your initial post for this thread, you asked for sources on Jane/Joan Raymes, and you did get some good responses to that and were gracious in your responses. However, in your third post in this thread, you also posted a presumed pedigree from Robert Clavering to Margaret Harle. Will Johnson was the first to point out a possible problem with this particular pedigree, which subsequent posts by others have shown to be a definite problem - the Dorothy Ogle who married a Robert Widdrington in 1681 (with the marriage bond of this year in a public repository) cannot have been the mother of Isabel Widdrington born in the 1620s/30s (and there is no other evidence for an earlier marriage of a Dorothy Ogle to a Robert Widdrington).
Incidentally, are you the Michael T. Meggison of Rochester, NY, who was the plaintiff in Meggison v. Paychex, Inc., 679 F. Supp. 2d 379 (W.D.N.Y. 2010), viewable at https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2487026/meggison-v-paychex-inc/ ? If so, I'd be careful about whom you call a psycho or sociopath.

Yes, that's him, sadly. The rest of his history is equally sad (eg his appearance on the Judge Mathis TV programme on 29 October 2009 - viewable on Youtube). He's not a troll, just someone with deep narcissistic antisocial personality disorder - meaning that he is incapable of insight into his behaviour, incapable of admitting error (even to himself), incapable of changing, irrational and abusive. Deserving of pity perhaps, but not worthy of engagement, since it is simply a hiding to nothing for all involved. Probably worth correcting all future defective genealogy he posts to ensure it doesn't pollute the record, but that's about it.

[Michael Rochester]

You ALSO are friendly with a pedophile? Birds of a feather....

[Michael Rochester]

Post by Carl-Henry Geschwind
Incidentally, are you the Michael T. Meggison of Rochester, NY, who was the plaintiff in Meggison v. Paychex, Inc., 679 F. Supp. 2d 379 (W.D.N.Y. 2010), viewable at https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2487026/meggison-v-paychex-inc/ ? If so, I'd be careful about whom you call a psycho or sociopath.

Are you this guy:

A well known pedophile, who has advocated in lowering the age of consent in California?
Let's play show and tell.

[taf]

Post by Michael Rochester

Post by Carl-Henry Geschwind
Incidentally, are you the Michael T. Meggison of Rochester, NY, who was the plaintiff in Meggison v. Paychex, Inc., 679 F. Supp. 2d 379 (W.D.N.Y. 2010), viewable at https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2487026/meggison-v-paychex-inc/ ? If so, I'd be careful about whom you call a psycho or sociopath.

Are you this guy: http://youtu.be/NeGSrh_GvBg
A well known pedophile, who has advocated in lowering the age of consent in California?
Let's play show and tell.

This is uncalled for, BY BOTH OF YOU. Argue about medieval genealogy all you want, but such cyberstalking and actionable libel is really beyond the pale.

taf

[Mark Jennings]

This is uncalled for, BY BOTH OF YOU. Argue about medieval genealogy all you want, but such cyberstalking and actionable libel is really beyond the pale.
taf

I hesitate to add to this, but it is a little harsh of you Taf to equate Carl-Henry [a valued and measured contributor] with the OP [a disruptive force]. From a legal perspective, only the OP's contributions have been libellous (and clearly so), and it is the OP who took things to a personal, off-list level, as well as constantly appealing to his own off-list authority and repeatedly and ironically inviting illustrations of sociopathy. Anyway, hopefully we can now go back to squabbling about the Pipe Rolls and leave the Energy Creature to boil in its own bubble :-)

[Michael Rochester]

I hesitate to add to this, but it is a little harsh of you Taf to equate Carl-Henry [a valued and measured contributor] with the OP [a disruptive force]. From a legal perspective, only the OP's contributions have been libellous (and clearly so), and it is the OP who took things to a personal, off-list level, as well as constantly appealing to his own off-list authority and repeatedly and ironically inviting illustrations of sociopathy. Anyway, hopefully we can now go back to squabbling about the Pipe Rolls and leave the Energy Creature to boil in its own bubble :-)

You should hesitate, because proving libel is very very very difficult. However, cyberstalking IS a crime and can be detrimental to his teaching career. If I emailed and sent the Dean of his school this email thread, only tenure may save him from firing, but it would be a stain on his record. I am not into getting people fired because of a beef online. However, it should serve as a further warning to him if he continues cyberstalking me. Your OP has been to add fuel to the fire, and have failed, positively failed, to prove anymore more than googling a name of someone they THING is me, and using media to falsely "frame" me to anything more than what you have projected to "come to the rescue" of your sociopathic comrades. :)

[taf]

This is uncalled for, BY BOTH OF YOU. Argue about medieval genealogy all you want, but such cyberstalking and actionable libel is really beyond the pale.
taf

I hesitate to add to this, but it is a little harsh of you Taf to equate Carl-Henry [a valued and measured contributor] with the OP [a disruptive force]. From a legal perspective, only the OP's contributions have been libellous (and clearly so), and it is the OP who took things to a personal, off-list level, as well as constantly appealing to his own off-list authority and repeatedly and ironically inviting illustrations of sociopathy.

