John Rhodes was a Quaker cordwainer who immigrated to Pennsylvania by 1686. His Wikitree profile is https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Jessop-10.4WJXx4hhjJ&sig=JHv_qRp0eLoNWFZB3g3ks9UJn4E&hl=en&sa=X&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=Simon%20Jessop%20&f=false shows this to be a different man who had two sons who immigrated to the colonies. https://genealogics.org/getperson.php?personID=I00377474&tree=LEO
He is often claimed to have been the same as the son of Sir Francis Rhodes and Elizabeth Lascelles and to have married Elizabeth Jessup. However, https://books.google.pt/books?id=LKIKAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA449&lpg=PA449&dq=Simon+Jessop+and+Mary&source=bl&ots=
John Rhodes was a Quaker cordwainer who immigrated to Pennsylvania by 1686. His Wikitree profile is https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Jessop-10.4WJXx4hhjJ&sig=JHv_qRp0eLoNWFZB3g3ks9UJn4E&hl=en&sa=X&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=Simon%20Jessop%20&f=false shows this to be a different man who had two sons who immigrated to the colonies. https://genealogics.org/getperson.php?personID=I00377474&tree=LEO
He is often claimed to have been the same as the son of Sir Francis Rhodes and Elizabeth Lascelles and to have married Elizabeth Jessup. However, https://books.google.pt/books?id=LKIKAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA449&lpg=PA449&dq=Simon+Jessop+and+Mary&source=bl&ots=
On Thursday, September 23, 2021 at 5:08:28 PM UTC-7, paulorica...@gmail.com wrote:4WJXx4hhjJ&sig=JHv_qRp0eLoNWFZB3g3ks9UJn4E&hl=en&sa=X&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=Simon%20Jessop%20&f=false shows this to be a different man who had two sons who immigrated to the colonies. https://genealogics.org/getperson.php?personID=I00377474&tree=LEO
John Rhodes was a Quaker cordwainer who immigrated to Pennsylvania by 1686. His Wikitree profile is https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Jessop-10.
He is often claimed to have been the same as the son of Sir Francis Rhodes and Elizabeth Lascelles and to have married Elizabeth Jessup. However, https://books.google.pt/books?id=LKIKAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA449&lpg=PA449&dq=Simon+Jessop+and+Mary&source=bl&ots=
Probably not the son of a titled family. It's not an unusual family name. (Go with Genealogics; it should have sources.)
On Thursday, September 23, 2021 at 7:59:46 PM UTC-7, pj.ev...@gmail.com wrote:ots=4WJXx4hhjJ&sig=JHv_qRp0eLoNWFZB3g3ks9UJn4E&hl=en&sa=X&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=Simon%20Jessop%20&f=false shows this to be a different man who had two sons who immigrated to the colonies. https://genealogics.org/getperson.php?personID=I00377474&tree=
On Thursday, September 23, 2021 at 5:08:28 PM UTC-7, paulorica...@gmail.com wrote:
John Rhodes was a Quaker cordwainer who immigrated to Pennsylvania by 1686. His Wikitree profile is https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Jessop-10.
He is often claimed to have been the same as the son of Sir Francis Rhodes and Elizabeth Lascelles and to have married Elizabeth Jessup. However, https://books.google.pt/books?id=LKIKAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA449&lpg=PA449&dq=Simon+Jessop+and+Mary&source=bl&
Probably not the son of a titled family. It's not an unusual family name. (Go with Genealogics; it should have sources.)Genealogics cites RD500 for this descent, which is from Edward III. RD900 pp. 342-3 continues to show this descent - and cites sources for it. The question of Elizabeth Jason versus Elizabeth Jessup doesn't affect the descent
On Thursday, September 23, 2021 at 7:59:46 PM UTC-7, pj.ev...@gmail.com wrote:ots=4WJXx4hhjJ&sig=JHv_qRp0eLoNWFZB3g3ks9UJn4E&hl=en&sa=X&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=Simon%20Jessop%20&f=false shows this to be a different man who had two sons who immigrated to the colonies. https://genealogics.org/getperson.php?personID=I00377474&tree=
On Thursday, September 23, 2021 at 5:08:28 PM UTC-7, paulorica...@gmail.com wrote:
John Rhodes was a Quaker cordwainer who immigrated to Pennsylvania by 1686. His Wikitree profile is https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Jessop-10.
He is often claimed to have been the same as the son of Sir Francis Rhodes and Elizabeth Lascelles and to have married Elizabeth Jessup. However, https://books.google.pt/books?id=LKIKAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA449&lpg=PA449&dq=Simon+Jessop+and+Mary&source=bl&
Probably not the son of a titled family. It's not an unusual family name. (Go with Genealogics; it should have sources.)Genealogics cites RD500 for this descent, which is from Edward III. RD900 pp. 342-3 continues to show this descent - and cites sources for it. The question of Elizabeth Jason versus Elizabeth Jessup doesn't affect the descent
On Thursday, September 23, 2021 at 5:08:28 PM UTC-7, paulorica...@gmail.com wrote:4WJXx4hhjJ&sig=JHv_qRp0eLoNWFZB3g3ks9UJn4E&hl=en&sa=X&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=Simon%20Jessop%20&f=false shows this to be a different man who had two sons who immigrated to the colonies. https://genealogics.org/getperson.php?personID=I00377474&tree=LEO
John Rhodes was a Quaker cordwainer who immigrated to Pennsylvania by 1686. His Wikitree profile is https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Jessop-10.
He is often claimed to have been the same as the son of Sir Francis Rhodes and Elizabeth Lascelles and to have married Elizabeth Jessup. However, https://books.google.pt/books?id=LKIKAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA449&lpg=PA449&dq=Simon+Jessop+and+Mary&source=bl&ots=
So it seems likely that the son of a wealthy family with lands and titles, would be a cordwainer?
A sexta-feira, 24 de setembro de 2021 à(s) 03:29:43 UTC+1, wjhons...@gmail.com escreveu:ots=4WJXx4hhjJ&sig=JHv_qRp0eLoNWFZB3g3ks9UJn4E&hl=en&sa=X&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=Simon%20Jessop%20&f=false shows this to be a different man who had two sons who immigrated to the colonies. https://genealogics.org/getperson.php?personID=I00377474&tree=
On Thursday, September 23, 2021 at 5:08:28 PM UTC-7, paulorica...@gmail.com wrote:
John Rhodes was a Quaker cordwainer who immigrated to Pennsylvania by 1686. His Wikitree profile is https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Jessop-10.
He is often claimed to have been the same as the son of Sir Francis Rhodes and Elizabeth Lascelles and to have married Elizabeth Jessup. However, https://books.google.pt/books?id=LKIKAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA449&lpg=PA449&dq=Simon+Jessop+and+Mary&source=bl&
However, note the Burke's does make a member of the family a line draper.So it seems likely that the son of a wealthy family with lands and titles, would be a cordwainer?I am aware of the unlikelihood of that and, actually, considered mentioning that.
A sexta-feira, 24 de setembro de 2021 à(s) 10:25:14 UTC+1, paulorica...@gmail.com escreveu:ots=4WJXx4hhjJ&sig=JHv_qRp0eLoNWFZB3g3ks9UJn4E&hl=en&sa=X&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=Simon%20Jessop%20&f=false shows this to be a different man who had two sons who immigrated to the colonies. https://genealogics.org/getperson.php?personID=I00377474&tree=
A sexta-feira, 24 de setembro de 2021 à(s) 03:29:43 UTC+1, wjhons...@gmail.com escreveu:
On Thursday, September 23, 2021 at 5:08:28 PM UTC-7, paulorica...@gmail.com wrote:
John Rhodes was a Quaker cordwainer who immigrated to Pennsylvania by 1686. His Wikitree profile is https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Jessop-10.
He is often claimed to have been the same as the son of Sir Francis Rhodes and Elizabeth Lascelles and to have married Elizabeth Jessup. However, https://books.google.pt/books?id=LKIKAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA449&lpg=PA449&dq=Simon+Jessop+and+Mary&source=bl&
Also, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samuel_Rhoads#Early_life_and_family says John was from a prominent family but was persecuted after becoming a QuakerHowever, note the Burke's does make a member of the family a line draper.So it seems likely that the son of a wealthy family with lands and titles, would be a cordwainer?I am aware of the unlikelihood of that and, actually, considered mentioning that.
A sexta-feira, 24 de setembro de 2021 à(s) 10:25:14 UTC+1, paulorica...@gmail.com escreveu:ots=4WJXx4hhjJ&sig=JHv_qRp0eLoNWFZB3g3ks9UJn4E&hl=en&sa=X&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=Simon%20Jessop%20&f=false shows this to be a different man who had two sons who immigrated to the colonies. https://genealogics.org/getperson.php?personID=I00377474&tree=
A sexta-feira, 24 de setembro de 2021 à(s) 03:29:43 UTC+1, wjhons...@gmail.com escreveu:
On Thursday, September 23, 2021 at 5:08:28 PM UTC-7, paulorica...@gmail.com wrote:
John Rhodes was a Quaker cordwainer who immigrated to Pennsylvania by 1686. His Wikitree profile is https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Jessop-10.
He is often claimed to have been the same as the son of Sir Francis Rhodes and Elizabeth Lascelles and to have married Elizabeth Jessup. However, https://books.google.pt/books?id=LKIKAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA449&lpg=PA449&dq=Simon+Jessop+and+Mary&source=bl&
Oops, that Jstor, not the Burke's.However, note the Burke's does make a member of the family a line draper.So it seems likely that the son of a wealthy family with lands and titles, would be a cordwainer?I am aware of the unlikelihood of that and, actually, considered mentioning that.
On Friday, September 24, 2021 at 3:30:05 AM UTC-7, paulorica...@gmail.com wrote:I linked to it in my original post.
How about trying that again. JSTOR is not a source, it is a web host of published periodicals. Citing JSTOR is like citing a library. What journal article were you looking at?However, note the Burke's does make a member of the family a line draper.Oops, that Jstor, not the Burke's.
taf
However, note the Burke's does make a member of the family a line draper.Oops, that Jstor, not the Burke's.
Here is a Jstor article that discusses John Rhodes of Winegreaves but not his parentage, resd
https://www.jstor.org/stable/41943823?read-now=1&refreqid=excelsior%3A18df99ab2bfa59281661338ae2ab1439&seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents.
A sexta-feira, 24 de setembro de 2021 à(s) 10:25:14 UTC+1, paulorica...@gmail.com escreveu:ots=4WJXx4hhjJ&sig=JHv_qRp0eLoNWFZB3g3ks9UJn4E&hl=en&sa=X&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=Simon%20Jessop%20&f=false shows this to be a different man who had two sons who immigrated to the colonies. https://genealogics.org/getperson.php?personID=I00377474&tree=
A sexta-feira, 24 de setembro de 2021 à(s) 03:29:43 UTC+1, wjhons...@gmail.com escreveu:
On Thursday, September 23, 2021 at 5:08:28 PM UTC-7, paulorica...@gmail.com wrote:
John Rhodes was a Quaker cordwainer who immigrated to Pennsylvania by 1686. His Wikitree profile is https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Jessop-10.
He is often claimed to have been the same as the son of Sir Francis Rhodes and Elizabeth Lascelles and to have married Elizabeth Jessup. However, https://books.google.pt/books?id=LKIKAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA449&lpg=PA449&dq=Simon+Jessop+and+Mary&source=bl&
However, note the Burke's does make a member of the family a line draper.So it seems likely that the son of a wealthy family with lands and titles, would be a cordwainer?I am aware of the unlikelihood of that and, actually, considered mentioning that.
A sexta-feira, 24 de setembro de 2021 à(s) 05:51:54 UTC+1, jhigg...@yahoo.com escreveu:ots=4WJXx4hhjJ&sig=JHv_qRp0eLoNWFZB3g3ks9UJn4E&hl=en&sa=X&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=Simon%20Jessop%20&f=false shows this to be a different man who had two sons who immigrated to the colonies. https://genealogics.org/getperson.php?personID=I00377474&tree=
On Thursday, September 23, 2021 at 7:59:46 PM UTC-7, pj.ev...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thursday, September 23, 2021 at 5:08:28 PM UTC-7, paulorica...@gmail.com wrote:
John Rhodes was a Quaker cordwainer who immigrated to Pennsylvania by 1686. His Wikitree profile is https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Jessop-10.
He is often claimed to have been the same as the son of Sir Francis Rhodes and Elizabeth Lascelles and to have married Elizabeth Jessup. However, https://books.google.pt/books?id=LKIKAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA449&lpg=PA449&dq=Simon+Jessop+and+Mary&source=bl&
Do you have any source that says that John Rodes of Sturton was married to anyone other than Elizabeth Jason? And your Wikitree citation says that John Rhoads (or Rhodes) of Winegreaves was married to Elizabeth Jessop. The distinction seems prettyStill, who waa the wife of John Rhoes of Sturton, Elizabeth Jessup or Elizabeth Jason? Also, do we know who was the wife of John Rhodes of Winegreaves?Probably not the son of a titled family. It's not an unusual family name. (Go with Genealogics; it should have sources.)Genealogics cites RD500 for this descent, which is from Edward III. RD900 pp. 342-3 continues to show this descent - and cites sources for it. The question of Elizabeth Jason versus Elizabeth Jessup doesn't affect the descent
A sexta-feira, 24 de setembro de 2021 à(s) 13:08:06 UTC+1, taf escreveu:Obviously we all have access to this book via the Internet Archive. The first few pages it clear it clear that there were two or more families named Rodes/Rhodes/Rhoads who emigrated to America. The chart that appears to claim that some or all were
On Friday, September 24, 2021 at 3:30:05 AM UTC-7, paulorica...@gmail.com wrote:
How about trying that again. JSTOR is not a source, it is a web host of published periodicals. Citing JSTOR is like citing a library. What journal article were you looking at?However, note the Burke's does make a member of the family a line draper.Oops, that Jstor, not the Burke's.
tafI linked to it in my original post.
BTW, does anyone here have access to "The Rhodes Family in the Americas"?https://archive.org/details/rhodesfamilyinam113rhoa shows the first pages, which list the different Rhodes familied of ghe US and their founders.
On Friday, September 24, 2021 at 2:33:40 AM UTC-7, paulorica...@gmail.com wrote:bl&ots=4WJXx4hhjJ&sig=JHv_qRp0eLoNWFZB3g3ks9UJn4E&hl=en&sa=X&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=Simon%20Jessop%20&f=false shows this to be a different man who had two sons who immigrated to the colonies. https://genealogics.org/getperson.php?personID=I00377474&tree=
A sexta-feira, 24 de setembro de 2021 à(s) 10:25:14 UTC+1, paulorica...@gmail.com escreveu:
A sexta-feira, 24 de setembro de 2021 à(s) 03:29:43 UTC+1, wjhons...@gmail.com escreveu:
On Thursday, September 23, 2021 at 5:08:28 PM UTC-7, paulorica...@gmail.com wrote:
John Rhodes was a Quaker cordwainer who immigrated to Pennsylvania by 1686. His Wikitree profile is https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Jessop-10.
He is often claimed to have been the same as the son of Sir Francis Rhodes and Elizabeth Lascelles and to have married Elizabeth Jessup. However, https://books.google.pt/books?id=LKIKAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA449&lpg=PA449&dq=Simon+Jessop+and+Mary&source=
The VMHB article that you cited via JSTOR says that John Rodes, the son of John Rodes of Sturton and Elizabeth Jason, was a linen draper - not a "line" draper.However, note the Burke's does make a member of the family a line draper.So it seems likely that the son of a wealthy family with lands and titles, would be a cordwainer?I am aware of the unlikelihood of that and, actually, considered mentioning that.
On Friday, September 24, 2021 at 2:27:49 AM UTC-7, paulorica...@gmail.com wrote:bl&ots=4WJXx4hhjJ&sig=JHv_qRp0eLoNWFZB3g3ks9UJn4E&hl=en&sa=X&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=Simon%20Jessop%20&f=false shows this to be a different man who had two sons who immigrated to the colonies. https://genealogics.org/getperson.php?personID=I00377474&tree=
A sexta-feira, 24 de setembro de 2021 à(s) 05:51:54 UTC+1, jhigg...@yahoo.com escreveu:
On Thursday, September 23, 2021 at 7:59:46 PM UTC-7, pj.ev...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thursday, September 23, 2021 at 5:08:28 PM UTC-7, paulorica...@gmail.com wrote:
John Rhodes was a Quaker cordwainer who immigrated to Pennsylvania by 1686. His Wikitree profile is https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Jessop-10.
