I am always amazed at how "possible" or "probably" or "believed to be" somehow turn into "IS," in genealogy, which supposedly prides itself on documentation and proof.
Although I have posted on this before, I guess the smell of royalty is just too much for some people, and they refuse to let go of a connection which is tenuous at best.
So - I am again posting all of the latest research about this supposed Royal connection in the hopes that at least *some* of you will take notice and make the necessary changes and notations to indicate that this is not a proven line. Carry the line IF YOU MUST, but at least note that it is NOT PROVEN, so as not to confuse and mislead others!
The following is from my own personal research notes. If you quote, please give credit, both to myself and to the others whom I quote. I have been researching the Southworth line for forty years.:
ORIGINS Of Edward Southworth: The link between Thomas & Rosamond (Lister) Southworth with their *possible* son, Edward Southworth, is inadequately supported though it has been called "Probable" for many years. In those many years, no one has found any proof, nor even a good preponderence of evidence that, our Edward was the son of Thomas & Rosamond. I cannot stress enough the word - probable - as there is a break in the line here for which NO DOCUMENTATION has been found which would PROVE the lineage back in time. Although it is carried in RD600, there are those who feel that Gary Boyd Roberts should have dropped the line from this latest book due to the lack of documentation.
--"Burke's American Families with British Ancestry" - Repr., Genealogical Pub. Co., Inc. Baltimore; orig. pub. 1939; 1996; ISBN #0-8063-0662-9. 'This work is an offprint of pages 2529-3022 of the 16th edition of Burke's Genealogical and Heraldic History of the Landed
Gentry, London, 1939, constituting, in entirety, the innovative American section.' pp.2919, 2920:
"Lineage - Edward Southworth, BELIEVED to be descended from the Southworths of Samlesbury Hall, Lancs, joined the Pilgrim Colony in Leyden[sic], Holland, but, through ill-health, was unable to accompany his friends on the Mayflower to Plymouth, Massachusetts; b.ca. 1590; m. at Leyden[sic], Holland, 28 May 1613, Alice Carpenter..."
--"Ancestral Roots of Certain American Colonists Who Came to America before 1700" - 7th ed. by Frederick Lewis Weis; Genealogical Pub. Co., Inc., Baltimore; 1950-1999; ISBN #0-8063-1367-6; This work contains the complete 'Royal Descent' of the Southworth Line, with a caveat re: the parentage of Edward Southworth, as follows: p.13; Line 9, entry 40 & 41:
40. THOMAS SOUTHWORTH, eldest son and heir...m. ROSAMOND LISTER...The will of Sir William Lister...mentions the testator's son-in-law, Thomas Southworth, as the son of Sir John Southworth...Thomas Southworth had become a Protestant by 1584, for which reason his father, Sir John, a moderate Catholic, threatened to disinherit him...The son was living in London in 1584; both father and son had returned to Samlesbury in 1594. [interesting to note that he uses Samuel Webber's Southworth Genealogy as one of his references.]
41. EDWARD SOUTHWORTH, youngest son of Thomas and Rosamond (Lister] Southworth, b. London, 1590, living 1602, but d. bef. 1622.(THE ONLY SUPPORT FOR THE CONNECTION BETWEEN GENERATION 41 and 42 IS IN THE COINCIDENCE OF DATES AND NAMES. EDWARD OF LEYDEN MAY OR MAY NOT BE THE SAME MAN AS EDWARD OF LONDON. THE LINE IS INADEQUATELY SUPPORTED AT THIS POINT). [The parens. are as they appear in the book, but I have capitalized for emphasis]
--Gary Boyd Roberts, in his "The Royal Descent of 500 Immigrants" notes on p. 245 (Lesser Additions & Corrections), and on p. 663 that "An alternative Nottinghamshire origin for Edward Southworth of Leyden is suggested in "The Mayflower Quarterly" 58(1992): 10-15."
To be noted, however, is that Gary Boyd Roberts continues to carry the line in his newest book, RD600, with the notation that "Clinching proof (or disproof) that Edward Southworth, son of Thomas Southworth and Rosamond Lister, was the Leyden Pilgrim of that name would be welcome. An alternative Nottinghamshire origin for Edward Southworth is suggested in "The Mayflower Quarterly" 58 (1992): 10-15.
--Some info on the Nottingham question, which seems to NOT have played out:
"English Origins of New England Families From The New England Historical and Genealogical Record" 2nd Series, Vol. III; Selected & Introduced by Gary Boyd Roberts; Genealogical Publishing Co., Inc., Baltimore (1985); LCCCN 84-81872; ISBN 0-8063-1094-4; p. 281
"Southworth Pedigree: Discussion of the line of the New England Southworths (Constant and Edward), and how it is NOT related to the royal Southworth line, as erroneously given in Winsor's "History of Duxbury."
Winsor's pedigree is, however "a correct copy of "Herald's Visitation" down to Henry and Thomas Southworth, who were living in 1623. This was furnished by me to a member of the family who, without authority, appended the name of Constant Southworth and others of New England. I HAVE SINCE TRACED THE AMERICAN BRANCH OF THE SOUTHWORTHS TO A REMOTE PERIOD IN ENGLAND. (my caps). No connection whatever is found with the family in the pedigree above mentioned."
The above was written by Mr. Horatio Gates Somerby, Esq. (keep reading)
"Southworth (ibid, vol. 51, p. 496) - In answer to Mary L.T. Alden, in October number - Edward Southworth, the pilgrim, was in Leyden in 1611 and 1613, and so could not have been the Edward in Nottinghamshire in 1614. There are some mistakes in the line as given in Winsor's history of Duxbury..."
[Some years before his death, Mr. Horatio Gates Somerby informed me[note, the "me" does not refer to myself, Deborah Sweet] that the pedigree of Southworth in Winsor's Duxbury was not printed as he furnished it to the family. He did furnish a pedigree, but some one altered it before printing. In the pedigree he furnished he did not connect the Plymouth settlers with it. I presume that Mr. Somerby's genealogical papers, which were left to the Massachusetts Historical Society, will show what he did furnish the Southworth family. He complained of other clients who, in printing matter furnished by him, had made him responsible for mistakes he never made. Mr. Somerby died at London, Nov. 14, 1872, in his 67th year. See sketch in the Register, vol. 28, pp. 340-342. - John Ward Dean.]"
To sum up:
Burke's Peerage - "Believed to be"
Weis - "Inadequately supported"
Roberts - "Clinching proof or disproof would be welcome"
Somersby - "NO CONNECTION" - Constant Southworth was added without authority
Hope this helps reduce the amount of false information circulating and re-circulating, though I don't have a lot of faith. I've been trying to get people to understand this for *years* without much success. It's like spitting into the wind. I've actually had people be quite nasty about it.
So Please - it is not my *fault* that your royal line is broken/unproven. I'd appreciate it if this posting doesn't prompt a flood of negativity. I am trying to *Help* you, after all.
Regards to All Southworths -
Deborah Southworth Sweet