It was C-H who associated the other poster with a real-world legal proceeding. Yes, the responding poster then turned their level of offensiveness up to 11, but this group has an even more diminished future if a mere genealogical disagreement opens up any poster to having unpleasant or personal aspects of their lives laid bare here.

That said, it has not passed unnoticed that one has ceased and removed their problematic posts from Google Groups, while the other has upped the ante in the offensiveness sweepstakes even further, with employment threats and self-congratulation, earning their highest score yet on the DSH scale of s.g.m odiousness.

taf

[Michael Rochester]

I decided to remove the posts ONLY, and ONLY because I am not interested in trying to "out insult" true sociopaths interested in nothing more but trying to display their own inabilities to be realize their own sociopathic tendencies. I showed this thread to NON genealogy friends, and they pity you all....the biggest statement is especially Carl-Henry and mjj and wjhonson are truly unhappy people. And I tend to agree with them.

taf

[Will Johnson]

I decided to remove the posts ONLY, and ONLY because I am not interested in trying to "out insult" true sociopaths interested in nothing more but trying to display their own inabilities to be realize their own sociopathic tendencies. I showed this thread to NON genealogy friends, and they pity you all....the biggest statement is especially Carl-Henry and mjj and wjhonson are truly unhappy people. And I tend to agree with them.

Actually I'm *stunningly* happy.
When I walk into a room, it's like sunshine at the beach.

However, I think I see that you are projecting.
Now if you could just delete yourself entirely, the world would once again be at peace and little children would sing hymns of praise

[Michael Rochester]

Post by Will Johnson
Actually I'm *stunningly* happy.
When I walk into a room, it's like sunshine at the beach.

NO....you are not. Jeffrey Dahmer attracts more gourmet chefs than you attract like minded genealogists. And the "projection" argument is tiresome and after 30 years being attempted in internet psychology, it has rendered itself worthless. But good try!

[Michael Rochester]

Post by Will Johnson
Now if you could just delete yourself entirely, the world would once again be at peace and little children would sing hymns of praise

You would know a lot about the minds of little children. Go back in your white van, Will.

[Michael Rochester]

By the way, your video up since 2016 and only 296 views: hardly a YouTube influencer. http://youtu.be/NeGSrh_GvBg

:)

[Peter Stewart]

On 31-Mar-21 11:25 PM, joseph cook wrote:

<snip>

Post by joseph cook
Publishing on the Internet, even here is "publishing" and making available research for other people, so in no way is it "selfish".

I agree with Joe on this, but I'm not entirely sure that "even here..."
is necessary - in my view this is a prime location for sharing research
on medieval genealogy and trying to assist others who bring up questions.

A few years ago I asked some friends in academia about their attitude to
publishing journal articles. One said that she found it a dreadful chore
that was worthwhile only because it kept her intensely competitive (and
mostly male) faculty colleagues from maligning her as they did each
other. Someone else replied that he thought it a waste of time and only
submitted papers when he wanted to tease a forthcoming book.

I also asked them about attitudes to genealogy. The consensus was that
in the end it provides piecemeal information rather than substantial
knowledge, and that although it may offer useful sidelights occasionally
it should not become an academic discipline in its own right.

Since medieval genealogy interests me enough to keep at it, I took this
as advice to pursue it without supposing I could do much service to
historians beyond providing a ready-reference guide for some minor
points that might otherwise take more trouble than they are seen to be
worth.

And given that I have wasted a lot of my time and small reserve of
patience reading through as much trash as treasure in peer-reviewed
journals, I also took it as affirming that I need not think about
wasting resources of ink and paper for the chimerical prestige of
appearing in print on this subject. It has never once crossed my mind
since that I was being selfish in posting to SGM without seeking to add
publications to my CV.

I wonder if anyone here has found significantly more value printed in
journals than posted to the newsgroup, where corrections and additions
can be made instantly while different interpretations can be canvassed
at once, without waiting for a subsequent issue to appear.