He is often claimed to have been the same as the son of Sir Francis Rhodes and Elizabeth Lascelles and to have married Elizabeth Jessup. However, https://books.google.pt/books?id=LKIKAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA449&lpg=PA449&dq=Simon+Jessop+and+Mary&source=
clear....Do you have any source that says that John Rodes of Sturton was married to anyone other than Elizabeth Jason? And your Wikitree citation says that John Rhoads (or Rhodes) of Winegreaves was married to Elizabeth Jessop. The distinction seems prettyStill, who waa the wife of John Rhoes of Sturton, Elizabeth Jessup or Elizabeth Jason? Also, do we know who was the wife of John Rhodes of Winegreaves?Probably not the son of a titled family. It's not an unusual family name. (Go with Genealogics; it should have sources.)Genealogics cites RD500 for this descent, which is from Edward III. RD900 pp. 342-3 continues to show this descent - and cites sources for it. The question of Elizabeth Jason versus Elizabeth Jessup doesn't affect the descent
On Friday, September 24, 2021 at 5:14:56 AM UTC-7, paulorica...@gmail.com wrote:somehow related to one another seems to be an invention.
A sexta-feira, 24 de setembro de 2021 à(s) 13:08:06 UTC+1, taf escreveu:
On Friday, September 24, 2021 at 3:30:05 AM UTC-7, paulorica...@gmail.com wrote:
How about trying that again. JSTOR is not a source, it is a web host of published periodicals. Citing JSTOR is like citing a library. What journal article were you looking at?However, note the Burke's does make a member of the family a line draper.Oops, that Jstor, not the Burke's.
Obviously we all have access to this book via the Internet Archive. The first few pages it clear it clear that there were two or more families named Rodes/Rhodes/Rhoads who emigrated to America. The chart that appears to claim that some or all weretafI linked to it in my original post.
BTW, does anyone here have access to "The Rhodes Family in the Americas"?https://archive.org/details/rhodesfamilyinam113rhoa shows the first pages, which list the different Rhodes familied of ghe US and their founders.
A sexta-feira, 24 de setembro de 2021 à(s) 17:47:42 UTC+1, jhigg...@yahoo.com escreveu:somehow related to one another seems to be an invention.
On Friday, September 24, 2021 at 5:14:56 AM UTC-7, paulorica...@gmail.com wrote:
A sexta-feira, 24 de setembro de 2021 à(s) 13:08:06 UTC+1, taf escreveu:
On Friday, September 24, 2021 at 3:30:05 AM UTC-7, paulorica...@gmail.com wrote:
How about trying that again. JSTOR is not a source, it is a web host of published periodicals. Citing JSTOR is like citing a library. What journal article were you looking at?However, note the Burke's does make a member of the family a line draper.Oops, that Jstor, not the Burke's.
Obviously we all have access to this book via the Internet Archive. The first few pages it clear it clear that there were two or more families named Rodes/Rhodes/Rhoads who emigrated to America. The chart that appears to claim that some or all weretafI linked to it in my original post.
BTW, does anyone here have access to "The Rhodes Family in the Americas"?https://archive.org/details/rhodesfamilyinam113rhoa shows the first pages, which list the different Rhodes familied of ghe US and their founders.
The Internet Archive only has the first few pages.The three parts of "The Rhodes Family in America" that seem to have been published have been digitized by the FHL. You can (supposedly) find them at the following links (one for each issue);
A sexta-feira, 24 de setembro de 2021 à(s) 10:25:14 UTC+1, paulorica...@gmail.com escreveu:ots=4WJXx4hhjJ&sig=JHv_qRp0eLoNWFZB3g3ks9UJn4E&hl=en&sa=X&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=Simon%20Jessop%20&f=false shows this to be a different man who had two sons who immigrated to the colonies. https://genealogics.org/getperson.php?personID=I00377474&tree=
A sexta-feira, 24 de setembro de 2021 à(s) 03:29:43 UTC+1, wjhons...@gmail.com escreveu:
On Thursday, September 23, 2021 at 5:08:28 PM UTC-7, paulorica...@gmail.com wrote:
John Rhodes was a Quaker cordwainer who immigrated to Pennsylvania by 1686. His Wikitree profile is https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Jessop-10.
He is often claimed to have been the same as the son of Sir Francis Rhodes and Elizabeth Lascelles and to have married Elizabeth Jessup. However, https://books.google.pt/books?id=LKIKAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA449&lpg=PA449&dq=Simon+Jessop+and+Mary&source=bl&
In addition, according to https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Rhodes-4175, Charles Rhodes of Virginia migrated as an indentured servant.However, note the Burke's does make a member of the family a line draper.So it seems likely that the son of a wealthy family with lands and titles, would be a cordwainer?I am aware of the unlikelihood of that and, actually, considered mentioning that.
John Rhodes was a Quaker cordwainer who immigrated to Pennsylvania by 1686. His Wikitree profile is https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Jessop-10.4WJXx4hhjJ&sig=JHv_qRp0eLoNWFZB3g3ks9UJn4E&hl=en&sa=X&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=Simon%20Jessop%20&f=false shows this to be a different man who had two sons who immigrated to the colonies. https://genealogics.org/getperson.php?personID=I00377474&tree=LEO
He is often claimed to have been the same as the son of Sir Francis Rhodes and Elizabeth Lascelles and to have married Elizabeth Jessup. However, https://books.google.pt/books?id=LKIKAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA449&lpg=PA449&dq=Simon+Jessop+and+Mary&source=bl&ots=
A sexta-feira, 24 de setembro de 2021 à(s) 10:33:40 UTC+1, paulorica...@gmail.com escreveu:bl&ots=4WJXx4hhjJ&sig=JHv_qRp0eLoNWFZB3g3ks9UJn4E&hl=en&sa=X&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=Simon%20Jessop%20&f=false shows this to be a different man who had two sons who immigrated to the colonies. https://genealogics.org/getperson.php?personID=I00377474&tree=
A sexta-feira, 24 de setembro de 2021 à(s) 10:25:14 UTC+1, paulorica...@gmail.com escreveu:
A sexta-feira, 24 de setembro de 2021 à(s) 03:29:43 UTC+1, wjhons...@gmail.com escreveu:
On Thursday, September 23, 2021 at 5:08:28 PM UTC-7, paulorica...@gmail.com wrote:
John Rhodes was a Quaker cordwainer who immigrated to Pennsylvania by 1686. His Wikitree profile is https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Jessop-10.
He is often claimed to have been the same as the son of Sir Francis Rhodes and Elizabeth Lascelles and to have married Elizabeth Jessup. However, https://books.google.pt/books?id=LKIKAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA449&lpg=PA449&dq=Simon+Jessop+and+Mary&source=
Just to keep these two families straight, Charles Rhodes the immigrant to Virginia was the son of John Rhodes of Sturton and Elizabeth Jason, not of John Rhodes of Winegreaves and Elizabeth Jessop. Your posts keep switching between the two families. :-In addition, according to https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Rhodes-4175, Charles Rhodes of Virginia migrated as an indentured servant.However, note the Burke's does make a member of the family a line draper.So it seems likely that the son of a wealthy family with lands and titles, would be a cordwainer?I am aware of the unlikelihood of that and, actually, considered mentioning that.
On Saturday, September 25, 2021 at 9:28:51 AM UTC-7, paulorica...@gmail.com wrote:bl&ots=4WJXx4hhjJ&sig=JHv_qRp0eLoNWFZB3g3ks9UJn4E&hl=en&sa=X&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=Simon%20Jessop%20&f=false shows this to be a different man who had two sons who immigrated to the colonies. https://genealogics.org/getperson.php?personID=I00377474&tree=
A sexta-feira, 24 de setembro de 2021 à(s) 10:33:40 UTC+1, paulorica...@gmail.com escreveu:
A sexta-feira, 24 de setembro de 2021 à(s) 10:25:14 UTC+1, paulorica...@gmail.com escreveu:
A sexta-feira, 24 de setembro de 2021 à(s) 03:29:43 UTC+1, wjhons...@gmail.com escreveu:
On Thursday, September 23, 2021 at 5:08:28 PM UTC-7, paulorica...@gmail.com wrote:
John Rhodes was a Quaker cordwainer who immigrated to Pennsylvania by 1686. His Wikitree profile is https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Jessop-10.
He is often claimed to have been the same as the son of Sir Francis Rhodes and Elizabeth Lascelles and to have married Elizabeth Jessup. However, https://books.google.pt/books?id=LKIKAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA449&lpg=PA449&dq=Simon+Jessop+and+Mary&source=
Just to keep these two families straight, Charles Rhodes the immigrant to Virginia was the son of John Rhodes of Sturton and Elizabeth Jason, not of John Rhodes of Winegreaves and Elizabeth Jessop. Your posts keep switching between the two families. :-)In addition, according to https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Rhodes-4175, Charles Rhodes of Virginia migrated as an indentured servant.However, note the Burke's does make a member of the family a line draper.So it seems likely that the son of a wealthy family with lands and titles, would be a cordwainer?I am aware of the unlikelihood of that and, actually, considered mentioning that.
Can you determine what the source is for the statement in the Wikitree profile that Charles was an indentured servant? I can't....The Wikitree profile cites "The Arnolds and allied families".
On Thursday, September 23, 2021 at 7:59:46 PM UTC-7, pj.ev...@gmail.com wrote:ots=4WJXx4hhjJ&sig=JHv_qRp0eLoNWFZB3g3ks9UJn4E&hl=en&sa=X&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=Simon%20Jessop%20&f=false shows this to be a different man who had two sons who immigrated to the colonies. https://genealogics.org/getperson.php?personID=I00377474&tree=
On Thursday, September 23, 2021 at 5:08:28 PM UTC-7, paulorica...@gmail.com wrote:
John Rhodes was a Quaker cordwainer who immigrated to Pennsylvania by 1686. His Wikitree profile is https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Jessop-10.
He is often claimed to have been the same as the son of Sir Francis Rhodes and Elizabeth Lascelles and to have married Elizabeth Jessup. However, https://books.google.pt/books?id=LKIKAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA449&lpg=PA449&dq=Simon+Jessop+and+Mary&source=bl&
Could you, please, tell me what are Roberts's sources? His books are unavailable in PortugalProbably not the son of a titled family. It's not an unusual family name. (Go with Genealogics; it should have sources.)Genealogics cites RD500 for this descent, which is from Edward III. RD900 pp. 342-3 continues to show this descent - and cites sources for it. The question of Elizabeth Jason versus Elizabeth Jessup doesn't affect the descent
On Saturday, September 25, 2021 at 9:28:51 AM UTC-7, paulorica...@gmail.com wrote:bl&ots=4WJXx4hhjJ&sig=JHv_qRp0eLoNWFZB3g3ks9UJn4E&hl=en&sa=X&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=Simon%20Jessop%20&f=false shows this to be a different man who had two sons who immigrated to the colonies. https://genealogics.org/getperson.php?personID=I00377474&tree=
A sexta-feira, 24 de setembro de 2021 à(s) 10:33:40 UTC+1, paulorica...@gmail.com escreveu:
A sexta-feira, 24 de setembro de 2021 à(s) 10:25:14 UTC+1, paulorica...@gmail.com escreveu:
A sexta-feira, 24 de setembro de 2021 à(s) 03:29:43 UTC+1, wjhons...@gmail.com escreveu:
On Thursday, September 23, 2021 at 5:08:28 PM UTC-7, paulorica...@gmail.com wrote:
John Rhodes was a Quaker cordwainer who immigrated to Pennsylvania by 1686. His Wikitree profile is https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Jessop-10.
He is often claimed to have been the same as the son of Sir Francis Rhodes and Elizabeth Lascelles and to have married Elizabeth Jessup. However, https://books.google.pt/books?id=LKIKAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA449&lpg=PA449&dq=Simon+Jessop+and+Mary&source=
Just to keep these two families straight, Charles Rhodes the immigrant to Virginia was the son of John Rhodes of Sturton and Elizabeth Jason, not of John Rhodes of Winegreaves and Elizabeth Jessop. Your posts keep switching between the two families. :-)In addition, according to https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Rhodes-4175, Charles Rhodes of Virginia migrated as an indentured servant.However, note the Burke's does make a member of the family a line draper.So it seems likely that the son of a wealthy family with lands and titles, would be a cordwainer?I am aware of the unlikelihood of that and, actually, considered mentioning that.
Can you determine what the source is for the statement in the Wikitree profile that Charles was an indentured servant? I can't....
A sexta-feira, 24 de setembro de 2021 à(s) 05:51:54 UTC+1, jhigg...@yahoo.com escreveu:ots=4WJXx4hhjJ&sig=JHv_qRp0eLoNWFZB3g3ks9UJn4E&hl=en&sa=X&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=Simon%20Jessop%20&f=false shows this to be a different man who had two sons who immigrated to the colonies. https://genealogics.org/getperson.php?personID=I00377474&tree=
On Thursday, September 23, 2021 at 7:59:46 PM UTC-7, pj.ev...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thursday, September 23, 2021 at 5:08:28 PM UTC-7, paulorica...@gmail.com wrote:
John Rhodes was a Quaker cordwainer who immigrated to Pennsylvania by 1686. His Wikitree profile is https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Jessop-10.
He is often claimed to have been the same as the son of Sir Francis Rhodes and Elizabeth Lascelles and to have married Elizabeth Jessup. However, https://books.google.pt/books?id=LKIKAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA449&lpg=PA449&dq=Simon+Jessop+and+Mary&source=bl&
The likeliest source cited in RD900 (as well as RD500) for the Rodes family is Joseph Hunter's Familiae Minorum Gentium, vol. 2, pp. 585-6, which contains a lengthy pedigree of the Rodes family. It was published in 1894-96 as vol. 38 of The HarleianCould you, please, tell me what are Roberts's sources? His books are unavailable in PortugalProbably not the son of a titled family. It's not an unusual family name. (Go with Genealogics; it should have sources.)Genealogics cites RD500 for this descent, which is from Edward III. RD900 pp. 342-3 continues to show this descent - and cites sources for it. The question of Elizabeth Jason versus Elizabeth Jessup doesn't affect the descent
A sábado, 25 de setembro de 2021 à(s) 19:25:13 UTC+1, jhigg...@yahoo.com escreveu:source=bl&ots=4WJXx4hhjJ&sig=JHv_qRp0eLoNWFZB3g3ks9UJn4E&hl=en&sa=X&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=Simon%20Jessop%20&f=false shows this to be a different man who had two sons who immigrated to the colonies. https://genealogics.org/getperson.php?personID=
On Saturday, September 25, 2021 at 9:28:51 AM UTC-7, paulorica...@gmail.com wrote:
A sexta-feira, 24 de setembro de 2021 à(s) 10:33:40 UTC+1, paulorica...@gmail.com escreveu:
A sexta-feira, 24 de setembro de 2021 à(s) 10:25:14 UTC+1, paulorica...@gmail.com escreveu:
A sexta-feira, 24 de setembro de 2021 à(s) 03:29:43 UTC+1, wjhons...@gmail.com escreveu:
On Thursday, September 23, 2021 at 5:08:28 PM UTC-7, paulorica...@gmail.com wrote:
John Rhodes was a Quaker cordwainer who immigrated to Pennsylvania by 1686. His Wikitree profile is https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Jessop-10.
He is often claimed to have been the same as the son of Sir Francis Rhodes and Elizabeth Lascelles and to have married Elizabeth Jessup. However, https://books.google.pt/books?id=LKIKAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA449&lpg=PA449&dq=Simon+Jessop+and+Mary&
-)Just to keep these two families straight, Charles Rhodes the immigrant to Virginia was the son of John Rhodes of Sturton and Elizabeth Jason, not of John Rhodes of Winegreaves and Elizabeth Jessop. Your posts keep switching between the two families. :In addition, according to https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Rhodes-4175, Charles Rhodes of Virginia migrated as an indentured servant.However, note the Burke's does make a member of the family a line draper.So it seems likely that the son of a wealthy family with lands and titles, would be a cordwainer?I am aware of the unlikelihood of that and, actually, considered mentioning that.
At least per the Wikitree pedigree you cited, his parentage is unknown. Have you done any searching for him?Can you determine what the source is for the statement in the Wikitree profile that Charles was an indentured servant? I can't....Also, do we have any clues as to the parentage of John Rhodes of Winegreaves?
