Thanks, Brad. Good to know ...

On Monday, July 4, 2016 at 7:05:46 PM UTC+1, Stewart Baldwin via wrote: > On 7/4/2016 6:56 AM, WJH via wrote: > > > Never one to refuse a challenge, here are some starting thoughts. To my mind these could apply to any genealogical "wiki" more-or less irrespective of its specific purpose. > > Obviously, most of your items have the potential to generate long > separate discussions. I will make some brief comments on a few of them > and some general comments. I've interpolated a few responses and brought some other points together to address what is emerging as the key issue at the end hereof. > > > b. multiple alternates for elements such as dates, places, names etc. (FS - P) > > I'm not sure exactly what this means. If it means that alternate > spellings, etc. should be indicated, then there should be an effort to > keep it from cluttering things too much. If it means providing > alternates in cases of genuine controversy, then I believe that the > entry should be "unknown" ("uncertain", etc.), with a separate > discussion of the issues. > > > d. merging that preserves data as alternates (FS - N) > > If done right to begin with, there should be little need for merging. > When necessary, merging should be done with extreme care, one individual > at a time, with reference to the primary sources in case of conflict. > In cases of controversy, reasonable merging cannot be done reasonably by > someone unfamiliar with the primary evidence, and any data that is > clearly wrong should not be kept (or should be placed in a clearly > marked "trash bin"). > > > e. bitlock style data history to ensure auditability (FS - P) > > I have no idea what that is. Essentially it's the ultimate in database integrity software that means that every change is logged and auditable > > > f. data deletion to require justification (FS - P) > > "No known source" should be sufficient reason for deletion (or > temporarily placing in a "trash bin"). > > > i. provision for alternate "universes" where data is capable of more than one interpretation, ideally with ability to view side-by-side (FS - N) > > Maintaining data structures and allowing the flexibility needed for > specific cases are in clear conflict here. I'm not sure how you could > do this, as the presentation of complicated issues almost always needs > to be organized by some creative process if it is to be comprehensible. > > > j. automatic recognition / translation of old and new style dates in appropriate periods (FS - N) > > Clearly, it is a good idea to have a O.S./N.S. label, but in my opinion, > "translation" from O.S. to N.S. is almost always a bad idea, except > where some sort of chronological discussion is necessary. (Conversions > from other calendars, like the Islamic or Jewish calendars, are another > story). Enough flexibility has to be left for unusual cases. Before, > after, and "boxed-in" (between) dates need to be supported. Dates > obtained by calculation should be clearly labelled, e.g., b. ca. 1535 > (calc.), or b. ca. 1535 (aged 26 in 1561 [with source]). A clear > distinction needs to be made between approximate dates (dates proven by > known evidence to be close to the indicated date, usually indicated by > "about" or "circa/ca.") and estimated dates (dates estimated by more > general considerations, such as generation length or typical age at > marriage, usually indicated in the scholarly genealogical literature by > the word "say", e.g. "b. say 1520"). I'm really thinking about the transition period (which I accept doesn't concern medievalists) where it's not always clear whether a date is OS or NS and so any comparison with other sources needs to bear in mind that that date may be equivalent to one 11 days earlier OR later. > > > 4. data elements to be colour-coded according to source: e.g. reddish - no source; orangey - secondary source; yellowy - primary source transcription; greeny - primary source viewed; bluey - primary source image attached. Fixed formats for sources defined by moderators. (FS - N). > > In my opinion, including any unsourced information in the principle > account of an individual is a very bad idea, especially for medieval > individuals. If you really want a color scheme, how about reddish for a > secondary source which does not cite primary evidence, and "orangey" for > a secondary source which gives the primary evidence (preferably cited > indirectly). In the medieval period, if you can't find a pre-Internet > published source for some information in somebody's GEDCOM file, then it > is almost certainly bad information, and one of the points of such an > exercise is to help prevent the spread of bad information. If you want > to keep the information as a potential clue, why not have a separate > "scratch-paper" page for the individual (preferably with a prominent > in-your-face dire warning that the information might be false) > containing unconfirmed information that might be used as a finding aid > (and perhaps as an incentive for those who do have the proof to produce > it). Such a page (or a separate page) might also include disproven or > discredited information on the individual, perhaps with a "red flag" > attached to data that is suspicious but has not actually been > disproven. Agreed - especially since it's easier to prove a negative than a positive... However, in the medieval period, unsourced dates of birth or > places of birth or death are usually just guesswork, and should just be > scrapped to start with, unless there is some indication that the data > might provide a useful clue. Also agreed > > > 5. A separate place name database, subject to similar rules as regards sources, with different matrices e.g Saxon shires & hundreds, Domesday, English historic, English administrative pre-1973, registration districts etc. with relevant dates. (A particular bug-bear of mine stemming from being a Geographer at heart) (FS - P) > > And if you are