(Goodrick Goodrich Goodridge Research).
I have been asked now on a number of occasions to come out and write why I am so passionate about the spelling of my family name and what evidence I have to support the correctness I insist upon.
I here challenge any of the incorrect publications to correct my findings with original authentic documentation and I will apologise and go away.
My findings are: -
The spelling of the family name and source in one manuscript version of the 1563-4 Heralds Visitation of Yorkshire the surname occurs as Godrike (College of Arms Ms: H19/23) and in another as Godryke (College of Arms Ms: 1D5/1020). In the 1584-5 Heralds Visitation the same surname occurs as Gooderyck (College of Arms Ms: 2D5/39). Despite this it is very annoying when one family occurs under two obviously different spellings in a new source such as the Oxford D.N.B. (2004) particularly if there is another distinct family of one of the spellings. I see here no evidence of the terminal "H".
Visitation of Lincolnshire p157, & Lincolnshire Pedigrees pages 415, 416, 417.)
Thomas Goderyke Godryke Goodricke or Goodryke The Bishop of Ely spelt his name thus, when the 39th and last Episcopal Lord Chancellor, keeper of the Great Seal. The correct mode of spelling for Thomas surname shows no terminal "h" it is Goodryke. During his service as Lord Chancellor he would often just sign himself as "Thomas Ely" we do have family letters to and from his brother Henry Goodryke at Hunsingore Manor at that time using the correct spelling. Regarding the origin and different modes of spelling, the name is Saxon, and the earliest spelling I have found in original documented and family records, is Godric (1200 - 1280) & Goodryke & Goderyke(1493-1540) to date the development of Goodrick Heraldry is another source that confirms this spelling. The Goodricke terminal "e" stayed with the line of Thomas Goodricke Bishop of Ely and brother Henry Goodricke of Hunsingore (Later at Ribston who died 1556), as it appears the terminal "e" from reliable evidence to have been adopted by this branch of our family.
The use of the terminal "E" in the seventeenth century was very erratic. The mistake is so often repeated of confusing the two families of Goodrick and Goodrich. This has given me, and my predecessors many occasion for fruitless inquiry. We have yet to find any authentic documentation or evidence to substantiate a connection between the two families. And I may state that I have never found any incorrectness in authentic documents and neither I nor any other that I know researching the Goodrick family knows of any connection between the two families subsequent to the year 1400. This is born out in several Grants of Arms at the Collage, also a Pedigree at The College of Arms. Ref Vol 2. D.14. P149, B Signed by Henry Goodrick and Richard Goodrick, 23rd July 1678, along with recorded visitations by the heralds listed for the family along with that families pedigrees, the heraldry is very different for the Goodrich family. In the last one hundred years or so the name has been spelt by church recorders in many ways by sound which means accent plays a part by poor spelling and so on. But on close examination and exhaustive research Godric Goderyke Goodryke Goodricke & Goodrick are the family names and spellings recorded in authentic documentation and can be linked to a common source. I have collected family pedigrees going back to very early times and I promise you I have nothing to show any connection between the two family names of Goodrick and Goodrich. Thomas Goderyke Goodryke or Goodricke Bishop of Ely and 39th Lord Chancellors will also spells his name thus through out so he belongs good or bad to my family and not to Goodrich family at all.
Even the Lord Chancellor's office has acknowledged that the spelling might be incorrect after examining the family trees. The History of the Goodricke Family by C A Goodricke and up dates in the British Museum along with the various old visitations carried out by the heralds, I find by far the most accurate information available regarding the spelling of the name. I find it most frustrating that eminent scholars insist on using publications of question rather than researching authentic and original documents (The Oxford D.N.B.) (2004) for one. As a historian and family member I feel very frustrated that records containing mistakes are not amended even when substantial evidence has been submitted to allow this to be put right. "Certain medieval texts differ on the names, dates and spellings of those names." I believe that the Lord Chancellors office records contain some such mistakes of my ancestor. References found in the Department's own historical records of ancient and modern Lord Chancellors ; and cross-referenced in Richard John King's 'Handbook to the Cathedrals of England' 1862 (pub. John Murray, Albemarle St. Oxford) and Ely Cathedral by W.H. Fairbairns (pub. By the Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge printed 1928 Campfield Press St Albans). Although the department carried out considerable research in the field, the office has not elaborated on the nature of that research apart from some source material. I quote "After making many comparisons across a number of publications, we concluded that the Handbook of British Chronology, Edited by Sir F Maurice Powicke LL.D., Litt.D., F.B.A and E.B. Fryde, D.Phil. 2nd Edit, published by the Offices of The Royal Historical Society would be our main source of information. I am sure you will agree that this is a well respected and authoritative body and therefore, it is from this publication that the list on our web page was complied." Sorry no I do not agree. All of the source material listed consists of "authorities", i.e., other books and compilations of material at best, of a secondary nature. All this does is to compound the mistake. My family have spent several hundred years recording our wonderful old family, its achievements and failings, only to find that today’s generation use inaccurate publication and not authentic original documentation for research, historical fact the correct information (my primary objective) should be made available to all interested students.