A sábado, 25 de setembro de 2021 à(s) 19:25:13 UTC+1, jhigg...@yahoo.com escreveu:source=bl&ots=4WJXx4hhjJ&sig=JHv_qRp0eLoNWFZB3g3ks9UJn4E&hl=en&sa=X&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=Simon%20Jessop%20&f=false shows this to be a different man who had two sons who immigrated to the colonies. https://genealogics.org/getperson.php?personID=
On Saturday, September 25, 2021 at 9:28:51 AM UTC-7, paulorica...@gmail.com wrote:
A sexta-feira, 24 de setembro de 2021 à(s) 10:33:40 UTC+1, paulorica...@gmail.com escreveu:
A sexta-feira, 24 de setembro de 2021 à(s) 10:25:14 UTC+1, paulorica...@gmail.com escreveu:
A sexta-feira, 24 de setembro de 2021 à(s) 03:29:43 UTC+1, wjhons...@gmail.com escreveu:
On Thursday, September 23, 2021 at 5:08:28 PM UTC-7, paulorica...@gmail.com wrote:
John Rhodes was a Quaker cordwainer who immigrated to Pennsylvania by 1686. His Wikitree profile is https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Jessop-10.
He is often claimed to have been the same as the son of Sir Francis Rhodes and Elizabeth Lascelles and to have married Elizabeth Jessup. However, https://books.google.pt/books?id=LKIKAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA449&lpg=PA449&dq=Simon+Jessop+and+Mary&
-)Just to keep these two families straight, Charles Rhodes the immigrant to Virginia was the son of John Rhodes of Sturton and Elizabeth Jason, not of John Rhodes of Winegreaves and Elizabeth Jessop. Your posts keep switching between the two families. :In addition, according to https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Rhodes-4175, Charles Rhodes of Virginia migrated as an indentured servant.However, note the Burke's does make a member of the family a line draper.So it seems likely that the son of a wealthy family with lands and titles, would be a cordwainer?I am aware of the unlikelihood of that and, actually, considered mentioning that.
Can you determine what the source is for the statement in the Wikitree profile that Charles was an indentured servant? I can't....The Wikitree profile cites "The Arnolds and allied families".
Since the the work was published so long ago, it's quite likely available via either Google Books or the Internet Archive
Does anyone else have any more thoughts on this?This new source that you've cited seems to almost exactly follow the Rodes pedigrees given in Burke's Commoners 3:563ff and Burke's Extinct Baronetcies p. 448ff. In fact I'd suggest that it was copied from one of these two source - although it doesn't
On Tuesday, September 28, 2021 at 12:40:59 PM UTC-7, Paulo Ricardo Canedo wrote:specify its source AFAIK. The Rodes pedigree in Familiae Minorum Gentium 2:583 also matches BC and BEB, although it lops off the first 5 generations of the pedigree and starts with John Rodes of Staveley Woodthorpe who married Attelina Hewet.
Does anyone else have any more thoughts on this?This new source that you've cited seems to almost exactly follow the Rodes pedigrees given in Burke's Commoners 3:563ff and Burke's Extinct Baronetcies p. 448ff. In fact I'd suggest that it was copied from one of these two source - although it doesn't
(I'm setting aside the issue of the surname of Elizabeth the wife of John Rodes of Sturton, which i don't think has been resolved.)say that Clifton's son John d. without issue.) Is there any reason that we should consider this new source more reliable than the other three sources?
The single significant difference in this new account is that it makes John Rodes of Sturton (whose son Charles emigrated to Virginia) the son of Clifton Rodes, rather than his brother as the other three sources indicate. (And the other three sources
A terça-feira, 28 de setembro de 2021 à(s) 22:30:26 UTC+1, jhigg...@yahoo.com escreveu:t specify its source AFAIK. The Rodes pedigree in Familiae Minorum Gentium 2:583 also matches BC and BEB, although it lops off the first 5 generations of the pedigree and starts with John Rodes of Staveley Woodthorpe who married Attelina Hewet.
On Tuesday, September 28, 2021 at 12:40:59 PM UTC-7, Paulo Ricardo Canedo wrote:
Does anyone else have any more thoughts on this?This new source that you've cited seems to almost exactly follow the Rodes pedigrees given in Burke's Commoners 3:563ff and Burke's Extinct Baronetcies p. 448ff. In fact I'd suggest that it was copied from one of these two source - although it doesn'
say that Clifton's son John d. without issue.) Is there any reason that we should consider this new source more reliable than the other three sources?(I'm setting aside the issue of the surname of Elizabeth the wife of John Rodes of Sturton, which i don't think has been resolved.)
The single significant difference in this new account is that it makes John Rodes of Sturton (whose son Charles emigrated to Virginia) the son of Clifton Rodes, rather than his brother as the other three sources indicate. (And the other three sources
I didn't say we should consider it more reliable.descended from Justice Francis Rhodes.
Regardless, what do you think of the argument of the Maulsby family book I linked to that John Rhodes of Winegreaves was related to John Rhodes of Sturton? The Rhodes family book also states there is no reason to doubt John Rhodes of Winegreaves was
A terça-feira, 28 de setembro de 2021 à(s) 22:30:26 UTC+1, jhigg...@yahoo.com escreveu:t specify its source AFAIK. The Rodes pedigree in Familiae Minorum Gentium 2:583 also matches BC and BEB, although it lops off the first 5 generations of the pedigree and starts with John Rodes of Staveley Woodthorpe who married Attelina Hewet.
On Tuesday, September 28, 2021 at 12:40:59 PM UTC-7, Paulo Ricardo Canedo wrote:
Does anyone else have any more thoughts on this?This new source that you've cited seems to almost exactly follow the Rodes pedigrees given in Burke's Commoners 3:563ff and Burke's Extinct Baronetcies p. 448ff. In fact I'd suggest that it was copied from one of these two source - although it doesn'
say that Clifton's son John d. without issue.) Is there any reason that we should consider this new source more reliable than the other three sources?(I'm setting aside the issue of the surname of Elizabeth the wife of John Rodes of Sturton, which i don't think has been resolved.)
The single significant difference in this new account is that it makes John Rodes of Sturton (whose son Charles emigrated to Virginia) the son of Clifton Rodes, rather than his brother as the other three sources indicate. (And the other three sources
I didn't say we should consider it more reliable.descended from Justice Francis Rhodes.
Regardless, what do you think of the argument of the Maulsby family book I linked to that John Rhodes of Winegreaves was related to John Rhodes of Sturton? The Rhodes family book also states there is no reason to doubt John Rhodes of Winegreaves was
On Tuesday, September 28, 2021 at 4:21:04 PM UTC-7, Paulo Ricardo Canedo wrote:doesn't specify its source AFAIK. The Rodes pedigree in Familiae Minorum Gentium 2:583 also matches BC and BEB, although it lops off the first 5 generations of the pedigree and starts with John Rodes of Staveley Woodthorpe who married Attelina Hewet.
A terça-feira, 28 de setembro de 2021 à(s) 22:30:26 UTC+1, jhigg...@yahoo.com escreveu:
On Tuesday, September 28, 2021 at 12:40:59 PM UTC-7, Paulo Ricardo Canedo wrote:
Does anyone else have any more thoughts on this?This new source that you've cited seems to almost exactly follow the Rodes pedigrees given in Burke's Commoners 3:563ff and Burke's Extinct Baronetcies p. 448ff. In fact I'd suggest that it was copied from one of these two source - although it
sources say that Clifton's son John d. without issue.) Is there any reason that we should consider this new source more reliable than the other three sources?(I'm setting aside the issue of the surname of Elizabeth the wife of John Rodes of Sturton, which i don't think has been resolved.)
The single significant difference in this new account is that it makes John Rodes of Sturton (whose son Charles emigrated to Virginia) the son of Clifton Rodes, rather than his brother as the other three sources indicate. (And the other three
descended from Justice Francis Rhodes.I didn't say we should consider it more reliable.
Regardless, what do you think of the argument of the Maulsby family book I linked to that John Rhodes of Winegreaves was related to John Rhodes of Sturton? The Rhodes family book also states there is no reason to doubt John Rhodes of Winegreaves was
I'll start my comments on the Rhodes family narrative in the "Early Maltby" book by asking you this question:is presently no other known connection between the two families (see. pp. 325-326 and also p. 329.)
Where exactly in that book do you see the statement that "there is no reason to doubt John Rhodes of Winegreaves was descended from Justice Francis Rhodes"?
In fact, I think the author makes exactly the opposite argument: that John Roads [or Roades] of Ripley, while being a fellow Quaker with Sir John Rodes, 4th Bt., of Barlbourgh, cannot be shown to be the same person as John Rodes of Sturton - and there
The book also mentions (p. 330) that two sons of John Roades of Ripley are among the early emigrants to Pennsylvania. It also makes a satisfactory case (pp. 331ff) that John Roades of Ripley is the same person as John Roades of Winegreaves, who alsowent to Pennsylvania. But still doesn't indicate a connection the Rodes famil of Barlborough, other than the surname being the same.
A quarta-feira, 29 de setembro de 2021 à(s) 04:44:31 UTC+1, jhigg...@yahoo.com escreveu:doesn't specify its source AFAIK. The Rodes pedigree in Familiae Minorum Gentium 2:583 also matches BC and BEB, although it lops off the first 5 generations of the pedigree and starts with John Rodes of Staveley Woodthorpe who married Attelina Hewet.
On Tuesday, September 28, 2021 at 4:21:04 PM UTC-7, Paulo Ricardo Canedo wrote:
A terça-feira, 28 de setembro de 2021 à(s) 22:30:26 UTC+1, jhigg...@yahoo.com escreveu:
On Tuesday, September 28, 2021 at 12:40:59 PM UTC-7, Paulo Ricardo Canedo wrote:
Does anyone else have any more thoughts on this?This new source that you've cited seems to almost exactly follow the Rodes pedigrees given in Burke's Commoners 3:563ff and Burke's Extinct Baronetcies p. 448ff. In fact I'd suggest that it was copied from one of these two source - although it
sources say that Clifton's son John d. without issue.) Is there any reason that we should consider this new source more reliable than the other three sources?(I'm setting aside the issue of the surname of Elizabeth the wife of John Rodes of Sturton, which i don't think has been resolved.)
The single significant difference in this new account is that it makes John Rodes of Sturton (whose son Charles emigrated to Virginia) the son of Clifton Rodes, rather than his brother as the other three sources indicate. (And the other three
was descended from Justice Francis Rhodes.I didn't say we should consider it more reliable.
Regardless, what do you think of the argument of the Maulsby family book I linked to that John Rhodes of Winegreaves was related to John Rhodes of Sturton? The Rhodes family book also states there is no reason to doubt John Rhodes of Winegreaves
there is presently no other known connection between the two families (see. pp. 325-326 and also p. 329.)I'll start my comments on the Rhodes family narrative in the "Early Maltby" book by asking you this question:
Where exactly in that book do you see the statement that "there is no reason to doubt John Rhodes of Winegreaves was descended from Justice Francis Rhodes"?
In fact, I think the author makes exactly the opposite argument: that John Roads [or Roades] of Ripley, while being a fellow Quaker with Sir John Rodes, 4th Bt., of Barlbourgh, cannot be shown to be the same person as John Rodes of Sturton - and
went to Pennsylvania. But still doesn't indicate a connection the Rodes famil of Barlborough, other than the surname being the same.The book also mentions (p. 330) that two sons of John Roades of Ripley are among the early emigrants to Pennsylvania. It also makes a satisfactory case (pp. 331ff) that John Roades of Ripley is the same person as John Roades of Winegreaves, who also
In page 326, it says "We then must search further back in the
pedigree for the ancestry of John of Ripley.
Possibly we may find it in the next generation, and that it may be
from Henry or George, buried at Barlboro, 27 Dec, 1665. Or in the pre-
vious generation, and from one of the three younger sons of Francis, the Judge — Peter, Robert, or Francis." The following pages also discuss how John Rhodes of Winegreaves was from the same are as trhe Rhodes family of Barlborough and they were both Quakers at the sams time.
On Wednesday, September 29, 2021 at 3:22:40 AM UTC-7, Paulo Ricardo Canedo wrote:doesn't specify its source AFAIK. The Rodes pedigree in Familiae Minorum Gentium 2:583 also matches BC and BEB, although it lops off the first 5 generations of the pedigree and starts with John Rodes of Staveley Woodthorpe who married Attelina Hewet.
A quarta-feira, 29 de setembro de 2021 à(s) 04:44:31 UTC+1, jhigg...@yahoo.com escreveu:
On Tuesday, September 28, 2021 at 4:21:04 PM UTC-7, Paulo Ricardo Canedo wrote:
A terça-feira, 28 de setembro de 2021 à(s) 22:30:26 UTC+1, jhigg...@yahoo.com escreveu:
On Tuesday, September 28, 2021 at 12:40:59 PM UTC-7, Paulo Ricardo Canedo wrote:
Does anyone else have any more thoughts on this?This new source that you've cited seems to almost exactly follow the Rodes pedigrees given in Burke's Commoners 3:563ff and Burke's Extinct Baronetcies p. 448ff. In fact I'd suggest that it was copied from one of these two source - although it
sources say that Clifton's son John d. without issue.) Is there any reason that we should consider this new source more reliable than the other three sources?(I'm setting aside the issue of the surname of Elizabeth the wife of John Rodes of Sturton, which i don't think has been resolved.)
The single significant difference in this new account is that it makes John Rodes of Sturton (whose son Charles emigrated to Virginia) the son of Clifton Rodes, rather than his brother as the other three sources indicate. (And the other three
was descended from Justice Francis Rhodes.I didn't say we should consider it more reliable.
Regardless, what do you think of the argument of the Maulsby family book I linked to that John Rhodes of Winegreaves was related to John Rhodes of Sturton? The Rhodes family book also states there is no reason to doubt John Rhodes of Winegreaves
there is presently no other known connection between the two families (see. pp. 325-326 and also p. 329.)I'll start my comments on the Rhodes family narrative in the "Early Maltby" book by asking you this question:
Where exactly in that book do you see the statement that "there is no reason to doubt John Rhodes of Winegreaves was descended from Justice Francis Rhodes"?
In fact, I think the author makes exactly the opposite argument: that John Roads [or Roades] of Ripley, while being a fellow Quaker with Sir John Rodes, 4th Bt., of Barlbourgh, cannot be shown to be the same person as John Rodes of Sturton - and
also went to Pennsylvania. But still doesn't indicate a connection the Rodes famil of Barlborough, other than the surname being the same.The book also mentions (p. 330) that two sons of John Roades of Ripley are among the early emigrants to Pennsylvania. It also makes a satisfactory case (pp. 331ff) that John Roades of Ripley is the same person as John Roades of Winegreaves, who
In page 326, it says "We then must search further back in the
pedigree for the ancestry of John of Ripley.
Possibly we may find it in the next generation, and that it may be"We then must search further back in the pedigree for the ancestry of John of Ripley" is quite different than "there is no reason to doubt John Rhodes of Winegreaves was descended from Justice Francis Rhodes".
from Henry or George, buried at Barlboro, 27 Dec, 1665. Or in the pre- vious generation, and from one of the three younger sons of Francis, the Judge — Peter, Robert, or Francis." The following pages also discuss how John Rhodes of Winegreaves was from the same are as trhe Rhodes family of Barlborough and they were both Quakers at the sams time.
I ask again: does the latter statement appear in the "Early Maltby" book - anywhere?
The relationship MAY be possible, but "there is no reason to doubt..." is going a bit far.It's a paraphrase of a statement in thr Rhodes Family Book.
A quarta-feira, 29 de setembro de 2021 à(s) 17:03:38 UTC+1, jhigg...@yahoo.com escreveu:it doesn't specify its source AFAIK. The Rodes pedigree in Familiae Minorum Gentium 2:583 also matches BC and BEB, although it lops off the first 5 generations of the pedigree and starts with John Rodes of Staveley Woodthorpe who married Attelina Hewet.