Peter Stewart

[joseph cook]

Post by Peter Stewart
I wonder if anyone here has found significantly more value printed in
journals than posted to the newsgroup, where corrections and additions
can be made instantly while different interpretations can be canvassed
at once, without waiting for a subsequent issue to appear.

Good point; I haven't. Even if the signal to noise ratio here is lower than any journal I read; the volume of signal here is much higher than any paper journal achieves. And the most useful information here 1) active discussion and counter-point (unlike some academic areas, genealogy journal articles too rarely (unfortunately) adequately describe fair counter-points to their conclusions) and 2) references to new sources and advice on how to best use them are much better here than any journal I am familiar with, so that gives this group much more utility.

--Joe Cook

[Peter Stewart]

Post by joseph cook

Post by Peter Stewart
I wonder if anyone here has found significantly more value printed in
journals than posted to the newsgroup, where corrections and additions
can be made instantly while different interpretations can be canvassed
at once, without waiting for a subsequent issue to appear.

Good point; I haven't. Even if the signal to noise ratio here is lower than any journal I read; the volume of signal here is much higher than any paper journal achieves. And the most useful information here 1) active discussion and counter-point (unlike some academic areas, genealogy journal articles too rarely (unfortunately) adequately describe fair counter-points to their conclusions) and 2) references to new sources and advice on how to best use them are much better here than any journal I am familiar with, so that gives this group much more utility.

It occurs to me that in future most publishing will be done online
anyway, as libraries will eventually run out of space for keeping and
inclination for purchasing runs of print journals. Many of these are
already unaffordable for most individuals who may wish to consult them.

Also anyone who uses SGM or other online resources for published work
without citing these adequately is on a hiding to nothing in future.
Appearing to filch references, or posing as the maker of discoveries
that can be traced and pre-dated in a post on SGM, will be a black mark
once, a dark shadow twice and a reputation destroyer three times. I
wonder if anyone here would be fool enough to try this ...

Peter Stewart

[Michael Rochester]

Because nothing is more embarrassing than that! Even though genealogical "superstars" like Henry Louis Gates and Megyn Smolneyak do that REGULARLY online and on television.

Post by Peter Stewart
Peter Stewart

[Michael Rochester]

"LOL"

No woman wants you, and here is the only place you feel "powerful." Because otherwise, with the exception of your esoteric interests, you are nothing more than a bitter, lonely, sexually frustrated miscreant with no real mark on anything significant.

"LOL!"

[Mark Jennings]

Post by Michael Rochester

"LOL"

No woman wants you, and here is the only place you feel "powerful." Because otherwise, with the exception of your esoteric interests, you are nothing more than a bitter, lonely, sexually frustrated miscreant with no real mark on anything significant.
"LOL!"

The level of projection displayed here is actually quite disturbing. Seriously, consider getting some professional help. I won't be commenting further.

[Michael Rochester]

The level of projection displayed here is actually quite disturbing. Seriously, consider getting some professional help. I won't be commenting further.

Who do you suggest for this mental health intervention? The one who assisted you through your cross-dressing "issues" in your mid twenties? Where did he graduate from? I would like some credentials. :)

[[e-mail]]

Post by Michael Rochester

The level of projection displayed here is actually quite disturbing. Seriously, consider getting some professional help. I won't be commenting further.

Who do you suggest for this mental health intervention? The one who assisted you through your cross-dressing "issues" in your mid twenties? Where did he graduate from? I would like some credentials. :)

You are seriously in need of help: insulting everyone else is a sign of trouble.

[Michael Rochester]

Post by ***@gmail.com
You are seriously in need of help: insulting everyone else is a sign of trouble.

You are seriously in need of counseling. Going on tangent to personal attacks like yourself, and feigning knowledge of mental health, is a dangerous and irresponsible malady that lies within your self serving id. I suggest a breather; get some air, then rinse and repeat. ;)

[John Higgins]

Post by Michael Rochester
https://www.fusilier.co.uk/hauxley_northumberland/history_of_hauxley.htm

Yet another version of a pedigree of Widdrington of Hauxley - which is not in agreement with the 3 versions we've already mentioned. And, most important, it says that Dorothy Ogle is NOT the mother of Isabel Widdrington who married Richard Fenwick. So that alone causes a break in your pedigree - let alone that it doesn't discuss the parentage of Dorothy Ogle.