going to do this, separate lists of office holders, with > appropriate links, seems like a good idea. Agreed > > > 6. ideally linked archive of sources in public domain to permit internal rather than external links. (FS - P) > > A huge project in itself. However, as appealing as items 5 and 6 are, > spreading the efforts too thin seems like a recipe for disaster. If > high quality is the main goal, it is best to start small. Also agreed, but at this stage I feel we're dealing with ideals rather than practicalities... > > > One additional issue that is unavoidable in genealogy, and especially > difficult in any thinly documented period or place, is the problem of > identification. Many (probably even a majority) of the errors which > occur in genealogy are due either directly or indirectly to the > incorrect identification of individuals of the same (or similar) names > appearing in two or more different records. When genealogists are trying > to verify research done by others in the primary sources, the step that > they are most likely to overlook is verifying that the John Smiths > appearing in two different records were in fact the same man. You have no idea how many William Haddocks there were within a day's travel of Wearside by 1700 and the problem gets worse in the 19th century. The problem's even worse if you're interested in Hudsons or Robsons.... When > genealogists are researching a large number of individuals with the same > surname, one of the problems they face is sorting out who was who, and > even when the identifications are all correct, the reasoning behind them > is not always adequately spelled out. Even for the experienced > genealogist writing up his/her results, deciding how much discussion to > devote to identification of individuals can be difficult. Some such > discussions would amount to "beating a dead horse" (e.g., a man with an > unusual name appearing in many records in a given location, with no > indications of a namesake in the area), and sometimes the > identifications are clear from the other evidence presented (at least to > an experienced genealogist), even if they are not explicitly discussed. > > A good "reference" website would need a reasonable way of dealing with > the identification of individuals. If an identification is well > documented, but not reasonably clear in the context of the evidence > mentioned (e.g., in cases of significant geographical moves), there > should at least be a comment to see such-and-such a source for proof > that the John Smith in record #1 is the same as the John Smythe in > record #2. Cases involving significant disagreement among scholars > regarding identification are much more difficult, and extremely numerous > in medieval genealogy. See, for example, the page on Hunroch, count of > Ternois, in the Henry Project. Some way needs to be found to deal with > such difficult situations, preferably without catering to the > fill-in-the-blank mentality of many amateur genealogists. The more that > amateurs are forced to think independently about such issues, and the > more they are led to the better sources which allow them to do so in an > informed manner, then the more they might become experienced enough to > make worthwhile contributions to such a project. > > There is one obvious question that hasn't been mentioned yet. Who would > host such a website and provide the necessary funding? Who would have > ultimate control? Any profit-based website is likely to eventually get > corrupted by forces that are more interested in profit than in accuracy, > and any genuinely high-quality genealogical website is going to have to > reject the work of many amateurs, some of whom would not be happy that > their "ancestors" were rejected (i.e., "angry customers"). I think that > some sort of academic-based support would be necessary to ensure the > necessary quality. Again, that's a practicality, which I agree is important, but falls outside the request to create a set of rules... Having said that, my suspicion is these issues might well end up making an organisation that's not in it for profit quite attractive, which might mean wikipedia or it might mean our friends in Utah. > > Stewart Baldwin The big issue that emerges from this is the need to allow users to identify what is proven "fact" and what is "hypothesis" requiring subsequent confirmation. The rules I've proposed try to deal with that in a number of different ways (colour coding, etc.; allowing alternates; use of long-form identification, parallel universes etc.) some of which are effectively the same as Stewart's methods (e.g. scratch paper) but ultimately it will be the boundary between the two that the moderators will need to police. If we get that right most of the rest will probably fall into place. A related issue is how concepts such as Occam's razor or the balance of probabilities should be allowed to be used. Do we just allow users or moderators to assign percentage probabilities to different scenarios with the most likely being accepted pro tem, or does the fact that there's another possibility, however unlikely, mean that the simplest idea should be forever treated as "unproven". Looking at it another way, what is the burden of proof threshold before a "hypothesis" becomes a fact, or doe have some sort of sliding scale? Another issue that I suspect will have to be dealt with at some point is the impact of DNA analysis on questions of "legitimacy" of descent and parental identification. Putting it crudely, how do we deal with unacknowledged or unknown bastards? (There's been a recent court case in the UK that has reassigned a clan chiefdom based on DNA evidence even though the illegitimacy happened while the mother was married and her husband accepted the son as his own...) NB one wrinkle I didn't address directly is that every date field should have a linked field containing qualifiers such as before, after, about etc. Regards James