On Wednesday, September 29, 2021 at 3:22:40 AM UTC-7, Paulo Ricardo Canedo wrote:
A quarta-feira, 29 de setembro de 2021 à(s) 04:44:31 UTC+1, jhigg...@yahoo.com escreveu:
On Tuesday, September 28, 2021 at 4:21:04 PM UTC-7, Paulo Ricardo Canedo wrote:
A terça-feira, 28 de setembro de 2021 à(s) 22:30:26 UTC+1, jhigg...@yahoo.com escreveu:
On Tuesday, September 28, 2021 at 12:40:59 PM UTC-7, Paulo Ricardo Canedo wrote:
Does anyone else have any more thoughts on this?This new source that you've cited seems to almost exactly follow the Rodes pedigrees given in Burke's Commoners 3:563ff and Burke's Extinct Baronetcies p. 448ff. In fact I'd suggest that it was copied from one of these two source - although
sources say that Clifton's son John d. without issue.) Is there any reason that we should consider this new source more reliable than the other three sources?(I'm setting aside the issue of the surname of Elizabeth the wife of John Rodes of Sturton, which i don't think has been resolved.)
The single significant difference in this new account is that it makes John Rodes of Sturton (whose son Charles emigrated to Virginia) the son of Clifton Rodes, rather than his brother as the other three sources indicate. (And the other three
Winegreaves was descended from Justice Francis Rhodes.I didn't say we should consider it more reliable.
Regardless, what do you think of the argument of the Maulsby family book I linked to that John Rhodes of Winegreaves was related to John Rhodes of Sturton? The Rhodes family book also states there is no reason to doubt John Rhodes of
there is presently no other known connection between the two families (see. pp. 325-326 and also p. 329.)I'll start my comments on the Rhodes family narrative in the "Early Maltby" book by asking you this question:
Where exactly in that book do you see the statement that "there is no reason to doubt John Rhodes of Winegreaves was descended from Justice Francis Rhodes"?
In fact, I think the author makes exactly the opposite argument: that John Roads [or Roades] of Ripley, while being a fellow Quaker with Sir John Rodes, 4th Bt., of Barlbourgh, cannot be shown to be the same person as John Rodes of Sturton - and
also went to Pennsylvania. But still doesn't indicate a connection the Rodes famil of Barlborough, other than the surname being the same.The book also mentions (p. 330) that two sons of John Roades of Ripley are among the early emigrants to Pennsylvania. It also makes a satisfactory case (pp. 331ff) that John Roades of Ripley is the same person as John Roades of Winegreaves, who
In page 326, it says "We then must search further back in the
pedigree for the ancestry of John of Ripley.
Possibly we may find it in the next generation, and that it may be"We then must search further back in the pedigree for the ancestry of John of Ripley" is quite different than "there is no reason to doubt John Rhodes of Winegreaves was descended from Justice Francis Rhodes".
from Henry or George, buried at Barlboro, 27 Dec, 1665. Or in the pre- vious generation, and from one of the three younger sons of Francis, the Judge — Peter, Robert, or Francis." The following pages also discuss how John Rhodes of Winegreaves was from the same are as trhe Rhodes family of Barlborough and they were both Quakers at the sams time.
I ask again: does the latter statement appear in the "Early Maltby" book - anywhere?
The relationship MAY be possible, but "there is no reason to doubt..." is going a bit far.It's a paraphrase of a statement in thr Rhodes Family Book.
On Wednesday, September 29, 2021 at 5:28:24 PM UTC-7, Paulo Ricardo Canedo wrote:it doesn't specify its source AFAIK. The Rodes pedigree in Familiae Minorum Gentium 2:583 also matches BC and BEB, although it lops off the first 5 generations of the pedigree and starts with John Rodes of Staveley Woodthorpe who married Attelina Hewet.
A quarta-feira, 29 de setembro de 2021 à(s) 17:03:38 UTC+1, jhigg...@yahoo.com escreveu:
On Wednesday, September 29, 2021 at 3:22:40 AM UTC-7, Paulo Ricardo Canedo wrote:
A quarta-feira, 29 de setembro de 2021 à(s) 04:44:31 UTC+1, jhigg...@yahoo.com escreveu:
On Tuesday, September 28, 2021 at 4:21:04 PM UTC-7, Paulo Ricardo Canedo wrote:
A terça-feira, 28 de setembro de 2021 à(s) 22:30:26 UTC+1, jhigg...@yahoo.com escreveu:
On Tuesday, September 28, 2021 at 12:40:59 PM UTC-7, Paulo Ricardo Canedo wrote:
Does anyone else have any more thoughts on this?This new source that you've cited seems to almost exactly follow the Rodes pedigrees given in Burke's Commoners 3:563ff and Burke's Extinct Baronetcies p. 448ff. In fact I'd suggest that it was copied from one of these two source - although
three sources say that Clifton's son John d. without issue.) Is there any reason that we should consider this new source more reliable than the other three sources?(I'm setting aside the issue of the surname of Elizabeth the wife of John Rodes of Sturton, which i don't think has been resolved.)
The single significant difference in this new account is that it makes John Rodes of Sturton (whose son Charles emigrated to Virginia) the son of Clifton Rodes, rather than his brother as the other three sources indicate. (And the other
Winegreaves was descended from Justice Francis Rhodes.I didn't say we should consider it more reliable.
Regardless, what do you think of the argument of the Maulsby family book I linked to that John Rhodes of Winegreaves was related to John Rhodes of Sturton? The Rhodes family book also states there is no reason to doubt John Rhodes of
and there is presently no other known connection between the two families (see. pp. 325-326 and also p. 329.)I'll start my comments on the Rhodes family narrative in the "Early Maltby" book by asking you this question:
Where exactly in that book do you see the statement that "there is no reason to doubt John Rhodes of Winegreaves was descended from Justice Francis Rhodes"?
In fact, I think the author makes exactly the opposite argument: that John Roads [or Roades] of Ripley, while being a fellow Quaker with Sir John Rodes, 4th Bt., of Barlbourgh, cannot be shown to be the same person as John Rodes of Sturton -
also went to Pennsylvania. But still doesn't indicate a connection the Rodes famil of Barlborough, other than the surname being the same.The book also mentions (p. 330) that two sons of John Roades of Ripley are among the early emigrants to Pennsylvania. It also makes a satisfactory case (pp. 331ff) that John Roades of Ripley is the same person as John Roades of Winegreaves, who
In page 326, it says "We then must search further back in the
pedigree for the ancestry of John of Ripley.
Possibly we may find it in the next generation, and that it may be from Henry or George, buried at Barlboro, 27 Dec, 1665. Or in the pre- vious generation, and from one of the three younger sons of Francis, the"We then must search further back in the pedigree for the ancestry of John of Ripley" is quite different than "there is no reason to doubt John Rhodes of Winegreaves was descended from Justice Francis Rhodes".
Judge — Peter, Robert, or Francis." The following pages also discuss how John Rhodes of Winegreaves was from the same are as trhe Rhodes family of Barlborough and they were both Quakers at the sams time.
I ask again: does the latter statement appear in the "Early Maltby" book - anywhere?
Winegreave at all.Which specific "Rhodes Family Book" are you talking about? I've lost track with all the books that have been discussed here. Can you re-post the link to the specific book in question? I don't believe it's this book, which doesn't mention John Rhoads ofThe relationship MAY be possible, but "there is no reason to doubt..." is going a bit far.It's a paraphrase of a statement in thr Rhodes Family Book.
https://archive.org/details/shorthistorygene00patt
John and Peter Rodes, mentioning their father Francis deceased
https://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/details/r/C5706908
https://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/details/r/C5706550
On Thursday, September 30, 2021 at 8:30:32 AM UTC-7, Will Johnson wrote:
John and Peter Rodes, mentioning their father Francis deceased
https://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/details/r/C5706908
https://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/details/r/C5706550That Godfrey Rodes of Great Houghton was already an adult by 1591
https://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/details/r/a2470fdb-93be-41c7-87f8-6f73205d2e92
On Thursday, September 30, 2021 at 8:34:32 AM UTC-7, Will Johnson wrote:
On Thursday, September 30, 2021 at 8:30:32 AM UTC-7, Will Johnson wrote:
John and Peter Rodes, mentioning their father Francis deceased
https://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/details/r/C5706908
https://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/details/r/C5706550That Godfrey Rodes of Great Houghton was already an adult by 1591
https://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/details/r/a2470fdb-93be-41c7-87f8-6f73205d2e92The estate of Francis Rodes who died 7 Jan 1588/9
https://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/details/r/1d082eff-8129-47c0-831d-4c9bab4e580a
A quinta-feira, 30 de setembro de 2021 à(s) 02:14:05 UTC+1, jhigg...@yahoo.com escreveu:although it doesn't specify its source AFAIK. The Rodes pedigree in Familiae Minorum Gentium 2:583 also matches BC and BEB, although it lops off the first 5 generations of the pedigree and starts with John Rodes of Staveley Woodthorpe who married
On Wednesday, September 29, 2021 at 5:28:24 PM UTC-7, Paulo Ricardo Canedo wrote:
A quarta-feira, 29 de setembro de 2021 à(s) 17:03:38 UTC+1, jhigg...@yahoo.com escreveu:
On Wednesday, September 29, 2021 at 3:22:40 AM UTC-7, Paulo Ricardo Canedo wrote:
A quarta-feira, 29 de setembro de 2021 à(s) 04:44:31 UTC+1, jhigg...@yahoo.com escreveu:
On Tuesday, September 28, 2021 at 4:21:04 PM UTC-7, Paulo Ricardo Canedo wrote:
A terça-feira, 28 de setembro de 2021 à(s) 22:30:26 UTC+1, jhigg...@yahoo.com escreveu:
On Tuesday, September 28, 2021 at 12:40:59 PM UTC-7, Paulo Ricardo Canedo wrote:
Does anyone else have any more thoughts on this?This new source that you've cited seems to almost exactly follow the Rodes pedigrees given in Burke's Commoners 3:563ff and Burke's Extinct Baronetcies p. 448ff. In fact I'd suggest that it was copied from one of these two source -
three sources say that Clifton's son John d. without issue.) Is there any reason that we should consider this new source more reliable than the other three sources?(I'm setting aside the issue of the surname of Elizabeth the wife of John Rodes of Sturton, which i don't think has been resolved.)
The single significant difference in this new account is that it makes John Rodes of Sturton (whose son Charles emigrated to Virginia) the son of Clifton Rodes, rather than his brother as the other three sources indicate. (And the other
Winegreaves was descended from Justice Francis Rhodes.I didn't say we should consider it more reliable.
Regardless, what do you think of the argument of the Maulsby family book I linked to that John Rhodes of Winegreaves was related to John Rhodes of Sturton? The Rhodes family book also states there is no reason to doubt John Rhodes of
and there is presently no other known connection between the two families (see. pp. 325-326 and also p. 329.)I'll start my comments on the Rhodes family narrative in the "Early Maltby" book by asking you this question:
Where exactly in that book do you see the statement that "there is no reason to doubt John Rhodes of Winegreaves was descended from Justice Francis Rhodes"?
In fact, I think the author makes exactly the opposite argument: that John Roads [or Roades] of Ripley, while being a fellow Quaker with Sir John Rodes, 4th Bt., of Barlbourgh, cannot be shown to be the same person as John Rodes of Sturton -
who also went to Pennsylvania. But still doesn't indicate a connection the Rodes famil of Barlborough, other than the surname being the same.The book also mentions (p. 330) that two sons of John Roades of Ripley are among the early emigrants to Pennsylvania. It also makes a satisfactory case (pp. 331ff) that John Roades of Ripley is the same person as John Roades of Winegreaves,
In page 326, it says "We then must search further back in the pedigree for the ancestry of John of Ripley.
Possibly we may find it in the next generation, and that it may be from Henry or George, buried at Barlboro, 27 Dec, 1665. Or in the pre-"We then must search further back in the pedigree for the ancestry of John of Ripley" is quite different than "there is no reason to doubt John Rhodes of Winegreaves was descended from Justice Francis Rhodes".
vious generation, and from one of the three younger sons of Francis, the
Judge — Peter, Robert, or Francis." The following pages also discuss how John Rhodes of Winegreaves was from the same are as trhe Rhodes family of Barlborough and they were both Quakers at the sams time.
I ask again: does the latter statement appear in the "Early Maltby" book - anywhere?
of Winegreave at all.Which specific "Rhodes Family Book" are you talking about? I've lost track with all the books that have been discussed here. Can you re-post the link to the specific book in question? I don't believe it's this book, which doesn't mention John RhoadsThe relationship MAY be possible, but "there is no reason to doubt..." is going a bit far.It's a paraphrase of a statement in thr Rhodes Family Book.
Thanks for posting this link.https://archive.org/details/shorthistorygene00pattIt's https://archive.org/details/rhodesfamilyinam113rhoa.
That John Rodes first wife Anne Benson, was the daughter of George Benson of Hugill by his wife Elizabeth Braithwaite, and that George was dead, Elizabeth was living, and a more exact date for the marriage of AnneThanks for all your research on this, Will.
https://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/details/r/024aebfb-184e-48d1-928b-802b49bfd339
On Thursday, September 30, 2021 at 2:23:18 AM UTC-7, Paulo Ricardo Canedo wrote:although it doesn't specify its source AFAIK. The Rodes pedigree in Familiae Minorum Gentium 2:583 also matches BC and BEB, although it lops off the first 5 generations of the pedigree and starts with John Rodes of Staveley Woodthorpe who married
A quinta-feira, 30 de setembro de 2021 à(s) 02:14:05 UTC+1, jhigg...@yahoo.com escreveu:
On Wednesday, September 29, 2021 at 5:28:24 PM UTC-7, Paulo Ricardo Canedo wrote:
A quarta-feira, 29 de setembro de 2021 à(s) 17:03:38 UTC+1, jhigg...@yahoo.com escreveu:
On Wednesday, September 29, 2021 at 3:22:40 AM UTC-7, Paulo Ricardo Canedo wrote:
A quarta-feira, 29 de setembro de 2021 à(s) 04:44:31 UTC+1, jhigg...@yahoo.com escreveu:
On Tuesday, September 28, 2021 at 4:21:04 PM UTC-7, Paulo Ricardo Canedo wrote:
A terça-feira, 28 de setembro de 2021 à(s) 22:30:26 UTC+1, jhigg...@yahoo.com escreveu:
On Tuesday, September 28, 2021 at 12:40:59 PM UTC-7, Paulo Ricardo Canedo wrote:
Does anyone else have any more thoughts on this?This new source that you've cited seems to almost exactly follow the Rodes pedigrees given in Burke's Commoners 3:563ff and Burke's Extinct Baronetcies p. 448ff. In fact I'd suggest that it was copied from one of these two source -
three sources say that Clifton's son John d. without issue.) Is there any reason that we should consider this new source more reliable than the other three sources?(I'm setting aside the issue of the surname of Elizabeth the wife of John Rodes of Sturton, which i don't think has been resolved.)
The single significant difference in this new account is that it makes John Rodes of Sturton (whose son Charles emigrated to Virginia) the son of Clifton Rodes, rather than his brother as the other three sources indicate. (And the other
Winegreaves was descended from Justice Francis Rhodes.I didn't say we should consider it more reliable.
Regardless, what do you think of the argument of the Maulsby family book I linked to that John Rhodes of Winegreaves was related to John Rhodes of Sturton? The Rhodes family book also states there is no reason to doubt John Rhodes of
and there is presently no other known connection between the two families (see. pp. 325-326 and also p. 329.)I'll start my comments on the Rhodes family narrative in the "Early Maltby" book by asking you this question:
Where exactly in that book do you see the statement that "there is no reason to doubt John Rhodes of Winegreaves was descended from Justice Francis Rhodes"?
In fact, I think the author makes exactly the opposite argument: that John Roads [or Roades] of Ripley, while being a fellow Quaker with Sir John Rodes, 4th Bt., of Barlbourgh, cannot be shown to be the same person as John Rodes of Sturton -
who also went to Pennsylvania. But still doesn't indicate a connection the Rodes famil of Barlborough, other than the surname being the same.The book also mentions (p. 330) that two sons of John Roades of Ripley are among the early emigrants to Pennsylvania. It also makes a satisfactory case (pp. 331ff) that John Roades of Ripley is the same person as John Roades of Winegreaves,
In page 326, it says "We then must search further back in the pedigree for the ancestry of John of Ripley.
Possibly we may find it in the next generation, and that it may be from Henry or George, buried at Barlboro, 27 Dec, 1665. Or in the pre-"We then must search further back in the pedigree for the anc estry of John of Ripley" is quite different than "there is no reason to doubt John Rhodes of Winegreaves was descended from Justice Francis Rhodes".
vious generation, and from one of the three younger sons of Francis, the
Judge — Peter, Robert, or Francis." The following pages also discuss how John Rhodes of Winegreaves was from the same are as trhe Rhodes family of Barlborough and they were both Quakers at the sams time.
