Lady Mary Scott (Howard) - Who's her parents?

Martha Scott (born Wortup)
Martha Scott (born Wortup) was born to George Sir Wortup and Wife Of George Sir Wortup.
Martha married John Honorable Scott.
They had one daughter: Ursula Kimball (born Scott).

Ursula Kimball of course she was a daughter of Henry Scott & Martha Whatlock.

"Roger (b. 1604).Henry Scott, of Scot's Hall, Rattlesden(d. 1624), was the son of Sir William Scott and Mary Howard, daughter of Charles Howard (1536-1624), Lord High Admiral of England. Sir William was the son of Sir Thomas Scott of Scot's Hall (d. 1621) and Elizabeth Baker, daughter of John Baker of Sesinghurst"

For ambassador, check Calendar of State Papers. There will be a record of the appointment if it's true. Probably you'll find it was cheaper to accredit an ambassador to Venice or Florence then add on the others.

Careful of Scotts of Scott's Hall book, if you already. It tends to smooth out the rough edges in favor of the more illustrious possibility. Many generations of Stoughton and Lewknor descendants thought they were descended from Edward III because the Scott book. On one of the list servs back in the 90s there is a brawl among a group of us trying to convince the Fantasists that primary records trump the Scott book ;)

Ahhhhh - the true parentage of the Fake Scott "is" known

https://books.google.com/books?id=rFEBAAAAQAAJ&lpg=PA75&ots...

Arrived as a child to New England with his mother from Ashford Kent. A "poor bankrupt miller's wife."

Even more kudos for how far he was able to fake it.

http://bdespain.org/gencol/famhis/hogben/index3.htm

Wortup = Whatlock?

Well, well, well - guess who swallowed the "Scotts of Scot's Hall" fakery whole, and probably "improved" on it - the infamous Emma Siggins White. She devotes a section of her "Genesis of the White Family" to bragging on her Scott ancestry. I don't know if she knew it was fake and didn't care, or was just as gullible as her fans.

She does say "Whatlock".

I'll give her this much: when it comes to the American side of the lineage, she's somewhat more reliable - probably because it's easier to get caught out, with all the Colonial records.

MARTHA WHATLOCK is well-documented--she is the daughter of a TRADESMAN, not a gentleman.

Martha Whatlock, wife of Henry Scott and mother of immigrants Thomas Scott and Ursula Scott Kimball (my line) was the daughter of Thomas Whatlock (a "knacker" by trade) and wife Joan. There is a baptismal record in Rattlesden. She is mentioned in her father's will, along with her children.

http://www.jeaniesgenealogy.com/2014/05/richard-kimball-and-ursula-...

George Wortup does not seem to exist outside of these false pedigrees.

This Bradfield St. George/Rattlesden Scott line is a fake-pedigree magnet! Edmund Scott's mother Margaret has been merged (again) with a fake mother from an upper-class family (who is well-documented, thank goodness). She married a completely different George Scott. There are so many Scotts! I have added an explanation under the discussion tab. Maud Pigott Scott and Margaret ____ Scott will need to be separated.

Margaret Scott

I'm a little gobsmacked at how this innocent inquiry, "who were the parents of Lady Mary Howard?" has uncovered this web of fabrication.

You and me both!

It's funny how multiple versions exist for some of these false lines, e.g. Mary Howard's.

The wife of one of the Suffolk Scotts still needs to be separated from her false-pedigree family. The other family is well-documented, thank goodness.

This bad merge has been undone at least once before.

I put the short version under the overview tab and the long version under the discussion tab. Maud Pigott did marry a George Scott, but he was from Chigwell, Essex and died without issue.

Margaret Scott

Maud Pigott Scott (not our line) was born in Abington, Cambridge (year unknown) and died after 1533, probably in Chigwell, Essex.

Margaret _____ Scott (our line) was probably from Suffolk, like her husband. Her surname is unknown. I don't have a death date or place for her, but I have seen that 1556 date in Glemsford, Suffolk on many web sites, so I can't rule it out.