Post by Michael Rochester
Will can be viewed on familysearch.org...hard to read, though
18 May 1692
Hauxley, England
Robert WIDDRINGTON, senior, esquire, gentleman, of Hawxley in the county of Northumberland [Warkworth, Northumberland] Date of probate: 1692 Further probate: 18 November 1696 copy will, 28 May 1692 (DPR/I/1/1692/W17/1) will bond, penal sum £300, 18 November 1696 (DPR/I/3/1696/B190) administration granted to Robert Widdrington of Hauxley gentleman, nephew and sole executor bond to redeliver the original will, penal sum £2,000, 5 January 1697 (DPR/I/1/1696/W14/1-2) Robert Widdrington of Hauxley gentleman, bondsman

[John Higgins]

Post by Michael Rochester
No Widdrington - Ogle marriages in 1680s. Plenty of parish register information by that time in Northumberland. A Dorothy Ogle was baptised, 17 Nov 1605 Ponteland, Northumberland, England
https://www.familysearch.org/library/books/records/item/194975-ogle-and-bothal-or-a-history-of-the-baronies-of-ogle-bothal-and-hepple-and-of-the-families-of-ogle-and-bertram-who-held-possession-of-those-baronies-and-other-property-in-the-county-of-northumberland-and-elsewhere-to-which-is-added-accounts-of-several-branch-of-families-bearing-the-name-of-ogle-settled-in-other-counties?viewer=1&offset=2#page=90&viewer=picture&o=search&n=0&q=dorothy
This chart shows the relationships.
I hope this helps.

This is not a particularly effective way of presenting a source. The URL indicates a page 90, but it turns out to be a physical page 90 - not the page that is numbered page 90. And the pedigree chart on that page (which I looked at in a downloaded copy of the source) has plenty of Dorothys, including at least one Dorothy Ogle. But none of them are relevant to the Dorothy Ogle you list in your pedigree. So...why cite this page?

[Michael Rochester]

Hello, this is an ancient and outdated email. We are using 1999 era technology in this newsgroup. If there was a more effective way to trail a message, this place is not it.

This is not a particularly effective way of presenting a source. The URL indicates a page 90, but it turns out to be a physical page 90 - not the page that is numbered page 90. And the pedigree chart on that page (which I looked at in a downloaded copy of the source) has plenty of Dorothys, including at least one Dorothy Ogle. But none of them are relevant to the Dorothy Ogle you list in your pedigree. So...why cite this page?

[[e-mail]]

Post by Michael Rochester
Hello, this is an ancient and outdated email. We are using 1999 era technology in this newsgroup. If there was a more effective way to trail a message, this place is not it.

This is not a particularly effective way of presenting a source. The URL indicates a page 90, but it turns out to be a physical page 90 - not the page that is numbered page 90. And the pedigree chart on that page (which I looked at in a downloaded copy of the source) has plenty of Dorothys, including at least one Dorothy Ogle. But none of them are relevant to the Dorothy Ogle you list in your pedigree. So...why cite this page?

So when are you going to learn to use "Reply"?

[Michael Rochester]

You seem cosmic; you figure it out. LOL

Post by ***@gmail.com
So when are you going to learn to use "Reply"?

[John Higgins]

Post by Will Johnson
what is the specific evidence that Robert Widdrington, father of Isabel, had as his wife Dorothy OGLE ?

I agree with Will (for once - mirabile dictu!). Mike, what is your evidence for the parentage of Dorothy Ogle, and what is your evidence for WHICH Robert Widdrington married Dorothy Ogle (whoever her parents may be)? The pedigrees I can find don't support your statements for both of these issues.

It would have been VERY helpful (as has been suggested before) if you had written out this pedigree in a more readable fashion.

BTW the pedigree that Will has cited from "History of the Berkshire Naturalists" differs considerably from the Widdrington pedigree in W. Percy Hedley's Northumberland Families, vol. 2, p. 122. (This work, having been published in 1968, is probably not available online. Sometimes you HAVE to use a library...) And both of these differ from the Widdrington pedigree in vol. 5, p. 304 of the History of Northumberland, which has probably conflated two Roger Widdringtons - and is likely wrong.

But the most important question is: what is the parentage of Dorothy Ogle, and what is the evidence for that parentage?

[Carl-Henry Geschwind]

A small bibliographic point: This volume 10, and the series which contains it, are not part of the Victoria County History project. A separate 15-volume "History of Northumberland" was published by the Northumberland County History Committee between 1893 and 1940. Since these very excellent volumes were already underway when the VCH effort began, The VCH project did not publish any volumes for Northumberland.
https://www.history.ac.uk/research/victoria-county-history/county-histories-progress/northumberland
https://www.familysearch.org/search/catalog/254311?availability=Family%20History%20Library

Thank you for the correction, John - I was wondering why they did not show up under the VCH tab at medievalgenealogy.co.uk. Should have looked a bit more closely!