I ask again: does the latter statement appear in the "Early Maltby" book - anywhere?
Rhoads of Winegreave at all.Which specific "Rhodes Family Book" are you talking about? I've lost track with all the books that have been discussed here. Can you re-post the link to the specific book in question? I don't believe it's this book, which doesn't mention JohnThe relationship MAY be possible, but "there is no reason to doubt..." is going a bit far.It's a paraphrase of a statement in thr Rhodes Family Book.
admits immediately after that assertion.Thanks for posting this link.https://archive.org/details/shorthistorygene00pattIt's https://archive.org/details/rhodesfamilyinam113rhoa.
The author can easily assert that "there seems no reason to doubt that John [Rhoads] of Winegreave was descended from Francis Rhodes", but that's just an assertion and no evidence has yet been found to support that assertion - as the author himself
Despite all the talking over a century or more, no one has yet been able to establish a confirmed connection between John Rhoads of Winegreave and the Rodes family of Barlborough. I don't see that any further progress has been made in this thread -except perhaps to highlight the flaws in some of the earlier attempts.
A quinta-feira, 30 de setembro de 2021 à(s) 18:21:12 UTC+1, jhigg...@yahoo.com escreveu:although it doesn't specify its source AFAIK. The Rodes pedigree in Familiae Minorum Gentium 2:583 also matches BC and BEB, although it lops off the first 5 generations of the pedigree and starts with John Rodes of Staveley Woodthorpe who married
On Thursday, September 30, 2021 at 2:23:18 AM UTC-7, Paulo Ricardo Canedo wrote:
A quinta-feira, 30 de setembro de 2021 à(s) 02:14:05 UTC+1, jhigg...@yahoo.com escreveu:
On Wednesday, September 29, 2021 at 5:28:24 PM UTC-7, Paulo Ricardo Canedo wrote:
A quarta-feira, 29 de setembro de 2021 à(s) 17:03:38 UTC+1, jhigg...@yahoo.com escreveu:
On Wednesday, September 29, 2021 at 3:22:40 AM UTC-7, Paulo Ricardo Canedo wrote:
A quarta-feira, 29 de setembro de 2021 à(s) 04:44:31 UTC+1, jhigg...@yahoo.com escreveu:
On Tuesday, September 28, 2021 at 4:21:04 PM UTC-7, Paulo Ricardo Canedo wrote:
A terça-feira, 28 de setembro de 2021 à(s) 22:30:26 UTC+1, jhigg...@yahoo.com escreveu:
On Tuesday, September 28, 2021 at 12:40:59 PM UTC-7, Paulo Ricardo Canedo wrote:
Does anyone else have any more thoughts on this?This new source that you've cited seems to almost exactly follow the Rodes pedigrees given in Burke's Commoners 3:563ff and Burke's Extinct Baronetcies p. 448ff. In fact I'd suggest that it was copied from one of these two source -
other three sources say that Clifton's son John d. without issue.) Is there any reason that we should consider this new source more reliable than the other three sources?(I'm setting aside the issue of the surname of Elizabeth the wife of John Rodes of Sturton, which i don't think has been resolved.)
The single significant difference in this new account is that it makes John Rodes of Sturton (whose son Charles emigrated to Virginia) the son of Clifton Rodes, rather than his brother as the other three sources indicate. (And the
Winegreaves was descended from Justice Francis Rhodes.I didn't say we should consider it more reliable. Regardless, what do you think of the argument of the Maulsby family book I linked to that John Rhodes of Winegreaves was related to John Rhodes of Sturton? The Rhodes family book also states there is no reason to doubt John Rhodes of
Sturton - and there is presently no other known connection between the two families (see. pp. 325-326 and also p. 329.)I'll start my comments on the Rhodes family narrative in the "Early Maltby" book by asking you this question:
Where exactly in that book do you see the statement that "there is no reason to doubt John Rhodes of Winegreaves was descended from Justice Francis Rhodes"?
In fact, I think the author makes exactly the opposite argument: that John Roads [or Roades] of Ripley, while being a fellow Quaker with Sir John Rodes, 4th Bt., of Barlbourgh, cannot be shown to be the same person as John Rodes of
Winegreaves, who also went to Pennsylvania. But still doesn't indicate a connection the Rodes famil of Barlborough, other than the surname being the same.The book also mentions (p. 330) that two sons of John Roades of Ripley are among the early emigrants to Pennsylvania. It also makes a satisfactory case (pp. 331ff) that John Roades of Ripley is the same person as John Roades of
In page 326, it says "We then must search further back in the pedigree for the ancestry of John of Ripley.
Possibly we may find it in the next generation, and that it may be"We then must search further back in the pedigree for the anc estry of John of Ripley" is quite different than "there is no reason to doubt John Rhodes of Winegreaves was descended from Justice Francis Rhodes".
from Henry or George, buried at Barlboro, 27 Dec, 1665. Or in the pre-
vious generation, and from one of the three younger sons of Francis, the
Judge — Peter, Robert, or Francis." The following pages also discuss how John Rhodes of Winegreaves was from the same are as trhe Rhodes family of Barlborough and they were both Quakers at the sams time.
I ask again: does the latter statement appear in the "Early Maltby" book - anywhere?
Rhoads of Winegreave at all.Which specific "Rhodes Family Book" are you talking about? I've lost track with all the books that have been discussed here. Can you re-post the link to the specific book in question? I don't believe it's this book, which doesn't mention JohnThe relationship MAY be possible, but "there is no reason to doubt..." is going a bit far.It's a paraphrase of a statement in thr Rhodes Family Book.
admits immediately after that assertion.Thanks for posting this link.https://archive.org/details/shorthistorygene00pattIt's https://archive.org/details/rhodesfamilyinam113rhoa.
The author can easily assert that "there seems no reason to doubt that John [Rhoads] of Winegreave was descended from Francis Rhodes", but that's just an assertion and no evidence has yet been found to support that assertion - as the author himself
except perhaps to highlight the flaws in some of the earlier attempts.Despite all the talking over a century or more, no one has yet been able to establish a confirmed connection between John Rhoads of Winegreave and the Rodes family of Barlborough. I don't see that any further progress has been made in this thread -
Where did you read the author stated there was no evidence? My reading of the account in page 6 doesn't show that. The author just states there wasn't a proven link.That was MY paraphrase from The Rhodes Family Book - you're not the only one who can paraphrase!! The author's sentence actually reads " but at just what point in the lineage his first ancestor is found has not yet been found". That says to me that, at
Regarding evidence, as I said earlier, they were from the same area and were both Quakers at the same time.
As the Maulsby family book stated in pages 325-26, BTW, as the Barlborough family appears to have been non-conformist before becoming Quaker, there is a lack of recods and it may be impossible to prove a link.
However, in page 329, it also stated there would be a book by Joseph Rhodes that could shed light on this. Was it ever published? From my search, apparently not.
On Thursday, September 30, 2021 at 4:49:13 PM UTC-7, Paulo Ricardo Canedo wrote:although it doesn't specify its source AFAIK. The Rodes pedigree in Familiae Minorum Gentium 2:583 also matches BC and BEB, although it lops off the first 5 generations of the pedigree and starts with John Rodes of Staveley Woodthorpe who married
A quinta-feira, 30 de setembro de 2021 à(s) 18:21:12 UTC+1, jhigg...@yahoo.com escreveu:
On Thursday, September 30, 2021 at 2:23:18 AM UTC-7, Paulo Ricardo Canedo wrote:
A quinta-feira, 30 de setembro de 2021 à(s) 02:14:05 UTC+1, jhigg...@yahoo.com escreveu:
On Wednesday, September 29, 2021 at 5:28:24 PM UTC-7, Paulo Ricardo Canedo wrote:
A quarta-feira, 29 de setembro de 2021 à(s) 17:03:38 UTC+1, jhigg...@yahoo.com escreveu:
On Wednesday, September 29, 2021 at 3:22:40 AM UTC-7, Paulo Ricardo Canedo wrote:
A quarta-feira, 29 de setembro de 2021 à(s) 04:44:31 UTC+1, jhigg...@yahoo.com escreveu:
On Tuesday, September 28, 2021 at 4:21:04 PM UTC-7, Paulo Ricardo Canedo wrote:
A terça-feira, 28 de setembro de 2021 à(s) 22:30:26 UTC+1, jhigg...@yahoo.com escreveu:
On Tuesday, September 28, 2021 at 12:40:59 PM UTC-7, Paulo Ricardo Canedo wrote:
Does anyone else have any more thoughts on this?This new source that you've cited seems to almost exactly follow the Rodes pedigrees given in Burke's Commoners 3:563ff and Burke's Extinct Baronetcies p. 448ff. In fact I'd suggest that it was copied from one of these two source -
other three sources say that Clifton's son John d. without issue.) Is there any reason that we should consider this new source more reliable than the other three sources?(I'm setting aside the issue of the surname of Elizabeth the wife of John Rodes of Sturton, which i don't think has been resolved.)
The single significant difference in this new account is that it makes John Rodes of Sturton (whose son Charles emigrated to Virginia) the son of Clifton Rodes, rather than his brother as the other three sources indicate. (And the
Winegreaves was descended from Justice Francis Rhodes.I didn't say we should consider it more reliable. Regardless, what do you think of the argument of the Maulsby family book I linked to that John Rhodes of Winegreaves was related to John Rhodes of Sturton? The Rhodes family book also states there is no reason to doubt John Rhodes of
Sturton - and there is presently no other known connection between the two families (see. pp. 325-326 and also p. 329.)I'll start my comments on the Rhodes family narrative in the "Early Maltby" book by asking you this question:
Where exactly in that book do you see the statement that "there is no reason to doubt John Rhodes of Winegreaves was descended from Justice Francis Rhodes"?
In fact, I think the author makes exactly the opposite argument: that John Roads [or Roades] of Ripley, while being a fellow Quaker with Sir John Rodes, 4th Bt., of Barlbourgh, cannot be shown to be the same person as John Rodes of
Winegreaves, who also went to Pennsylvania. But still doesn't indicate a connection the Rodes famil of Barlborough, other than the surname being the same.The book also mentions (p. 330) that two sons of John Roades of Ripley are among the early emigrants to Pennsylvania. It also makes a satisfactory case (pp. 331ff) that John Roades of Ripley is the same person as John Roades of
In page 326, it says "We then must search further back in the pedigree for the ancestry of John of Ripley.
Possibly we may find it in the next generation, and that it may be"We then must search further back in the pedigree for the anc estry of John of Ripley" is quite different than "there is no reason to doubt John Rhodes of Winegreaves was descended from Justice Francis Rhodes".
from Henry or George, buried at Barlboro, 27 Dec, 1665. Or in the pre-
vious generation, and from one of the three younger sons of Francis, the
Judge — Peter, Robert, or Francis." The following pages also discuss how John Rhodes of Winegreaves was from the same are as trhe Rhodes family of Barlborough and they were both Quakers at the sams time.
I ask again: does the latter statement appear in the "Early Maltby" book - anywhere?
Rhoads of Winegreave at all.Which specific "Rhodes Family Book" are you talking about? I've lost track with all the books that have been discussed here. Can you re-post the link to the specific book in question? I don't believe it's this book, which doesn't mention JohnThe relationship MAY be possible, but "there is no reason to doubt..." is going a bit far.It's a paraphrase of a statement in thr Rhodes Family Book.
admits immediately after that assertion.Thanks for posting this link.https://archive.org/details/shorthistorygene00pattIt's https://archive.org/details/rhodesfamilyinam113rhoa.
The author can easily assert that "there seems no reason to doubt that John [Rhoads] of Winegreave was descended from Francis Rhodes", but that's just an assertion and no evidence has yet been found to support that assertion - as the author himself
except perhaps to highlight the flaws in some of the earlier attempts.Despite all the talking over a century or more, no one has yet been able to establish a confirmed connection between John Rhoads of Winegreave and the Rodes family of Barlborough. I don't see that any further progress has been made in this thread -
the date the book was written, there was no evidence to support the linkage - I don't see that further research has altered that conclusion. Yes, there's circumstantial evidence that may SUGGEST that there's a linkage. But it's just that - circumstantial.Where did you read the author stated there was no evidence? My reading of the account in page 6 doesn't show that. The author just states there wasn't a proven link.That was MY paraphrase from The Rhodes Family Book - you're not the only one who can paraphrase!! The author's sentence actually reads " but at just what point in the lineage his first ancestor is found has not yet been found". That says to me that, at
Regarding evidence, as I said earlier, they were from the same area and were both Quakers at the same time.
As the Maulsby family book stated in pages 325-26, BTW, as the Barlborough family appears to have been non-conformist before becoming Quaker, there is a lack of recods and it may be impossible to prove a link.
However, in page 329, it also stated there would be a book by Joseph Rhodes that could shed light on this. Was it ever published? From my search, apparently not.
If you want to keep beating this dead horse, feel free to do so. Personally, I see no point in it.
.to have been daughters of a Simon from Nottinghamshire and Elizabeth Jessup actually has a pedigree at Wikitree: https://www.wikitree.com/genealogy/Jessop-Family-Tree-10.
The only question I want to reevaluate is whether the wife of John Rhodes of Sturton was Elizabeth Jessup or Elizabeth Jason. I am inclined to think it was Jessup and Jason was just a misreading. Both Elizabeth Jessup and Elizabeth Jason are supposed
On Monday, October 4, 2021 at 4:21:10 PM UTC-7, Paulo Ricardo Canedo wrote:to have been daughters of a Simon from Nottinghamshire and Elizabeth Jessup actually has a pedigree at Wikitree: https://www.wikitree.com/genealogy/Jessop-Family-Tree-10.
.
The only question I want to reevaluate is whether the wife of John Rhodes of Sturton was Elizabeth Jessup or Elizabeth Jason. I am inclined to think it was Jessup and Jason was just a misreading. Both Elizabeth Jessup and Elizabeth Jason are supposed
Oh, so you want to start beating this dead horse again…. There are a number of reasons why your latest conclusion doesn’t hold water – at least if you choose to cite the Wikitree pedigree as the basis for your conclusion.Baronetages, Hunter’s Familiae Minorium Gentium). The Wikitree pedigree seems to be a clumsy attempt to combine two different families: that of John Rhodes of Winegreaves and that of John Rodes of Sturton. And the pedigree is very unevenly sourced –
The Wikitree pedigree explicitly says that Elizabeth Jessup married John Rhodes of Winegreaves, not John Rodes of Sturton. I think we’ve pretty clearly established that these two men are not the same person.
Also, the Wikitree pedigree assigns the supposed John Rodes of Sturton (if he is the same man as John Rhodes of Winegreaves) far more children than are given in other sources we’ve previously discussed (e.g., Burke’s Commoners, Burke’s Extinct
If you really want to pursue the issue of whether the wife of John Rodes of Sturton was Elizabeth Jessup or Elizabeth Jason, this faulty Wikitree pedigree is definitely not the place to start (if there is indeed any place to start…).I know Wikitree has Elizabeth Jessup as wife of John Rhodes of Winegreaves. However, the Burke's shows her as the wife of John Rhodes of Sturton and her Wikitree pedigree includes people born in Sturton.
A terça-feira, 5 de outubro de 2021 à(s) 19:28:23 UTC+1, jhigg...@yahoo.com escreveu:supposed to have been daughters of a Simon from Nottinghamshire and Elizabeth Jessup actually has a pedigree at Wikitree: https://www.wikitree.com/genealogy/Jessop-Family-Tree-10.
On Monday, October 4, 2021 at 4:21:10 PM UTC-7, Paulo Ricardo Canedo wrote:
.
The only question I want to reevaluate is whether the wife of John Rhodes of Sturton was Elizabeth Jessup or Elizabeth Jason. I am inclined to think it was Jessup and Jason was just a misreading. Both Elizabeth Jessup and Elizabeth Jason are
Baronetages, Hunter’s Familiae Minorium Gentium). The Wikitree pedigree seems to be a clumsy attempt to combine two different families: that of John Rhodes of Winegreaves and that of John Rodes of Sturton. And the pedigree is very unevenly sourced –Oh, so you want to start beating this dead horse again…. There are a number of reasons why your latest conclusion doesn’t hold water – at least if you choose to cite the Wikitree pedigree as the basis for your conclusion.
The Wikitree pedigree explicitly says that Elizabeth Jessup married John Rhodes of Winegreaves, not John Rodes of Sturton. I think we’ve pretty clearly established that these two men are not the same person.