These profiles match our Margaret and her husband George; they were disconnected for some reason --perhaps they ought to be re-merged:

Margaret Scott

George Scott, II, of Bradfield

We have the name Margaret from the will of George Scott. It's not known if she was his only wife or the mother of an/all of the children.

Amy Nordahl Cote I think this is done.

Where are we with lady Mary Howard (oh no she wasn't ...)

I still intend to add the other William Scott, barrister and author, son of Charles Scott and Jane Wyatt, who is fairly well-documented in that Cambridge article. I want to go through it again and put a bit of time into it.

I've added some notes to William Scott, son of Thomas Scott and Elizabeth Baker, and have changed his birth date to the questionable baptism date (it's the only date we have), with the caveat that it may be his cousin's record instead. I removed the death and burial info (we have none for him).

Mary Howard Scott doesn't appear to exist, at least not as a member of the aristocratic Howard family.

I did find one Mary Howard--Henry Scott marriage, but it's 100 years too late to fit into this tree!

http://www.ourfamtree.org/browse.php/Mary-Howard/p164435

have wait and see because I am going by what I read. This is a learning a thing for me.

Valerie it is also MEGA confusing. A snake pit! Trial by rattlers in genealogy !!!

We may have done this one before, so bear with me. The Garganus tree led to a Rootsweb database with a lot of Howards, so I did a search. Have not checked the Howard yet but the Scott side almost makes sense, except for having Edmund's children. OK, there's that (did I finish fixing it?)

Anyway - does it track at all?

http://wc.rootsweb.ancestry.com/cgi-bin/igm.cgi?op=GET&db=buchr...

William Scott

(In Geni lacking a fictional wife currently ....)

And no, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catherine_Howard,_Countess_of_Nottingham did not have a daughter Mary.

So the Mary Howard is coming from

http://www.findagrave.com/cgi-bin/fg.cgi?page=gr&GRid=51596766

And https://www.genealogieonline.nl/en/stamboom-baris/I38496.php

Do we cry yet?

I want you all to realize there are TWO William Scott's, probably died young, fictionally married off to an imaginary daughter of the Lord Admiral of England, and given the children of Edmund Scott, of Rattlesden

TWO. Did they think we're stupid and couldn't figure out that Kent is not Suffolk; a yeoman is not a knight; and that the daughters of Lord Admiral's are usually not lost track of?

maybe by doubling the scam it covered tracks better?

This is not innocent, people, this was fraud. I dont call it easily. But this one ... it's not a mixup. Tudor nobility did not misplace their heiresses.

Many people tend to assume that because it is in a book, it must be true! There are many published genealogies and family histories with false information.

When you're talking about the aristocracy, however, they can afford to leave many *primary source records* behind them (e.g., court documents), and often make it into historical records as well. So information on these people can usually be checked against more reliable sources.

Erica, thanks for including the Dutch site (genealogieonline.nl) and Find A Grave; many people reference those sites.

Another source for the bad pedigree:

Memorials Of The Family Of Scott, Of Scot's-hall, In The County Of Kent.
by James Renat Scott or J.R. Scott

Some of what's in there is good. But JR Scott includes both Mary Howard and "George Wortup."

Douglas Richardson is usually reliable (I think?), but is known to make a few errors. He does include "Sir" William Scott among the children of Thomas Scott and Elizabeth Baker. I have not looked at most of his listed sources, and he doesn't specify which he used for "Sir" William.. I'd still like to see where he gets his list of children (and his source for the knighthood)--many researchers give six of Thomas Scott's children as "unnnamed."

I get the impression that the Scott's Hall fakery traces back to Scoundrelly Captain John Scott himself - he was certainly not above putting out extravagantly inflated claims. He also seems to have conned a genuine Scott's Hall Scott ("Dorothea Scott, otherwise Gotherson and Hogben") into vouching for him.

So yes, this is quite an old fraud, though there are known frauds still older.

I love our homegrown Captain Scott, erstwhile "governor of Long Island,". Have you parsed his coat of arms yet? That Charles ll awarded him -- a miller's son?

Yes, I do think this fraud is from him, although how he got a Howard accepted ....

