Sir Edmund Sutton, of Dudley - 16th great grandfather

I am going to answer my own question. Another genealogical site says that I have no connection with him, or it is beyond the limits of their organization. If anyone has definitive information, feel free to let me know.

When you open the relationship calculator, down in the lower left corner you can click on "check for inconsistencies". It's probably fine overall, however I would want to analyze and fix this one if possible. The mother is too young at time of childbirth (according to the dates on the profiles anyway). Wherever I find an alleged kinship is important enough, I usually attempt to check out the inconsistencies in the line.

Dorothy Fairfax (born 1553) → Elizabeth Sheriff her daughter (b. 1564)

And I would suggest checking the dates on all the profiles on this line, just to be really sure. Elizabeth's son and grandson were also born to very young mothers. It could be an indication that correction is needed somewhere along the line, possibly in multiple areas.

An extra thing to consider is even if all of the people in your path to Sir Edmund Sutton are correct according to the records and paperwork, there is no way to ensure that the records accurately reflect what happened. Paternity issues is a big one, but there's probably no way to identify those.

An extra thing, 16th great grandfather is getting to the stage where a lot of people with European Ancestry will be related to this individual. Have a Google about "how many generations until everyone shares a common ancestor" or "everyone is 16th cousins" to see some of the details there.

I always start with the immigrant to America. Much of the time I find “wishful thinking.”

The “gateway” ancestors are few and well defined.

Sorry, cannot help with this. Rodney

"The “gateway” ancestors are few and well defined."

And it looks like we have lost one - a very important one, too;
https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Cheney-405

I bring this up every so often, but nobody wants to touch it, *because* it will foul up so many lines.

How is it lost, Maven (isn't this it?):

Richard Cheney, III

Yes, but the catch is that he IS NOT the son of Richard Cheney and Ann Ellinor!

Richard Cheney the goldsmith, father of the Richard who married Ann, left a will in 1625 which spelled out that his son Richard was deceased and left only one son - named Bartholomew, *not* Richard.

Richard Cheyney of Hackney (d. 1625) names the following family members:

sons William (eldest son), Thomas, John;
daughter in law [stepdaughter] Elizabeth Offley;
loving wife Alice Cheyney [who was apparently the widow of his first wife's brother];
"my late sonne Richard Cheyney deceased and Anne his wife";
sister Alice Worthington and her late husband Richard Worthington;
Richard Cheyney, eldest sonne of my sonne Willliam Cheyney;
William Cheyney sonne of my said sonne William
brother[in-law Bartholomew] Elner [Ellinor] and his wife
Bartholomew the sonne of my late sonne Richard Cheyney

This meas that either there *never was* a son Richard of Richard Cheney and Ann Ellinor, or there *was* but he died before 1625.

In either case, Richard Cheney of Maryland *cannot* be the son of Richard Cheney and Ann Ellinor.

It's *possible* he was actually the son of *William* Cheney and whoever *he* married, but other researchers think *that* Richard never left London. (On the other hand, there are a handful of cases where someone immigrated, spent most of a lifetime getting established in the Colonies, and then retired back to the Old Country.)

There are a lot of questions about earlier generations, including the parents of Richard Cheney the goldsmith, but the broken connection to Richard Cheney/Anne Ellinor is the biggest problem at the moment.

Thank you Maven for the explanation, it sounds very reasonable. If I ever find anything that might clear it up, I'll let you know right away. The line in question:

Richard Cheney, of London

Richard Cheney

Richard Cheney, III

__________________________________________________

Can't help but notice that the last one on the list has two sons "Richard" -- of completely different generations. One with one of his wives, and one with the other. Evidently because the second wife was quite a bit younger.

Richard Cheney, the Elder

Richard Cheney, the Younger

__________________________________________________

And if Elizabeth Offley really was the step-daughter (not daughter-in-law) of Richard (d.1625), then he also must have married twice. And with two marriages there is always the possibility of him also having two distinctly different sons named after him ("Richard").

If the elder Richard had already immigrated to the Colonies overseas, then it would be understandable for him to be left unmentioned in the will. Because they knew full well that collecting on the inheritance would have required a trip back to London.

Just some thoughts.

I haven't read the will myself, but it does seem peculiar for Richard of London to name Elizabeth Offley as his stepdaughter or daughter-in-law, when he was also married to an Elizabeth Offley (which I take must have been his first wife, since Alice is named in the will).

This "stepdaughter" or "daughter-in-law" may have been his and first wife Elizabeth Offley's niece or the widow of one of his first wife's brothers.

There are also the other two sons, Thomas and John, about whom we know nothing, who were clearly alive as of 1625 and so cannot be ruled out.

There was a whole pack of Offleys in London, and I had them all neatly sorted out at one time - but that was years ago. (There were a lot more Offleys, as well as more Cheneys, back in Staffordshire. There were Cheneys everywhere, it seems.)