Hugh Kincheloe

Not a known father of Cornelius ‘the immigrant’ Kincheloe

However, at least some evidence suggests that Hugh and Marian MAY be Cornelius's parents, i.e. extremely uncommon surname, the appropriate general time period, a general geographic proximity, a potential Haley, connection, etc.

See more below.

~Kincheloe Origins~

Research on Hugh Kinselo

by John William Kincheloe, III

Appendix I:

Family historians for years have been aware of an intriguing Virginia record of the marriage of a "Hugh Kinselo." The document was reported to be evidence of his October 14, 1660 marriage to Marion Haley in what was thought to be Northumberland County. This county was the "mother county" to several Tidewater Virginia counties which were subdivided from it. Cornelius' own Richmond county was one of those derivative counties. Knowing this, it was reasonable to conclude that, though appearing 33 years apart, Hugh and Cornelius lived in approximately the same geographical are in Virginia.

The evidence of a "Hugh Kinselo" has held great appeal among family historians. The spelling of the surname had a remarkable similarity to the earliest appearance of Cornelius' name, "Kinselloe. Furthermore, the presence of the name "Kinselo" in Virginia records from 1660 clearly supported the notion that the "se" middle syllable was typical of early forms of the family name.

Beyond this, the existence of Hugh raised an important question: was he related to Cornelius? With the two appearing as adults in roughly the same place and a generation apart, were we to understand Hugh best as the father of Cornelius? Did Hugh take the American family name back yet another generation? Many are inclined to doubt that Hugh was the father of Cornelius because the name "Hugh" did not continue as a given name for subsequent generations, unlike those omnipresent names "Cornelius" and "John". The truth was, however, we simply had no way of knowing.

The record of Hugh carried an additional, and possibly important bit of information: it said he married "Marion Haley." A bit of research tells us that the surname "Haley" (also spelled "Halley" and "Haly") was a family name from South Central and Western Ireland. A census published in 1659, the year before Hugh's marriage, showed that the family was prominent in Counties Clare and Limerick. Baptista Boazio's 1599 map of Ireland placed the Haly family in King's County (present-day Offaly), twenty miles west of the Barrow River headwaters. So, had Hugh Kinselo taken an Irish wife? Was Hugh Irish as well?

Speculation has continued to expand regarding Hugh. Is there perhaps one more document that tells us about him? An entry in the Northumberland County Order Book, dated February 18, 1673/74 speaks volumes about the gritty circumstances of one Irishman named Hugh. The entry reads exactly as follows:

Whereas it appears to the Cort:yt Daniel & Hugh, two Irishmen, did unlawfully beat & abuse their overseer; It is ordered yt: ye saide servants make their saide Master satisfaccon for their saide default according to Act

Could it be that this Hugh, an indentured Irishman, and Hugh Kinselo were one in the same? In the absence of more definite information we are left in the dark about this man. Ultimately we could only assert what the early genealogists told us ~~ that he married Marion Haley in the fall of 1660, probably in Northumberland County, Virginia.

New research on "Hugh Kinselo" has yielded some surprising results, however. What this author has recently discovered questions almost everything family historians have been claiming about this individual. Based on a review of the documentation as cited by earlier genealogists, it is the author's opinion not only that "Hugh Kinselo" is unrelated to the Kincheloe family, but that it is unlikely that a "Hugh Kinselo" ever existed in 17th century Virginia.

The evidence documenting "Hugh Kinselo" has always been scant. Both L.D. McPherson and Clement Ross Jones cited only the same, single source to prove the existence of this possible Kincheloe ancestor. It is reasonable to think that Jones, being the earlier researcher, was the source of the notion of a Hugh Kinselo link. His genealogical compilation was dated 1934.

What was his evidence for Hugh? Was it a document from 1660? Was it a 17th century original record? The answer is no. A bit of investigation reveals that his sole source was, in fact, a brief item from a genealogical journal published in the 1920s. We are surprised to learn that the only citation ever offered in support of the existence of Hugh Kinselo was published in the June 1923 issue of The County Court Note-Book. Apart from the fact that this journal has a reputation for dubious reliability, the content of the "Hugh Kinselo" item proves to be the real shocker. After so much speculation on Hugh, his wife Marion, and his relation to Cornelius, the family researcher is stunned upon reading the actual source record. The full text of this brief item is printed below, precisely as originally published:

MARIAM HAEY (?) m. Hugh Kunneloe (?)

N-n, Va. ix-92. 14Oct1660

What a jolt it is to realize that this is the sole record that generated the account of Hugh Kinselo. The names early genealogists have led us to consider ~~ "Haley" and "Kinselo" ~~ now appear to have been creative extrapolations from the actual names in the source record.

