I didn't say MargaretScholefield and family were not from Rochdale Parish, Lancashire; they may very well have been.Scholefields are very concentrated in the s.e. Lanc.-s.w. York border area in the mid-1600's and our line is most likely from this area, possibly Rochdale where they seem concentrated.
What I said was that our line doesn't descend fromthe Scholefields of Scholefield Hall in Rochdale.If you look at the lineage in Dr. Quinn's article in the "Baltimore Sun" in 1906, the line goes thru James, the 3rd. son ofJames and Ann (Latham), which indicates the older sonsCuthbert and Alexander left no survivingsons as the English practised primogeniture (eldest son inherits everything).James Jr.'s eldest son Cuthbert left no surviving sons as the Hall goes to his youngerbrother Alexander.I then passes to Alexander'sson Gerard, to Gerard'sson James (1620-1664).This James would be a slightly oldercontemporary of Margaret's husband (John ?).
Note none of the names found in the Scholefields of Scholefield Hall show up in our line.
There is a marriage for a John Scholefield and a Magaret WOODRATH ( apparrently a corruption of WOODRUFF) 8 Feb. 1658 (1659 New Style Calendar) in Rochdale Parish. Is this ours ?I've checked that area for baptisms for Valentine, Henry, Benjamin and Joseph.There are manyHenrys, Benjamins and Joseph's b. in the 1660-1687 period, but Anglican baptismal records of that period almost never list even the mother's given name so we can't distinguish the different families.The nameValentine Schoelfielddidn't show up in Rochdale in that period.