Someone has added a blurb to Edmund Scott's overview tab claiming he was "of the noble class." I've started a discussion topic on that page with information from the family wills showing they came from a long line of farmers and leatherworkers.

Oh, bother. I hope we are not headed for an edit war.

I'm not clear on the guidelines/etiquette for dealing with misinformation on overview tabs.

I looked up the Scot/Scott of Scot's Hall family on Stirnet:

http://www.stirnet.com/genie/data/british/ss4as/scott05.php (membership required to view without interruption)

http://www.stirnet.com/genie/data/british/ss4as/scott09.php (membership required to view without interruption)

Both pages are based on James Renat Scott's work. It looks like I'll be notifying Peter Barns-Graham of the spuriosity of it...

The Visitation of Kent in 1619 (pedigree of Scott, page 127-129) is clear and is cross referencing very well.

http://ukga.org/cgi-bin/browse.cgi?action=ViewRec&DB=13&boo...

Of course the family of Edmund Scott, of Rattlesden is not in Visitations. There might be some parish records, haven't gotten that far.

Oh, ouch on Stirnet!

He's got

Sir John Scot of Scot's Hall and Nettlested
m. Anny Pympe (dau of Reginald Pympe of Pympe's Court and Nettlested)

1. Sir Reginald Scot of Scot's Hall and Nettlested
  m1. Emeline Kempe

(I'm not seeing the 2nd wife Mary Tuke?)

  vi. Sir William Scot (8th son)
  m. Lady Mary Howard

Oh ouch ouch

Re: Geni protocol for editing overviews

I try to "annotate". It's actually good to maintain a trail of misinformation for the next time it comes around, but try to push it down so that in tree view / at a quick glance, we have facts only.

Since Edmund is our American progenitor, we more than deserves a well detailed and developed Geni "about."

Mary Tuke is on http://www.stirnet.com/genie/data/british/ss4as/scott09.php, about ⅔ of the way down the page.

There is already some good information on Edmund's overview tab about his parents and children. The bit about noble ancestry is now at the top, though. Could maybe use some info about how we can tell what class he was (information in family wills, mostly). I sent a message to the profile managers, but I'm not feeling sanguine about editing the overview tab. Should edits of the overview tab be left to the curator(s)? Moving or changing someone's notes feels like stepping on someone's toes, especially since I'm the one raising an objection here. Perhaps a curator should be a neutral party working out the differences between conflicting profile managers?

Sure, I'll give it a polish - a curator's name is on it so we're held accountable. Pile on the citations!

Bless you--

This is what I wrote under the Discussion Tab:

Dear cousins,

The Scott family of Rattlesden and Bradfield St. George has no verifiable connection to the Scotts of Scot's Hall. The connections put forth in many genealogies have been proven to be untrue.

Some of the pedigree in ES White's "Genesis of the White Family" and in J.R. Scott's "Memorials Of The Family Of Scott, of Scot's-Hall" has been proven incorrect. The William Scott--Mary Howard connection is bogus.

Perhaps there is a much more distant connection, but there is no proof of it. If you look at the Scott DNA Project at Family Tree DNA, you will see that there are many, many unrelated Scott families in the UK and Ireland. Our family, from Rattlesden, Suffolk, probably has no connection whatsoever to the other family from Brabourne, Kent.

Edmund Scott was of the yeoman class, which is more or less between the laborers and the gentry--aldermen, constables, and mayors often came from this class.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yeoman

The social class of this family is well-documented in the family wills. Edmund's son Thomas was a "glover." His son Henry was a "yeoman" and a farmer. Henry's father-in-law Thomas Whatlock was a "knacker," which means he rendered farm animals who could no longer work and/or were unfit to be eaten. Edmund's father, George, bequeaths his children milk cows and "combes of barley."

Our Scotts descend from a long line of farmers and leatherworkers.

BTW there were two SmartMatches for Edmund, as a profile manager I can accept / reject them.

- FamilySearch had good dates / locations, wrong parents - I rejected
- http://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Scott-456 looks good - I accepted