Also, the Wikitree pedigree assigns the supposed John Rodes of Sturton (if he is the same man as John Rhodes of Winegreaves) far more children than are given in other sources we’ve previously discussed (e.g., Burke’s Commoners, Burke’s Extinct
If you really want to pursue the issue of whether the wife of John Rodes of Sturton was Elizabeth Jessup or Elizabeth Jason, this faulty Wikitree pedigree is definitely not the place to start (if there is indeed any place to start…).I know Wikitree has Elizabeth Jessup as wife of John Rhodes of Winegreaves. However, the Burke's shows her as the wife of John Rhodes of Sturton and her Wikitree pedigree includes people born in Sturton.
On Tuesday, October 5, 2021 at 4:54:21 PM UTC-7, Paulo Ricardo Canedo wrote:supposed to have been daughters of a Simon from Nottinghamshire and Elizabeth Jessup actually has a pedigree at Wikitree: https://www.wikitree.com/genealogy/Jessop-Family-Tree-10.
A terça-feira, 5 de outubro de 2021 à(s) 19:28:23 UTC+1, jhigg...@yahoo.com escreveu:
On Monday, October 4, 2021 at 4:21:10 PM UTC-7, Paulo Ricardo Canedo wrote:
.
The only question I want to reevaluate is whether the wife of John Rhodes of Sturton was Elizabeth Jessup or Elizabeth Jason. I am inclined to think it was Jessup and Jason was just a misreading. Both Elizabeth Jessup and Elizabeth Jason are
Extinct Baronetages, Hunter’s Familiae Minorium Gentium). The Wikitree pedigree seems to be a clumsy attempt to combine two different families: that of John Rhodes of Winegreaves and that of John Rodes of Sturton. And the pedigree is very unevenlyOh, so you want to start beating this dead horse again…. There are a number of reasons why your latest conclusion doesn’t hold water – at least if you choose to cite the Wikitree pedigree as the basis for your conclusion.
The Wikitree pedigree explicitly says that Elizabeth Jessup married John Rhodes of Winegreaves, not John Rodes of Sturton. I think we’ve pretty clearly established that these two men are not the same person.
Also, the Wikitree pedigree assigns the supposed John Rodes of Sturton (if he is the same man as John Rhodes of Winegreaves) far more children than are given in other sources we’ve previously discussed (e.g., Burke’s Commoners, Burke’s
Wikitree is managed, and curated, by people who sometimes have absolutely no clue what they are doing.If you really want to pursue the issue of whether the wife of John Rodes of Sturton was Elizabeth Jessup or Elizabeth Jason, this faulty Wikitree pedigree is definitely not the place to start (if there is indeed any place to start…).I know Wikitree has Elizabeth Jessup as wife of John Rhodes of Winegreaves. However, the Burke's shows her as the wife of John Rhodes of Sturton and her Wikitree pedigree includes people born in Sturton.
Wikitree is not a reliable source, and should never be cited as a source of any individual fact whatsoever.
Wikitree does have sources within it. Those sources are conflicting, or silent on the issue at hand.
A quarta-feira, 6 de outubro de 2021 à(s) 13:39:11 UTC+1, wjhons...@gmail.com escreveu:supposed to have been daughters of a Simon from Nottinghamshire and Elizabeth Jessup actually has a pedigree at Wikitree: https://www.wikitree.com/genealogy/Jessop-Family-Tree-10.
On Tuesday, October 5, 2021 at 4:54:21 PM UTC-7, Paulo Ricardo Canedo wrote:
A terça-feira, 5 de outubro de 2021 à(s) 19:28:23 UTC+1, jhigg...@yahoo.com escreveu:
On Monday, October 4, 2021 at 4:21:10 PM UTC-7, Paulo Ricardo Canedo wrote:
.
The only question I want to reevaluate is whether the wife of John Rhodes of Sturton was Elizabeth Jessup or Elizabeth Jason. I am inclined to think it was Jessup and Jason was just a misreading. Both Elizabeth Jessup and Elizabeth Jason are
Extinct Baronetages, Hunter’s Familiae Minorium Gentium). The Wikitree pedigree seems to be a clumsy attempt to combine two different families: that of John Rhodes of Winegreaves and that of John Rodes of Sturton. And the pedigree is very unevenlyOh, so you want to start beating this dead horse again…. There are a number of reasons why your latest conclusion doesn’t hold water – at least if you choose to cite the Wikitree pedigree as the basis for your conclusion.
The Wikitree pedigree explicitly says that Elizabeth Jessup married John Rhodes of Winegreaves, not John Rodes of Sturton. I think we’ve pretty clearly established that these two men are not the same person.
Also, the Wikitree pedigree assigns the supposed John Rodes of Sturton (if he is the same man as John Rhodes of Winegreaves) far more children than are given in other sources we’ve previously discussed (e.g., Burke’s Commoners, Burke’s
Yes, the Wikitree pedigree does show some of the purported ancestors of Elizabeth Jessop [not Jessup] go have been born in Sturton. Specifically, her supposed paternal grandparents Francis Jessop and Frances White and also Frances' parents AlexanderWikitree is managed, and curated, by people who sometimes have absolutely no clue what they are doing.If you really want to pursue the issue of whether the wife of John Rodes of Sturton was Elizabeth Jessup or Elizabeth Jason, this faulty Wikitree pedigree is definitely not the place to start (if there is indeed any place to start…).I know Wikitree has Elizabeth Jessup as wife of John Rhodes of Winegreaves. However, the Burke's shows her as the wife of John Rhodes of Sturton and her Wikitree pedigree includes people born in Sturton.
Wikitree is not a reliable source, and should never be cited as a source of any individual fact whatsoever.
Wikitree does have sources within it. Those sources are conflicting, or silent on the issue at hand.The Wikitree pedigree shows Elizabeth Jessup having ancestors in Sturton, which is a plausible pedigree for a wife of John Rhodes of Sturton. The Burke's does show her father as Simon Jessup.
On Wednesday, October 6, 2021 at 9:41:57 AM UTC-7, Paulo Ricardo Canedo wrote:supposed to have been daughters of a Simon from Nottinghamshire and Elizabeth Jessup actually has a pedigree at Wikitree: https://www.wikitree.com/genealogy/Jessop-Family-Tree-10.
A quarta-feira, 6 de outubro de 2021 à(s) 13:39:11 UTC+1, wjhons...@gmail.com escreveu:
On Tuesday, October 5, 2021 at 4:54:21 PM UTC-7, Paulo Ricardo Canedo wrote:
A terça-feira, 5 de outubro de 2021 à(s) 19:28:23 UTC+1, jhigg...@yahoo.com escreveu:
On Monday, October 4, 2021 at 4:21:10 PM UTC-7, Paulo Ricardo Canedo wrote:
.
The only question I want to reevaluate is whether the wife of John Rhodes of Sturton was Elizabeth Jessup or Elizabeth Jason. I am inclined to think it was Jessup and Jason was just a misreading. Both Elizabeth Jessup and Elizabeth Jason are
Extinct Baronetages, Hunter’s Familiae Minorium Gentium). The Wikitree pedigree seems to be a clumsy attempt to combine two different families: that of John Rhodes of Winegreaves and that of John Rodes of Sturton. And the pedigree is very unevenlyOh, so you want to start beating this dead horse again…. There are a number of reasons why your latest conclusion doesn’t hold water – at least if you choose to cite the Wikitree pedigree as the basis for your conclusion.
The Wikitree pedigree explicitly says that Elizabeth Jessup married John Rhodes of Winegreaves, not John Rodes of Sturton. I think we’ve pretty clearly established that these two men are not the same person.
Also, the Wikitree pedigree assigns the supposed John Rodes of Sturton (if he is the same man as John Rhodes of Winegreaves) far more children than are given in other sources we’ve previously discussed (e.g., Burke’s Commoners, Burke’s
White and Eleanor Smith are all said to have been born in Sturton (although you should check the sources for these individuals).Wikitree is managed, and curated, by people who sometimes have absolutely no clue what they are doing.If you really want to pursue the issue of whether the wife of John Rodes of Sturton was Elizabeth Jessup or Elizabeth Jason, this faulty Wikitree pedigree is definitely not the place to start (if there is indeed any place to start…).I know Wikitree has Elizabeth Jessup as wife of John Rhodes of Winegreaves. However, the Burke's shows her as the wife of John Rhodes of Sturton and her Wikitree pedigree includes people born in Sturton.
Wikitree is not a reliable source, and should never be cited as a source of any individual fact whatsoever.
Yes, the Wikitree pedigree does show some of the purported ancestors of Elizabeth Jessop [not Jessup] go have been born in Sturton. Specifically, her supposed paternal grandparents Francis Jessop and Frances White and also Frances' parents AlexanderWikitree does have sources within it. Those sources are conflicting, or silent on the issue at hand.The Wikitree pedigree shows Elizabeth Jessup having ancestors in Sturton, which is a plausible pedigree for a wife of John Rhodes of Sturton. The Burke's does show her father as Simon Jessup.
However...look at the sources for Elizabeth Jessop's parents Simon Jessop and Mary White. For Simon there are NO sources at all, and for Mary only BEB is mentioned - and BEB (sub Rodes of Barlborough) doesn't mention Mary at all, only Simon. So, atpresent you have no basis at all for the connection of Simon Jessop to his supposed parents Francis Jessop and Frances White - unless you should happen to be lucky enough to find such support in the sources given for his parents, which i doubt you will.
So, just because the pedigree SAYS there are connections between Elizabeth Jessop (whose husband John Rodes lived in Sturton) and some other individuals who were born in Sturton does NOT mean there actually IS a connection between these individuals.You have to check every single link in the pedigree. You should never accept a Wikitree tree at face value without checking it thoroughly.
On Wednesday, October 6, 2021 at 12:08:06 PM UTC-7, John Higgins wrote:are supposed to have been daughters of a Simon from Nottinghamshire and Elizabeth Jessup actually has a pedigree at Wikitree: https://www.wikitree.com/genealogy/Jessop-Family-Tree-10.
On Wednesday, October 6, 2021 at 9:41:57 AM UTC-7, Paulo Ricardo Canedo wrote:
A quarta-feira, 6 de outubro de 2021 à(s) 13:39:11 UTC+1, wjhons...@gmail.com escreveu:
On Tuesday, October 5, 2021 at 4:54:21 PM UTC-7, Paulo Ricardo Canedo wrote:
A terça-feira, 5 de outubro de 2021 à(s) 19:28:23 UTC+1, jhigg...@yahoo.com escreveu:
On Monday, October 4, 2021 at 4:21:10 PM UTC-7, Paulo Ricardo Canedo wrote:
.
The only question I want to reevaluate is whether the wife of John Rhodes of Sturton was Elizabeth Jessup or Elizabeth Jason. I am inclined to think it was Jessup and Jason was just a misreading. Both Elizabeth Jessup and Elizabeth Jason
Extinct Baronetages, Hunter’s Familiae Minorium Gentium). The Wikitree pedigree seems to be a clumsy attempt to combine two different families: that of John Rhodes of Winegreaves and that of John Rodes of Sturton. And the pedigree is very unevenlyOh, so you want to start beating this dead horse again…. There are a number of reasons why your latest conclusion doesn’t hold water – at least if you choose to cite the Wikitree pedigree as the basis for your conclusion.
The Wikitree pedigree explicitly says that Elizabeth Jessup married John Rhodes of Winegreaves, not John Rodes of Sturton. I think we’ve pretty clearly established that these two men are not the same person.
Also, the Wikitree pedigree assigns the supposed John Rodes of Sturton (if he is the same man as John Rhodes of Winegreaves) far more children than are given in other sources we’ve previously discussed (e.g., Burke’s Commoners, Burke’s
White and Eleanor Smith are all said to have been born in Sturton (although you should check the sources for these individuals).Wikitree is managed, and curated, by people who sometimes have absolutely no clue what they are doing.If you really want to pursue the issue of whether the wife of John Rodes of Sturton was Elizabeth Jessup or Elizabeth Jason, this faulty Wikitree pedigree is definitely not the place to start (if there is indeed any place to start…).I know Wikitree has Elizabeth Jessup as wife of John Rhodes of Winegreaves. However, the Burke's shows her as the wife of John Rhodes of Sturton and her Wikitree pedigree includes people born in Sturton.
Wikitree is not a reliable source, and should never be cited as a source of any individual fact whatsoever.
Yes, the Wikitree pedigree does show some of the purported ancestors of Elizabeth Jessop [not Jessup] go have been born in Sturton. Specifically, her supposed paternal grandparents Francis Jessop and Frances White and also Frances' parents AlexanderWikitree does have sources within it. Those sources are conflicting, or silent on the issue at hand.The Wikitree pedigree shows Elizabeth Jessup having ancestors in Sturton, which is a plausible pedigree for a wife of John Rhodes of Sturton. The Burke's does show her father as Simon Jessup.
present you have no basis at all for the connection of Simon Jessop to his supposed parents Francis Jessop and Frances White - unless you should happen to be lucky enough to find such support in the sources given for his parents, which i doubt you will.However...look at the sources for Elizabeth Jessop's parents Simon Jessop and Mary White. For Simon there are NO sources at all, and for Mary only BEB is mentioned - and BEB (sub Rodes of Barlborough) doesn't mention Mary at all, only Simon. So, at
You have to check every single link in the pedigree. You should never accept a Wikitree tree at face value without checking it thoroughly.So, just because the pedigree SAYS there are connections between Elizabeth Jessop (whose husband John Rodes lived in Sturton) and some other individuals who were born in Sturton does NOT mean there actually IS a connection between these individuals.
Here are the two books cited as sources for Francis Jessop in the Wikitree pedigree:
https://archive.org/details/edwardjessupofwe00jesu https://archive.org/details/jessupfamilycont00jess
Francis Jessop is discussed on pp. 22ff of the 1st book and on pp. 20ff of the 2nd book. You really don't need to read the 2nd book, as it simply copies the same information verbatim from the 1st book - and cites the 1st book!
The bottom line is that neither book mentions Simon Jessop as a son of Francis Jessop by either of his two wives. So you'll have to look elsewhere for support for the connection of Simon Jessop to Francis Jessop that is stated by the Wikitree pedigree.
On Wednesday, October 6, 2021 at 9:41:57 AM UTC-7, Paulo Ricardo Canedo wrote:supposed to have been daughters of a Simon from Nottinghamshire and Elizabeth Jessup actually has a pedigree at Wikitree: https://www.wikitree.com/genealogy/Jessop-Family-Tree-10.
A quarta-feira, 6 de outubro de 2021 à(s) 13:39:11 UTC+1, wjhons...@gmail.com escreveu:
On Tuesday, October 5, 2021 at 4:54:21 PM UTC-7, Paulo Ricardo Canedo wrote:
A terça-feira, 5 de outubro de 2021 à(s) 19:28:23 UTC+1, jhigg...@yahoo.com escreveu:
On Monday, October 4, 2021 at 4:21:10 PM UTC-7, Paulo Ricardo Canedo wrote:
.
The only question I want to reevaluate is whether the wife of John Rhodes of Sturton was Elizabeth Jessup or Elizabeth Jason. I am inclined to think it was Jessup and Jason was just a misreading. Both Elizabeth Jessup and Elizabeth Jason are
Extinct Baronetages, Hunter’s Familiae Minorium Gentium). The Wikitree pedigree seems to be a clumsy attempt to combine two different families: that of John Rhodes of Winegreaves and that of John Rodes of Sturton. And the pedigree is very unevenlyOh, so you want to start beating this dead horse again…. There are a number of reasons why your latest conclusion doesn’t hold water – at least if you choose to cite the Wikitree pedigree as the basis for your conclusion.
The Wikitree pedigree explicitly says that Elizabeth Jessup married John Rhodes of Winegreaves, not John Rodes of Sturton. I think we’ve pretty clearly established that these two men are not the same person.
Also, the Wikitree pedigree assigns the supposed John Rodes of Sturton (if he is the same man as John Rhodes of Winegreaves) far more children than are given in other sources we’ve previously discussed (e.g., Burke’s Commoners, Burke’s
White and Eleanor Smith are all said to have been born in Sturton (although you should check the sources for these individuals).Wikitree is managed, and curated, by people who sometimes have absolutely no clue what they are doing.If you really want to pursue the issue of whether the wife of John Rodes of Sturton was Elizabeth Jessup or Elizabeth Jason, this faulty Wikitree pedigree is definitely not the place to start (if there is indeed any place to start…).I know Wikitree has Elizabeth Jessup as wife of John Rhodes of Winegreaves. However, the Burke's shows her as the wife of John Rhodes of Sturton and her Wikitree pedigree includes people born in Sturton.
