RootsChat.Com

Hi,

I wonder if anybody else has come across an inconsistency in the pedigree of Maddison of Unthank Hall.

In question is Peter Maddison heir of Rowland Maddison and older brother to Lionel Maddison of Newcastle.

There is a Peter Maddyson noted of Unthank Hall in 1530 having arms granted or confirmed "Surtees Society, Vol. 41 entitled "Tonge's Visitation of the Northern  Counties 1530" (1) p xvii "Elizabethan Roll of Northern Heraldry: Peter Maddyson of Unthank, gentleman: argent, a chevron engrailed (sic) between three martlets sable"."

Another arms is noted probably 1575 as it seems to correspond to a certified tree subscription of Peter Madison, Awkland in 1575 "quarterlyfirst and forth, ar. on a chev. betw, three martlets sa. as many mullets or, for Marley; second, ar. three bars gu. within a bordeure sa.; third sa. A fleur-de-lis ar. - Crest a dexter hand ppr. sleeve erm nois, grasping a battle axe sa."

The certification is interesting as it looks to be the submitted family tree of Peter's family line, but while it notes son Ralph, I cannot see how this would be possible as Ralph would not have been alive at this time placing the "certified submission" into doubt or likely it did not originally include as much information as later shown. This is supported by the inquisition post morten of Peter Maddison of Unthanke naming sole heir Ralph who was aged 35 in 1622, making Ralph's birth circa 1587, well and truely after 1575 when the apparent tree was submitted. So I doubt the submission of Peter Maddison included his children and grandchildren which must have been added at a later date.

According to the 1530 visitation Peter Maddyson of Unthank noted a gentleman would have been an adult or close making a birth circa 1510 likely. It does not seem as plausible this Peter was the father of Ralph born circa 1587 at the age of 77+.

From this it would seem to have been two successive Peter Maddisons of Unthank Hall then it passed to Ralph.

Other people may have come across this. I am looking into the Maddison's of Hamsterley being related to the Peters of Unthank Hall as there is a close Blackett family tie to both Peter's daughter Elianor and two Maddison's of Hamsterley. Thomas and Peter (probably brothers) who each married a Blackett.

Thanks in advance for any help.

Update and Answer: further research has shown the 1530 visitation to have been edited at a later date and both Peter’s are the same with arms issues circa 1575.

Quote from: LordVader on Saturday 22 October 22 12:47 BST (UK)

If one claims "horse pucky", you should be able to back it up! This is exactly the issue I have highlighed out there in the community, lots of talk and no follow up.

No - if you come on to a forum and start making silly and insulting  generalisations about a whole continent of people, you have to expect some sort of reaction and ridicule.

As for asking Erato "How often do you research and contribute to the global community?", how about 17 years and over 6,000 contributions to this forum as against your 15 posts?

I agree a post like that will cause some reaction, and yes it is a generalisation, but it is not a blind generalisation. This is something that (evidence of this thread) has not only just been observed by myself and is a real problem to the world of family history. It is a issue that was bound to happen as many in the US cannot find their pathway back to Europe and the common reaction is 'if you cannot make it, fake it' which is why you will see countless forums arguing about gateway ancestors not once, but over again because the next oblivious person will come to the table with the same disproven gateway theory simply because they have copied it from another without checking which is why I stated generally people in the US take things at 'face value' as something that I have observed.

Also nobody said it was science, this is something that I have logged over my years of researching my own and others family trees. I mean everybody logs their research... right?

As I understood it was my cultural trait not taking criticism well, after all I have had many American's tell me my culture cannot take criticism and from experience American's really do not hold back on their opinion. Now when I call it like it is (like they do), it is they who cannot take criticism.

Least we forget the original post was a jab at what a person has observed about people from a certain part of the world making interesting claims.

I am from New Zealand, so go ahead let's have some criticism, what do we Kiwis do in the world of family history that annoys the rest of the world.

Hats off 6000 posts is a lot, I guess with a number like that you can rest on your laurels as posting that number and only using this forum apparently makes one a great researcher. I assume you can guarantee to me that all 6000 posts are directly helping people.

"just a well researched observation of a trait that has come out of that part of the world ....."

One seldom encounters full strength, industrial grade horse pucky of this quality and quantity but, here it is, folks.

Why the aggression and why follow this post if it stirs you up?

Lets hash this out, what do you observe out there in the researching world? What logical counter do you have to my "well researched observation" rather than trying to just throw blunt statements from the comfort of your home.

How often do you research and contribute to the global community? Do you do enough research that you can form a constructive counter opinion based on your experiences?

If one claims "horse pucky", you should be able to back it up! This is exactly the issue I have highlighed out there in the community, lots of talk and no follow up.

This is a very interesting read even stumbling upon it many years later. I think the original post touched upon a very credible issue that unfortunately still plagues the internet with false ancestries.

I have noticed that people in the US love themselves quite a lot with their bigger than life personalities, but many seem to have separation anxiety issues from Europe and strive to pursue their connection to Englands elite, because it is another thing to brag about.

This separation issue to many either by intent or by being lazy in their research does lead to many false ancestries littering the internet.

I note how one commenter mentions that many were persecuted by religion and were second sons, yet this glosses over the forgotten history that many thousands of these "immigrants" and "founding fathers" were common criminals. Before Australia where did the British send their criminals? It is hard to imagine to people that the original convict colony was the USA. As a result many who cannot trace their lineage were either from poorer common families or were convicts of which documents to help identify them are few and far in between to connect to families in Europe. The chances are if your immigrant ancestor was from a noble family, there should be evidence to prove just that. What the US offered was a new life and a new narrative.

I have battled over the years with the spam of false ancestry many of which is unfortunately published in books all over the US. These books were written about 100 years ago by frauds and con-men and I do need to say that many in the US are willing to take information at face value without stopping to think and question 'is that is correct?'. When an issue is address and a person is educated in line with the evidence (or lack thereof) another will come out with the same disproven theory and start publishing their false ancestry all over the internet starting the education process again.

Today with celebrities we also battle the tabloids who with (and I stress) the bare minimum of research will 'stumble' upon some disproven false ancestry to generate a story and suddenly it is published all around the world. Of course, these people will then start citing because it's in the media so it must be true and the people of the US have a habit of circulating unsupported information.

For instance take the recent Kim Kardashian claim that she is related to Conor McGregor. First to note was that this story came from a Scottish tabloid clearly target towards a US audience as click-bait. The key to this claim was a Thomas MackGehee in the US was the son of Patrick macGregor, Cheiftain of the Children of the Mist. This claim extends from the "genealogist" Charles Henry Browning (now considered a fraud) who first made the claim was based on family letters. Problem was that the letters Browning cited never mention any MackGehee/macGregor connection and in fact were written in the 1750s when the claim centres around a son of Patrick macGregor who would have been born in the early 1600s. Disproven by evidence, logic, Clan Gregor and even YDNA, this story preys upon the US people's gullibility and to this day the Scottish tabloid author will not disclose his research notes to support his published claim. So no, Kim Kardashian is not a proven macGregor, nor is there any proven connection to Conor McGregor whose ancestry is not know to actually connect to the Chieftain's paternal lineage keeping in mind not all of the same Clan surname shared the same paternal lineage as evident of the Clan Gregor YDNA project.

Along the line of claiming descent from virgins, there are those out there who will believe that Kim Kardashian could claim her rightful place as Queen of Scotland a premise that is not only stupid beyond belief, but even if her connection was true, there are many hundreds if not millions of people who would be first in line well before her, essentially a good portion of Europe.