Hopefully this has put forward the family opinion on the origin and of the spelling of our name.
And will make some of the well-read scholars sit up and do some proper research using authentic original documentation.
I have read the Goodridge Genealogy by Edwin A. Goodridge, published 1918, through a couple of generations from William Goodridge of Watertown (the more recent research on Josiah Goodridge and his descendants published by NEHGS in 1998 is better documented), which seems to have been exhaustively researched, but cites no primary sources for most of the author's assertions other than a few wills, none of which can be said to have any connection with William Goodridge of Watertown as far as I can see. Although he states he did considerable research in England, he does not elaborate on the nature of that research. All of the source material listed consists of "authorities", i.e., other books and compilations of material of at best, a secondary nature. As a general rule, in the lengthy recitation of the genealogy of the Goodridge family sources for such items as dates and places of birth, marriage, and death are not provided and it is often unclear as to what is based on documentation and what is merely copied from "authorities", tradition, or speculation. The relevant point is the author does confirm on page 46, that Lt. Col. William Goodricke, son of Sir Richard Goodricke and Lady Muriel Eure, was born about 1581 and died in England in 1661/62, though again he cites no primary sources although such sources are relatively plentiful for this period. What he does quote is "a genealogical tree said to have been in possession of James Pitt Goodrich of Egarth House, Egarth (?), Denbigshire, England'." (NB: That should read "Garth House, Garth, Denbighshire, Wales") This quote appears to have been taken from The Goodrich Family in America by Lafayette W. Case. Whatever the failings of the referenced documents, I think it is safe to say that William Goodricke and William Goodridge of Watertown, MA were two different people.
Elsewhere, the author admits he could find no record of birth or any other documentation regarding the parentage of William Goodridge, our immigrant ancestor, but states he was probably born in Bury St. Edmunds May 18, 1605. Again, no source is given for this date and place of birth. He further states William's surname in England, as far as could then be ascertained, was Gutridge, though he does not explain how he arrived at that conclusion either.
Now, where does that leave us? In spite of the differences of this book in the matter of the lack of primary documentation of the usual sort, I see no problem with the identification of Lt. Col. William Goodricke as the son of Richard Goodricke rather than William Goodridge of Water town, This seems to be independently and adequately proven by other means, e.g., the letters Lt. Col. Goodricke's daughters wrote to their uncle, Sir Richard Bellingham in Massachusetts quoted here.
The author's claim that Goodricke and Goodridge are the same family seems reasonable, based on the similarity of anus granted to members of both families (not "family" arms) as well as to the similarity of surnames. We should remember that there were no fixed rules for spelling in general until the 19th century. As a well known example, the Bard of Avon spelled his surname at least seven different ways on manuscripts written in his own hand, none of which was "Shakespeare".
That both Goodridge and Goodricke, as well as other variations, are probably derived from the original Saxon "Godric" is possible and maybe even probable but, as Godric is also used in the same documents as Godryke and Goodricke. This means that it is possible to affirm this with some acceptable degree of certainty
In short, serious research remains to be done on the origins of William Goodridge of Watertown, MA. As far as I know, no passenger list has been found to show when he came from England, nor any record of his birth in spite of the precise date of birth shown by Edwin Goodridge on page 71. Actually, it has been my experience that most of the dates given as birth dates are in fact dates of baptism as recorded in parish records. Even in Cof E records these dates can be anywhere from a few weeks to several months some times years after birth. In the non-conformist churches baptism customarily took place several years after the child was born and often after the individual reached adulthood, which could explain the frequent occurrences in on-line pedigrees and the IGI where the father was "born" as much as ten years after his children.
Edwin A. Goodridge states that William Goodridge of Watertown was known as Gutridge in England and Gutteridge in his early days in the Colonies, but cites no sources as proof of these assertions. Obviously he found no birth or baptism record for William as he admits he doesn't know the parents' names.
A researcher has been engage and is still engaged at this time in the area to go through the local records to see what records can be found further to try and establish the correctness of the authors statement that William Goodridge was known as William Gutridge in Bury St. Edmunds England if the author is correct in this, it could complicate matters considerably. Given the amount of research that has already been done, thus far I hold little hope in finding any new evidence, the present research thus far has proven fruitless also. It may well be that the results of this new search will prove of no help again, but I thank those involved, it is worth the effort.
Any thoughts or comments any one might have will be very much appreciated.
I have further studied myself, parts of it that appeared relevant, but have not yet found a possible connection with William Goodridge. C. A. Goodricke in his Goodricke Memorials did say he found nothing to confirm the supposed connection between the Goodriches of Cambridge and the Goodricke family, so I am not surprised.
Research by The late Robert Henderson & Michael B Goodrick , 2007.
Update 2015, I can confirm that at this time and date no further evidence has come to light, a number of interested parties still have note, to develop any further information should it be found. Michael B Goodrick 07-2017.