Wikitree is not a reliable source, and should never be cited as a source of any individual fact whatsoever.
Yes, the Wikitree pedigree does show some of the purported ancestors of Elizabeth Jessop [not Jessup] go have been born in Sturton. Specifically, her supposed paternal grandparents Francis Jessop and Frances White and also Frances' parents AlexanderWikitree does have sources within it. Those sources are conflicting, or silent on the issue at hand.The Wikitree pedigree shows Elizabeth Jessup having ancestors in Sturton, which is a plausible pedigree for a wife of John Rhodes of Sturton. The Burke's does show her father as Simon Jessup.
However...look at the sources for Elizabeth Jessop's parents Simon Jessop and Mary White. For Simon there are NO sources at all, and for Mary only BEB is mentioned - and BEB (sub Rodes of Barlborough) doesn't mention Mary at all, only Simon. So, atpresent you have no basis at all for the connection of Simon Jessop to his supposed parents Francis Jessop and Frances White - unless you should happen to be lucky enough to find such support in the sources given for his parents, which i doubt you will.
So, just because the pedigree SAYS there are connections between Elizabeth Jessop (whose husband John Rodes lived in Sturton) and some other individuals who were born in Sturton does NOT mean there actually IS a connection between these individuals.You have to check every single link in the pedigree. You should never accept a Wikitree tree at face value without checking it thoroughly.
A quarta-feira, 6 de outubro de 2021 à(s) 23:33:15 UTC+1, jhigg...@yahoo.com escreveu:are supposed to have been daughters of a Simon from Nottinghamshire and Elizabeth Jessup actually has a pedigree at Wikitree: https://www.wikitree.com/genealogy/Jessop-Family-Tree-10.
On Wednesday, October 6, 2021 at 12:08:06 PM UTC-7, John Higgins wrote:
On Wednesday, October 6, 2021 at 9:41:57 AM UTC-7, Paulo Ricardo Canedo wrote:
A quarta-feira, 6 de outubro de 2021 à(s) 13:39:11 UTC+1, wjhons...@gmail.com escreveu:
On Tuesday, October 5, 2021 at 4:54:21 PM UTC-7, Paulo Ricardo Canedo wrote:
A terça-feira, 5 de outubro de 2021 à(s) 19:28:23 UTC+1, jhigg...@yahoo.com escreveu:
On Monday, October 4, 2021 at 4:21:10 PM UTC-7, Paulo Ricardo Canedo wrote:
.
The only question I want to reevaluate is whether the wife of John Rhodes of Sturton was Elizabeth Jessup or Elizabeth Jason. I am inclined to think it was Jessup and Jason was just a misreading. Both Elizabeth Jessup and Elizabeth Jason
s Extinct Baronetages, Hunter’s Familiae Minorium Gentium). The Wikitree pedigree seems to be a clumsy attempt to combine two different families: that of John Rhodes of Winegreaves and that of John Rodes of Sturton. And the pedigree is very unevenlyOh, so you want to start beating this dead horse again…. There are a number of reasons why your latest conclusion doesn’t hold water – at least if you choose to cite the Wikitree pedigree as the basis for your conclusion.
The Wikitree pedigree explicitly says that Elizabeth Jessup married John Rhodes of Winegreaves, not John Rodes of Sturton. I think we’ve pretty clearly established that these two men are not the same person.
Also, the Wikitree pedigree assigns the supposed John Rodes of Sturton (if he is the same man as John Rhodes of Winegreaves) far more children than are given in other sources we’ve previously discussed (e.g., Burke’s Commoners, Burke’
Alexander White and Eleanor Smith are all said to have been born in Sturton (although you should check the sources for these individuals).Wikitree is managed, and curated, by people who sometimes have absolutely no clue what they are doing.If you really want to pursue the issue of whether the wife of John Rodes of Sturton was Elizabeth Jessup or Elizabeth Jason, this faulty Wikitree pedigree is definitely not the place to start (if there is indeed any place to start…).I know Wikitree has Elizabeth Jessup as wife of John Rhodes of Winegreaves. However, the Burke's shows her as the wife of John Rhodes of Sturton and her Wikitree pedigree includes people born in Sturton.
Wikitree is not a reliable source, and should never be cited as a source of any individual fact whatsoever.
Yes, the Wikitree pedigree does show some of the purported ancestors of Elizabeth Jessop [not Jessup] go have been born in Sturton. Specifically, her supposed paternal grandparents Francis Jessop and Frances White and also Frances' parentsWikitree does have sources within it. Those sources are conflicting, or silent on the issue at hand.The Wikitree pedigree shows Elizabeth Jessup having ancestors in Sturton, which is a plausible pedigree for a wife of John Rhodes of Sturton. The Burke's does show her father as Simon Jessup.
present you have no basis at all for the connection of Simon Jessop to his supposed parents Francis Jessop and Frances White - unless you should happen to be lucky enough to find such support in the sources given for his parents, which i doubt you will.However...look at the sources for Elizabeth Jessop's parents Simon Jessop and Mary White. For Simon there are NO sources at all, and for Mary only BEB is mentioned - and BEB (sub Rodes of Barlborough) doesn't mention Mary at all, only Simon. So, at
You have to check every single link in the pedigree. You should never accept a Wikitree tree at face value without checking it thoroughly.So, just because the pedigree SAYS there are connections between Elizabeth Jessop (whose husband John Rodes lived in Sturton) and some other individuals who were born in Sturton does NOT mean there actually IS a connection between these individuals.
pedigree.Here are the two books cited as sources for Francis Jessop in the Wikitree pedigree:
https://archive.org/details/edwardjessupofwe00jesu https://archive.org/details/jessupfamilycont00jess
Francis Jessop is discussed on pp. 22ff of the 1st book and on pp. 20ff of the 2nd book. You really don't need to read the 2nd book, as it simply copies the same information verbatim from the 1st book - and cites the 1st book!
The bottom line is that neither book mentions Simon Jessop as a son of Francis Jessop by either of his two wives. So you'll have to look elsewhere for support for the connection of Simon Jessop to Francis Jessop that is stated by the Wikitree
Thanks for your research on this. I didn't say I trusted the Wikitree pedigree. I just said it looked plausible. Anyways, the Burke's does show John Rhodes of Sturton's wife as Elizabeth Jessup. Either way, I really doubt she was John Rhodes ofWinegreaves' wife. The primary sources cited in the Maulsby family book just make his wife Elizabeth without mentioning any surname.
On Wednesday, October 6, 2021 at 4:09:56 PM UTC-7, Paulo Ricardo Canedo wrote:Jason are supposed to have been daughters of a Simon from Nottinghamshire and Elizabeth Jessup actually has a pedigree at Wikitree: https://www.wikitree.com/genealogy/Jessop-Family-Tree-10.
A quarta-feira, 6 de outubro de 2021 à(s) 23:33:15 UTC+1, jhigg...@yahoo.com escreveu:
On Wednesday, October 6, 2021 at 12:08:06 PM UTC-7, John Higgins wrote:
On Wednesday, October 6, 2021 at 9:41:57 AM UTC-7, Paulo Ricardo Canedo wrote:
A quarta-feira, 6 de outubro de 2021 à(s) 13:39:11 UTC+1, wjhons...@gmail.com escreveu:
On Tuesday, October 5, 2021 at 4:54:21 PM UTC-7, Paulo Ricardo Canedo wrote:
A terça-feira, 5 de outubro de 2021 à(s) 19:28:23 UTC+1, jhigg...@yahoo.com escreveu:
On Monday, October 4, 2021 at 4:21:10 PM UTC-7, Paulo Ricardo Canedo wrote:
.
The only question I want to reevaluate is whether the wife of John Rhodes of Sturton was Elizabeth Jessup or Elizabeth Jason. I am inclined to think it was Jessup and Jason was just a misreading. Both Elizabeth Jessup and Elizabeth
s Extinct Baronetages, Hunter’s Familiae Minorium Gentium). The Wikitree pedigree seems to be a clumsy attempt to combine two different families: that of John Rhodes of Winegreaves and that of John Rodes of Sturton. And the pedigree is very unevenlyOh, so you want to start beating this dead horse again…. There are a number of reasons why your latest conclusion doesn’t hold water – at least if you choose to cite the Wikitree pedigree as the basis for your conclusion.
The Wikitree pedigree explicitly says that Elizabeth Jessup married John Rhodes of Winegreaves, not John Rodes of Sturton. I think we’ve pretty clearly established that these two men are not the same person.
Also, the Wikitree pedigree assigns the supposed John Rodes of Sturton (if he is the same man as John Rhodes of Winegreaves) far more children than are given in other sources we’ve previously discussed (e.g., Burke’s Commoners, Burke
Alexander White and Eleanor Smith are all said to have been born in Sturton (although you should check the sources for these individuals).Wikitree is managed, and curated, by people who sometimes have absolutely no clue what they are doing.If you really want to pursue the issue of whether the wife of John Rodes of Sturton was Elizabeth Jessup or Elizabeth Jason, this faulty Wikitree pedigree is definitely not the place to start (if there is indeed any place to start…).I know Wikitree has Elizabeth Jessup as wife of John Rhodes of Winegreaves. However, the Burke's shows her as the wife of John Rhodes of Sturton and her Wikitree pedigree includes people born in Sturton.
Wikitree is not a reliable source, and should never be cited as a source of any individual fact whatsoever.
Yes, the Wikitree pedigree does show some of the purported ancestors of Elizabeth Jessop [not Jessup] go have been born in Sturton. Specifically, her supposed paternal grandparents Francis Jessop and Frances White and also Frances' parentsWikitree does have sources within it. Those sources are conflicting, or silent on the issue at hand.The Wikitree pedigree shows Elizabeth Jessup having ancestors in Sturton, which is a plausible pedigree for a wife of John Rhodes of Sturton. The Burke's does show her father as Simon Jessup.
at present you have no basis at all for the connection of Simon Jessop to his supposed parents Francis Jessop and Frances White - unless you should happen to be lucky enough to find such support in the sources given for his parents, which i doubt youHowever...look at the sources for Elizabeth Jessop's parents Simon Jessop and Mary White. For Simon there are NO sources at all, and for Mary only BEB is mentioned - and BEB (sub Rodes of Barlborough) doesn't mention Mary at all, only Simon. So,
individuals. You have to check every single link in the pedigree. You should never accept a Wikitree tree at face value without checking it thoroughly.So, just because the pedigree SAYS there are connections between Elizabeth Jessop (whose husband John Rodes lived in Sturton) and some other individuals who were born in Sturton does NOT mean there actually IS a connection between these
pedigree.Here are the two books cited as sources for Francis Jessop in the Wikitree pedigree:
https://archive.org/details/edwardjessupofwe00jesu https://archive.org/details/jessupfamilycont00jess
Francis Jessop is discussed on pp. 22ff of the 1st book and on pp. 20ff of the 2nd book. You really don't need to read the 2nd book, as it simply copies the same information verbatim from the 1st book - and cites the 1st book!
The bottom line is that neither book mentions Simon Jessop as a son of Francis Jessop by either of his two wives. So you'll have to look elsewhere for support for the connection of Simon Jessop to Francis Jessop that is stated by the Wikitree
Winegreaves' wife. The primary sources cited in the Maulsby family book just make his wife Elizabeth without mentioning any surname.Thanks for your research on this. I didn't say I trusted the Wikitree pedigree. I just said it looked plausible. Anyways, the Burke's does show John Rhodes of Sturton's wife as Elizabeth Jessup. Either way, I really doubt she was John Rhodes of
The Wikitree pedigree is “plausible” to the extent that (1) it identifies Elizabeth Jessop as the daughter of Simon Jessop; (2) it identifies Elizabeth Jessop as the wife of “a” John Rodes (although it equates and combines John Rodes of Sturtonwith John Rhoads of Winegreaves); and (3) it assigns the 4 known children of John Rodes of Sturton to Elizabeth Jessop (although it also assigns the various children of John Rhoads of Winegreaves to her). Beyond that, the pedigree is either unsupported (
In the three points where the pedigree is “plausible”, it does agree with Burke’s Commoners and Burke’s Extinct Baronetages – not that those two sources are paragons of accuracy. I believe the various publications on the Rodes family probablyrelied on BC and/or BEB if they identified Elizabeth Jessup as the wife of John Rodes.
Having probably exhausted the analysis of the Elizabeth Jessop alternative for the wife of John Rodes of Sturton, perhaps we should go back and consider more fully the Elizabeth Jason alternative as the wife of John Rodes.identifies the wife of John Rodes as Elizabeth, the daughter of Simon Jason of Edial (sic), Staffordshire. https://www.google.com/books/edition/Familiae_minorum_gentium/Sm1KAAAAYAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&bsq=jason
In the very first post in this thread (almost two weeks ago!), you noted that Genealogics identifies the wife of John Rodes as Elisabeth Jason. https://genealogics.org/getperson.php?personID=I00377474&tree=LEO
You also cited an article in the Virginia Magazine of History and Biography which identifies Elizabeth as the daughter of Simon Jason of Etial, Staffordshire.
https://www.jstor.org/stable/4242206?seq=1#metadata_info_tab_contents
This article is also available on Google Books. https://www.google.com/books/edition/The_Virginia_Magazine_of_History_and_Bio/fWqgwNUF4TYC?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=simon+jason+edial&pg=PA419&printsec=frontcover
Gnealogics cited RD500 as its source for Elizabeth Jason, and that identification is carried forward to RD900, the latest version of the RD series. All the RD books, as mentioned before, cite Hunter's Familiae Minorum Gentium, vol. 2, pp. 585-6, which
I’ve now found an additional source – independent from all the works on the Rodes family – which identifies Elizabeth as the daughter of Simon Jasson [sic] of Edyall, Staffordshire, and the wife of John Rodes, the son of Sir Francis Rodes, Bart.,of “Barleborough”. This is the Visitations of Staffordshire taken in 1614 and 1663/63 (H. Sydney Grazebrook, ed.), p. 188. https://www.google.com/books/edition/The_Heraldic_Visitations_of_Staffordshir/gfwcAAAAYAAJ?q=&gbpv=1#f=false
(BTW according to the GENUKI Gazetteer, the standard form of the name of that locality is now Edial)granddaughter named Elizabeth Rodes is, for me, pretty conclusive evidence that Elizabeth Jason, not Elizabeth Jessup, was the wife of John Rodes of Sturton.
At the bottom of the first page of the Jasson pedigree, there is a fairly long note on Simon Jasson. It has a summary of his will, with a list of the people who are mentioned in the will – including his granddaughter Elizabeth Rodes This mention of a
What do you think?
A quinta-feira, 7 de outubro de 2021 à(s) 03:43:48 UTC+1, jhigg...@yahoo.com escreveu:Jason are supposed to have been daughters of a Simon from Nottinghamshire and Elizabeth Jessup actually has a pedigree at Wikitree: https://www.wikitree.com/genealogy/Jessop-Family-Tree-10.
On Wednesday, October 6, 2021 at 4:09:56 PM UTC-7, Paulo Ricardo Canedo wrote:
A quarta-feira, 6 de outubro de 2021 à(s) 23:33:15 UTC+1, jhigg...@yahoo.com escreveu:
On Wednesday, October 6, 2021 at 12:08:06 PM UTC-7, John Higgins wrote:
On Wednesday, October 6, 2021 at 9:41:57 AM UTC-7, Paulo Ricardo Canedo wrote:
A quarta-feira, 6 de outubro de 2021 à(s) 13:39:11 UTC+1, wjhons...@gmail.com escreveu:
On Tuesday, October 5, 2021 at 4:54:21 PM UTC-7, Paulo Ricardo Canedo wrote:
A terça-feira, 5 de outubro de 2021 à(s) 19:28:23 UTC+1, jhigg...@yahoo.com escreveu:
On Monday, October 4, 2021 at 4:21:10 PM UTC-7, Paulo Ricardo Canedo wrote:
.
The only question I want to reevaluate is whether the wife of John Rhodes of Sturton was Elizabeth Jessup or Elizabeth Jason. I am inclined to think it was Jessup and Jason was just a misreading. Both Elizabeth Jessup and Elizabeth
Burke’s Extinct Baronetages, Hunter’s Familiae Minorium Gentium). The Wikitree pedigree seems to be a clumsy attempt to combine two different families: that of John Rhodes of Winegreaves and that of John Rodes of Sturton. And the pedigree is veryOh, so you want to start beating this dead horse again…. There are a number of reasons why your latest conclusion doesn’t hold water – at least if you choose to cite the Wikitree pedigree as the basis for your conclusion.