It is revealing that Jones chose to cite only The County Court Note-Book, when within that item lies a better citation for a 17th century record. In fact, several things about the Jones citation make us think he did not ever see this County Court Note-Book item at all. First, his citation reads "I I#12" when, in fact, the item appears in "Vol. II, no.3, p.5." Second, Jones says that the item probably refers to a Northumberland County record. It is clear, however, from reading the journal that "N-n, Va." is an abbreviation for Northampton county on Virginia's Eastern Shore, and not Northumberland County. Third, Jones confesses that he was not able to locate certain early records. Perhaps some other researcher gave this item to Jones, and as it happened, the author never got a chance to evaluate the record or its original source. The citation numbering problem alone could very well have prevented him from even finding the record. The present writer found the item only by chance while flipping through pages out of frustration.

Unfortunately, the citation for the 17th century record is a problem, as well. The "ix, 92" appears to be a County Court Order Book and page number, but the original Hugh Kunneloe item proves elusive. All of this author's efforts to locate the original have been fruitless.

The actual text of the sole locatable source record, then, leaves us only with skepticism about the existence of any "Hugh Kinselo." The name "Kunneloe" does not appear to be a variant spelling of the family name; when spoken, it sounds like a different name altogether. Though the final verdict on Hugh is still in question until the discovery of the original 17th century document, the opinion of the present writer is that "Hugh Kinselo" is no more than a genealogical wild goose chase ~~ the product of a careless or overly-imaginative genealogist. The only documentation for Hugh is marginal at best, unlocatable in its original form, and almost certainly irrelevant for Kincheloe family genealogy. So under close scrutiny, the appealing mystery of "Hugh Kinselo" begins to dissolve away into a recognition of the fallibility all family historians are subject to, the present writer included. We come away from our encounter with "Hugh Kinselo" with a good measure of humility, and with a sense of gratitude for the generous amount of substantial genealogical work we have inherited.

In the wake of these findings about so-called "Hugh Kinselo," it bears reiteration that the earliest documented Kincheloe family ancestor in America was old Cornelius; his location, legacy, and pivotal place in family history are well-proved. The American family tree begins with him.

Continue reading: http://web.archive.org/web/20010808142537/www.kincheloe.com/origins...

Rebuttal

From https://www.geni.com/discussions/185015?msg=1686913

Private User writes:

I agree that there is no proof that this couple were the parents of Cornelius Kincheloe. However, there was a Hugh Kincheloe / Kunneloe and he is recorded as marrying Marion Hary (probably Haley) -

The marriage occurred in 1660, which would’ve been around the time that Cornelius ‘s parents most likely married.

The marriage took place in today’s Accomack County, Virginia, which was quite close to Old Rappahannock / Richmond County, Virginia by boat, the predominant form of transport at the time.

And there are a number of connections between members of a Haley / Halley family and Cornelius Kincheloe’s immediate family, signing as witnesses to deeds and wills and living on adjoining plantations through generations, etc.

All of that is still not enough to prove a Hugh and Marion Haley Kincheloe descent, or even that H & M were related to the later Northern Neck nabobs. But poor Hugh Kincheloe / Kunneloe was more than "so called.." Refreshingly, he did in fact exist.

While almost all 17th century Virginia Parish records have. well … perished , contemporaneous copies of some birth's deaths and marriages in 1660 and 1661 still exist for Hungars Parish. They are the only two years that survive from the 1600's for this congregation and have only done so because the Minister had the foresight to copy them into the Northampton Court Order Books shortly after they occurred. Transcripts of these records were published in the William and Mary Quarterly over a century ago, and have also appeared in booklets, etc.

To wit:

"A true account of such persons as have been baptised, married and burried in Hungars Parish from ye 25th. of March anno. 1660 unto ye 25th. of March 1661. .......

....Hugh Kunneloe & Marian Hary 8br 14th.... (MWW note : 14 October 1660)

....True Copy, John Lawrence, Clerk of Hungars Parish."

(source: Robertson, Thomas B. "Hungars Parish Records for 1660-1661," The William and Mary Quarterly, Vol. 18, No. 3 (Jan. 1910): 178-181)

I have to strongly disagree with my distant cousin and his Hugh view -

I think Hugh Kincheloe and Hugh Kunneloe sound very similar phonetically, and they look almost identical in print and script. In fact Kunneloe is closer to Kincheloe than that name is to Chencello , a form of the family name recorded for Cornelius.

Spelling was notoriously fluid in the 1600s, even within the same document. And this is especially true with an uncommon surname that is still often misspelled today.

So, on the non-scientific scale of 1) no evidence and disproven, to 2) no evidence , to 3) some evidence, but still uncertain and without conclusive “proof” to 4) proven with a genealogical standard of evidence / primary source documentation, I would say this is about a three.