Update and new information:
--BOGUS SOURCE FROM ES WHITE?
"Brit. Mus. Add. MSS., 14, 311, fo. 32"
This source is supposed to verify the existence of William, son of Thomas.
Is "Brit. Mus." supposed to be short for "British Museum"? Does the reference make sense to anyone else?
Otherwise I will assume it is bogus.
--BAPTISMAL RECORD FOR OUR WILLIAM? OR HIS COUSIN WILLIAM?
Big breakthrough here--I found a reference to a 20 April 1571 baptismal record for a William, son of Sir Thomas—in the wrong parish, but it’s something! But so far I've found no records of this William getting married, being knighted, or having kids. One article says it may be a typo, as the parish was closer to Sir Thomas's half-brother Charles, who did have a well-documented son William--apparently the one ES White attempted to pass off as the other one. William, son of Charles, is missing his baptismal record and was born around that time and place.
Here is the baptism info. as cited in the intro to “The Model of Poesy” by William Scott, intro by Gavin Alexander, Senior Lecturer, University of Cambridge:
20 April 1571, Boughton Aluph Parish, Ashford, Kent, William, son of Sir Thomas Scott.
(No luck finding it on FamilySearch, however.)
That Brabourne reference ES White mentioned, of a Sir William who buried a young son William at Brabourne—I believe she fudged the record pertaining to the other William, the son of Thomas's half-brother Charles and his wife Jane Wyatt. This William did not have any of these kids, did not marry a Mary Howard, and was not knighted. He married Barbara Tomlyn, and his kids were William (baptised in Stanford in 1612, buried at Brabourne on 3 February 1614) and Kathryn (baptised on 10 November 1615 in Brabourne, rest unknown).
See pp. 19-28 for bio and other information for this other William Scott:
http://assets.cambridge.org/97805211/96116/frontmatter/978052119611...
I will work up the info sometime in the next week and add him to his proper family--he is not here in Geni yet. The article at link references many wills and legal records that put him in the right family.
--MARRIAGE FOR WILLIAM AND MARY HOWARD? EXTREMELY DOUBTFUL
For the marriage of William, alleged son of Thomas, to "Mary Howard," online trees cite either Richardson, ES White, or Frederick Lewis Weis (speaking of bad genealogy)!
This is my first encounter with Ms. White, but not my first with the dreaded Mr. Weis.
--THIS MARY HOWARD PROBABLY DOES NOT EXIST
I have found no record of Mary Howard existing as a daughter of either Howard couple or as a wife of any William Scott.
**Need to at least cut her from her parents. Not sure if she ought to be eliminated or left attached to William with a note that her parents are unknown and her existence questionable. Might help to leave her profile to explain that she's definitely not one of "those" Howards and there is still no known record of her alleged marriage to William or any children of theirs. Otherwise she may just be added again.
--THIS WILLIAM HAS ONLY A QUESTIONABLE BAPTISMAL RECORD
He may be one of the six "unnamed children" of Thomas Scott and Elizabeth Baker.
The baptismal record is all we have, and again, it could refer to the son of Thomas’s half-brother Charles, as it's in Boughton Aluph, much closer to Charles's home than Thomas's home of Scot Hall.
"The baptism of a William Scott on 20 April 1571 is, however, recorded in the parish register (and the Bishop’s transcript of the same) for Boughton Aluph parish, but this child is described as a son of Sir Thomas Scott (Charles Scott’s older brother). There is no other record of a son of Sir Thomas Scott named William, and that this William should be baptised in Boughton Aluph is perplexing, since it is close to where Charles Scott was living at this time (it is the parish between Challock and Godmersham) and rather further from Scot’s Hall, where Sir Thomas lived. The William Scott born at Boughton Aluph is more likely to be the son of the as yet itinerant Charles Scott, living in that area, than of Sir Thomas Scott, firmly ensconced in Scot’s Hall several parishes away. But that would require a slip of the pen from the parson."
see pp 19-20
http://assets.cambridge.org/97805211/96116/frontmatter/978052119611...
I have found no record of any knighthood, marriage, or children of this man (William the son of Thomas).
**I think he should be left with the baptismal record cited above and a caveat that it may be the wrong record.
**The death and burial records should be removed; they are incorrect.
He is not the William who was buried in Brabourne—that’s his cousin.
Rattlesden, Suffolk is the home of the other Scott line that has been incorrectly merged with this one in so many trees. Many trees show “Sir William and Lady Mary” as the parents of Henry Scott who married Martha Whalock. Others show Henry’s parents as Edmund Scott and “Joan Howard.”
(Rattlesden line review: Edmund Scott married Joan ___, his son Henry Scott married Martha Whalock, their children Thomas Scott and Ursula Scott Kimball came to Massachusetts. There is no known connection between these families. They were from different counties and different social classes.)
--MOST OF THESE CHILDREN ARE IN THE WRONG FAMILY
--MOST BELONG WITH EDMUND SCOTT OF RATTLESDEN
About the children of William and “Mary,” however (all except for John, see below):
Take a look at the children of Edmund Scott, here:
Edmund Scott, of Rattlesden
Everyone except John ought to be merged with Edmund's children (except for John).
-- JOHN IS STILL A MYSTERY TO ME
John Scott, married to Mary Kirton or Kirkton:
I have seen him in many trees as the son of "Sir William Scott and Lady Mary Howard." The source given is "Glidewell Genealogy," author unknown. Might want to leave him for the time being, because I don’t yet know where else he belongs. But there is no record of either of the above-mentioned William Scotts having a son John.
--Amy
Follow Us
Like Us
Problem with this page?
Geni member
Geni Pro
Private UserGeni Pro
Geni member
Geni member
Geni member
Geni member
Geni member