The Wikitree pedigree explicitly says that Elizabeth Jessup married John Rhodes of Winegreaves, not John Rodes of Sturton. I think we’ve pretty clearly established that these two men are not the same person.
Also, the Wikitree pedigree assigns the supposed John Rodes of Sturton (if he is the same man as John Rhodes of Winegreaves) far more children than are given in other sources we’ve previously discussed (e.g., Burke’s Commoners,
Alexander White and Eleanor Smith are all said to have been born in Sturton (although you should check the sources for these individuals).Wikitree is managed, and curated, by people who sometimes have absolutely no clue what they are doing.If you really want to pursue the issue of whether the wife of John Rodes of Sturton was Elizabeth Jessup or Elizabeth Jason, this faulty Wikitree pedigree is definitely not the place to start (if there is indeed any place to start…).I know Wikitree has Elizabeth Jessup as wife of John Rhodes of Winegreaves. However, the Burke's shows her as the wife of John Rhodes of Sturton and her Wikitree pedigree includes people born in Sturton.
Wikitree is not a reliable source, and should never be cited as a source of any individual fact whatsoever.
Yes, the Wikitree pedigree does show some of the purported ancestors of Elizabeth Jessop [not Jessup] go have been born in Sturton. Specifically, her supposed paternal grandparents Francis Jessop and Frances White and also Frances' parentsWikitree does have sources within it. Those sources are conflicting, or silent on the issue at hand.The Wikitree pedigree shows Elizabeth Jessup having ancestors in Sturton, which is a plausible pedigree for a wife of John Rhodes of Sturton. The Burke's does show her father as Simon Jessup.
at present you have no basis at all for the connection of Simon Jessop to his supposed parents Francis Jessop and Frances White - unless you should happen to be lucky enough to find such support in the sources given for his parents, which i doubt youHowever...look at the sources for Elizabeth Jessop's parents Simon Jessop and Mary White. For Simon there are NO sources at all, and for Mary only BEB is mentioned - and BEB (sub Rodes of Barlborough) doesn't mention Mary at all, only Simon. So,
individuals. You have to check every single link in the pedigree. You should never accept a Wikitree tree at face value without checking it thoroughly.So, just because the pedigree SAYS there are connections between Elizabeth Jessop (whose husband John Rodes lived in Sturton) and some other individuals who were born in Sturton does NOT mean there actually IS a connection between these
pedigree.Here are the two books cited as sources for Francis Jessop in the Wikitree pedigree:
https://archive.org/details/edwardjessupofwe00jesu https://archive.org/details/jessupfamilycont00jess
Francis Jessop is discussed on pp. 22ff of the 1st book and on pp. 20ff of the 2nd book. You really don't need to read the 2nd book, as it simply copies the same information verbatim from the 1st book - and cites the 1st book!
The bottom line is that neither book mentions Simon Jessop as a son of Francis Jessop by either of his two wives. So you'll have to look elsewhere for support for the connection of Simon Jessop to Francis Jessop that is stated by the Wikitree
Winegreaves' wife. The primary sources cited in the Maulsby family book just make his wife Elizabeth without mentioning any surname.Thanks for your research on this. I didn't say I trusted the Wikitree pedigree. I just said it looked plausible. Anyways, the Burke's does show John Rhodes of Sturton's wife as Elizabeth Jessup. Either way, I really doubt she was John Rhodes of
Sturton with John Rhoads of Winegreaves); and (3) it assigns the 4 known children of John Rodes of Sturton to Elizabeth Jessop (although it also assigns the various children of John Rhoads of Winegreaves to her). Beyond that, the pedigree is eitherThe Wikitree pedigree is “plausible” to the extent that (1) it identifies Elizabeth Jessop as the daughter of Simon Jessop; (2) it identifies Elizabeth Jessop as the wife of “a” John Rodes (although it equates and combines John Rodes of
probably relied on BC and/or BEB if they identified Elizabeth Jessup as the wife of John Rodes.In the three points where the pedigree is “plausible”, it does agree with Burke’s Commoners and Burke’s Extinct Baronetages – not that those two sources are paragons of accuracy. I believe the various publications on the Rodes family
which identifies the wife of John Rodes as Elizabeth, the daughter of Simon Jason of Edial (sic), Staffordshire. https://www.google.com/books/edition/Familiae_minorum_gentium/Sm1KAAAAYAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&bsq=jasonHaving probably exhausted the analysis of the Elizabeth Jessop alternative for the wife of John Rodes of Sturton, perhaps we should go back and consider more fully the Elizabeth Jason alternative as the wife of John Rodes.
In the very first post in this thread (almost two weeks ago!), you noted that Genealogics identifies the wife of John Rodes as Elisabeth Jason. https://genealogics.org/getperson.php?personID=I00377474&tree=LEO
You also cited an article in the Virginia Magazine of History and Biography which identifies Elizabeth as the daughter of Simon Jason of Etial, Staffordshire.
https://www.jstor.org/stable/4242206?seq=1#metadata_info_tab_contents
This article is also available on Google Books. https://www.google.com/books/edition/The_Virginia_Magazine_of_History_and_Bio/fWqgwNUF4TYC?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=simon+jason+edial&pg=PA419&printsec=frontcover
Gnealogics cited RD500 as its source for Elizabeth Jason, and that identification is carried forward to RD900, the latest version of the RD series. All the RD books, as mentioned before, cite Hunter's Familiae Minorum Gentium, vol. 2, pp. 585-6,
, of “Barleborough”. This is the Visitations of Staffordshire taken in 1614 and 1663/63 (H. Sydney Grazebrook, ed.), p. 188. https://www.google.com/books/edition/The_Heraldic_Visitations_of_Staffordshir/gfwcAAAAYAAJ?q=&gbpv=1#f=falseI’ve now found an additional source – independent from all the works on the Rodes family – which identifies Elizabeth as the daughter of Simon Jasson [sic] of Edyall, Staffordshire, and the wife of John Rodes, the son of Sir Francis Rodes, Bart.
a granddaughter named Elizabeth Rodes is, for me, pretty conclusive evidence that Elizabeth Jason, not Elizabeth Jessup, was the wife of John Rodes of Sturton.(BTW according to the GENUKI Gazetteer, the standard form of the name of that locality is now Edial)
At the bottom of the first page of the Jasson pedigree, there is a fairly long note on Simon Jasson. It has a summary of his will, with a list of the people who are mentioned in the will – including his granddaughter Elizabeth Rodes This mention of
What do you think?Thanks for this. I agree with you. I should note again I doubt Elizabeth Jessup was wife of John Rhodes of Winegreaves. As I said, thr primary sources in the Maulsby family book just make his wife an Elizabeth.
On Thursday, October 7, 2021 at 2:51:30 AM UTC-7, Paulo Ricardo Canedo wrote:Jason are supposed to have been daughters of a Simon from Nottinghamshire and Elizabeth Jessup actually has a pedigree at Wikitree: https://www.wikitree.com/genealogy/Jessop-Family-Tree-10.
A quinta-feira, 7 de outubro de 2021 à(s) 03:43:48 UTC+1, jhigg...@yahoo.com escreveu:
On Wednesday, October 6, 2021 at 4:09:56 PM UTC-7, Paulo Ricardo Canedo wrote:
A quarta-feira, 6 de outubro de 2021 à(s) 23:33:15 UTC+1, jhigg...@yahoo.com escreveu:
On Wednesday, October 6, 2021 at 12:08:06 PM UTC-7, John Higgins wrote:
On Wednesday, October 6, 2021 at 9:41:57 AM UTC-7, Paulo Ricardo Canedo wrote:
A quarta-feira, 6 de outubro de 2021 à(s) 13:39:11 UTC+1, wjhons...@gmail.com escreveu:
On Tuesday, October 5, 2021 at 4:54:21 PM UTC-7, Paulo Ricardo Canedo wrote:
A terça-feira, 5 de outubro de 2021 à(s) 19:28:23 UTC+1, jhigg...@yahoo.com escreveu:
On Monday, October 4, 2021 at 4:21:10 PM UTC-7, Paulo Ricardo Canedo wrote:
.
The only question I want to reevaluate is whether the wife of John Rhodes of Sturton was Elizabeth Jessup or Elizabeth Jason. I am inclined to think it was Jessup and Jason was just a misreading. Both Elizabeth Jessup and Elizabeth
Burke’s Extinct Baronetages, Hunter’s Familiae Minorium Gentium). The Wikitree pedigree seems to be a clumsy attempt to combine two different families: that of John Rhodes of Winegreaves and that of John Rodes of Sturton. And the pedigree is veryOh, so you want to start beating this dead horse again…. There are a number of reasons why your latest conclusion doesn’t hold water – at least if you choose to cite the Wikitree pedigree as the basis for your conclusion.
The Wikitree pedigree explicitly says that Elizabeth Jessup married John Rhodes of Winegreaves, not John Rodes of Sturton. I think we’ve pretty clearly established that these two men are not the same person.
Also, the Wikitree pedigree assigns the supposed John Rodes of Sturton (if he is the same man as John Rhodes of Winegreaves) far more children than are given in other sources we’ve previously discussed (e.g., Burke’s Commoners,
If you really want to pursue the issue of whether the wife of John Rodes of Sturton was Elizabeth Jessup or Elizabeth Jason, this faulty Wikitree pedigree is definitely not the place to start (if there is indeed any place to start…).
Alexander White and Eleanor Smith are all said to have been born in Sturton (although you should check the sources for these individuals).I know Wikitree has Elizabeth Jessup as wife of John Rhodes of Winegreaves. However, the Burke's shows her as the wife of John Rhodes of Sturton and her Wikitree pedigree includes people born in Sturton.Wikitree is managed, and curated, by people who sometimes have absolutely no clue what they are doing.
Wikitree is not a reliable source, and should never be cited as a source of any individual fact whatsoever.
Yes, the Wikitree pedigree does show some of the purported ancestors of Elizabeth Jessop [not Jessup] go have been born in Sturton. Specifically, her supposed paternal grandparents Francis Jessop and Frances White and also Frances' parentsWikitree does have sources within it. Those sources are conflicting, or silent on the issue at hand.The Wikitree pedigree shows Elizabeth Jessup having ancestors in Sturton, which is a plausible pedigree for a wife of John Rhodes of Sturton. The Burke's does show her father as Simon Jessup.
So, at present you have no basis at all for the connection of Simon Jessop to his supposed parents Francis Jessop and Frances White - unless you should happen to be lucky enough to find such support in the sources given for his parents, which i doubt youHowever...look at the sources for Elizabeth Jessop's parents Simon Jessop and Mary White. For Simon there are NO sources at all, and for Mary only BEB is mentioned - and BEB (sub Rodes of Barlborough) doesn't mention Mary at all, only Simon.
individuals. You have to check every single link in the pedigree. You should never accept a Wikitree tree at face value without checking it thoroughly.So, just because the pedigree SAYS there are connections between Elizabeth Jessop (whose husband John Rodes lived in Sturton) and some other individuals who were born in Sturton does NOT mean there actually IS a connection between these
pedigree.Here are the two books cited as sources for Francis Jessop in the Wikitree pedigree:
https://archive.org/details/edwardjessupofwe00jesu https://archive.org/details/jessupfamilycont00jess
Francis Jessop is discussed on pp. 22ff of the 1st book and on pp. 20ff of the 2nd book. You really don't need to read the 2nd book, as it simply copies the same information verbatim from the 1st book - and cites the 1st book!
The bottom line is that neither book mentions Simon Jessop as a son of Francis Jessop by either of his two wives. So you'll have to look elsewhere for support for the connection of Simon Jessop to Francis Jessop that is stated by the Wikitree
Winegreaves' wife. The primary sources cited in the Maulsby family book just make his wife Elizabeth without mentioning any surname.Thanks for your research on this. I didn't say I trusted the Wikitree pedigree. I just said it looked plausible. Anyways, the Burke's does show John Rhodes of Sturton's wife as Elizabeth Jessup. Either way, I really doubt she was John Rhodes of
Sturton with John Rhoads of Winegreaves); and (3) it assigns the 4 known children of John Rodes of Sturton to Elizabeth Jessop (although it also assigns the various children of John Rhoads of Winegreaves to her). Beyond that, the pedigree is eitherThe Wikitree pedigree is “plausible” to the extent that (1) it identifies Elizabeth Jessop as the daughter of Simon Jessop; (2) it identifies Elizabeth Jessop as the wife of “a” John Rodes (although it equates and combines John Rodes of
probably relied on BC and/or BEB if they identified Elizabeth Jessup as the wife of John Rodes.In the three points where the pedigree is “plausible”, it does agree with Burke’s Commoners and Burke’s Extinct Baronetages – not that those two sources are paragons of accuracy. I believe the various publications on the Rodes family
which identifies the wife of John Rodes as Elizabeth, the daughter of Simon Jason of Edial (sic), Staffordshire. https://www.google.com/books/edition/Familiae_minorum_gentium/Sm1KAAAAYAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&bsq=jasonHaving probably exhausted the analysis of the Elizabeth Jessop alternative for the wife of John Rodes of Sturton, perhaps we should go back and consider more fully the Elizabeth Jason alternative as the wife of John Rodes.
In the very first post in this thread (almost two weeks ago!), you noted that Genealogics identifies the wife of John Rodes as Elisabeth Jason. https://genealogics.org/getperson.php?personID=I00377474&tree=LEO
You also cited an article in the Virginia Magazine of History and Biography which identifies Elizabeth as the daughter of Simon Jason of Etial, Staffordshire.
https://www.jstor.org/stable/4242206?seq=1#metadata_info_tab_contents This article is also available on Google Books. https://www.google.com/books/edition/The_Virginia_Magazine_of_History_and_Bio/fWqgwNUF4TYC?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=simon+jason+edial&pg=PA419&printsec=frontcover
Gnealogics cited RD500 as its source for Elizabeth Jason, and that identification is carried forward to RD900, the latest version of the RD series. All the RD books, as mentioned before, cite Hunter's Familiae Minorum Gentium, vol. 2, pp. 585-6,
Bart., of “Barleborough”. This is the Visitations of Staffordshire taken in 1614 and 1663/63 (H. Sydney Grazebrook, ed.), p. 188. https://www.google.com/books/edition/The_Heraldic_Visitations_of_Staffordshir/gfwcAAAAYAAJ?q=&gbpv=1#f=falseI’ve now found an additional source – independent from all the works on the Rodes family – which identifies Elizabeth as the daughter of Simon Jasson [sic] of Edyall, Staffordshire, and the wife of John Rodes, the son of Sir Francis Rodes,
of a granddaughter named Elizabeth Rodes is, for me, pretty conclusive evidence that Elizabeth Jason, not Elizabeth Jessup, was the wife of John Rodes of Sturton.(BTW according to the GENUKI Gazetteer, the standard form of the name of that locality is now Edial)
At the bottom of the first page of the Jasson pedigree, there is a fairly long note on Simon Jasson. It has a summary of his will, with a list of the people who are mentioned in the will – including his granddaughter Elizabeth Rodes This mention
either solicited from or contributed by a family, probably without any supporting documentation. So we really have no evidence that Elizabeth Jessop and her father Simon actually existed. It seems likely that some [Rodes?] family member simplyI agree with you that there is no reason to conclude that Elizabeth, daughter of Simon Jessop was the wife of John Rhoads of Winegreaves - yet another flaw in the Wikitree pedigree of Elizabeth Jessop.What do you think?Thanks for this. I agree with you. I should note again I doubt Elizabeth Jessup was wife of John Rhodes of Winegreaves. As I said, thr primary sources in the Maulsby family book just make his wife an Elizabeth.
AKAIK the earliest mention we have of Elizabeth, daughter of Simon Jessop is in the early Burke's publications - Burke's Commoners and Burke's Extinct Baronetages. These two publications almost certainly came from the same source - a pedigree that was
I'm glad that this long thread has reached a satisfactory conclusion regarding the wife of John Rodes of Sturton - even if the identity of the wife of John Rhoads of Winegreaves is still unresolved.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 292 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 196:27:24 |
| Calls: | 6,617 |
| Calls today: | 1 |
| Files: | 12,168 |
| Messages: | 5,315,700 |