On Saturday, July 2, 2016 at 10:33:24 PM UTC+1, Jeanie Roberts via wrote: > In Volume 1 page 373, is the Carta of William de Say. It begins with: > > Isti sunt milites William de Say de veteri feffamento: my attempt to > translate: (these are the knights of William de Say of the old > feffamento). > This is followed by a list of knights. > On the following page it says: > De noviter feodatis de domnio meo: (The new feodatis of my lord) > The first name is: > Willelmus de Say avunculus meus j militem de Witehurst: ( William de Say, > my uncle, one knight's fee ) > other knights names then > Willelmus filius, quintam parem militis in Kembolton. ( William son 1/5 > knights fee Kimbolton). > > The date is 1166. In Medieval Lands, William de Say of Kimbolton was the > s/o William de Say and Beatrix de Mandeville. Does the first part of the > Carta refer to the elder William who according to Medieval Lands died about > 1155? Who is being referred to as My Lord in the beginning of the second > part. And who is calling William de Say my uncle? Does the William de Say > of the Carta have an Uncle named William and a son named William? Or do I > have this completely wrong. > > Hoping someone is bored this Saturday morning and can help. > > Jeanie The man referred to in the phrase 'Isti sunt milites Willelmi de Say de veteri feffamento' is the William de Say who submitted the carta, so must be the one who was living in 1166 - the son of William de Say and Beatrice de Mandeville). The phrase 'De noviter feodatis de domnio meo' means 'of new enfeoffments from my demesne'. The 'meo' here and the 'meus' in 'avunculus meus' both refer to the William de Say who submitted the carta. It's difficult to say who 'Willelmus filius' was son of. He might possibly be the son of William de Say who submitted the carta, but he might also be the son of the tenant listed immediately before him, Ricardus Anglicus, tenant of Wirham, or of someone else entirely (if a name which ought to have followed 'filius' had been omitted). Matt Tompkins

On Tuesday, July 5, 2016 at 8:02:38 PM UTC+1, robert.the...@gmail.com wrote: > In The history of the county of Derby, ed. by T. Noble, Volume 2 > By Stephen Glover, he mentions the term "of old feoffment" which he says was a term used in ancient records which means: > > "to hold lands & c. which were enfeoffed or possessed by the ancestors of the person alluded to in the record before the death of Henry I", which he states was in 1135. > > Is this statement still accurate? I just want confirmation or clarification of the meaning. > > My example is the following: > > Galfr. de Georz, 30 H 2. (fn. 1) gave account of xxs. that the deed or charter which he had of William de Georz concerning the land of [Lughburgh] should be read in the kings court. Agnes, who was wife of Geoffrey de Georz, 13 Joh. (fn. 2) gave account of 16l. 13s. 2d. for the custody of the lands, &c. Galfr. de Jorz paid two marks for one knights fee in Burton, in the former part of the reign of Henry the third, afterwards Richard de Jorz was found to hold a knights fee of Oliver de Eyncourt, who held it of the king of the old feoffment. > > Robert Spencer Yes, it is still correct. In 1166, for reasons which are obscure and much debated by historians, Henry II required all his tenants in chief to certify to him in a 'carta' the number of knights' fees held from them which had been created by an enfeoffment made (i) before the death of Henry I, i.e. before 1135 and (ii) after that date. For some time thereafter the two categories were referred to in records as fees of the old enfeoffment and the new enfeoffment. The difference had significance in determining how many knights the tenant-in-chief owed to the king, and how much scutage he should pay. Matt Tompkins

Does anyone know the direct line from Neil Patrick Harris to William Farrar?

On Thursday, May 12, 2016 at 12:31:36 PM UTC-4, Michael OHearn via wrote: > Another point brought up concerning the DNA question is that the Royals' claim to legitimacy goes back to Henry Tudor's victory in the War of Roses. Henry has other royal lines to support a claim independent of the supposed questionable Beaufort lineage. > > Sent from my iPhone Yes. Henry Tudor was also descended from Henry III through his son Edmund Crouchback.

John, Timothy, and Thomas were the sons of a Robert Stanley of Tenterden, Kent and his wife Ruth.I see no evidence presented that she was a Garland.  This is from the cited article from Leslie MahlerFASG. Kay Allen, descended from John On Tuesday, July 5, 2016 9:00 AM, Paulo Canedo via <gen-medieval@rootsweb.com> wrote: Em terça-feira, 5 de julho de 2016 16:25:17 UTC+1, Hal Bradley via  escreveu: > If you are referring to Timothy Stanley of Hartford, Connecticut, then his father was not John at all. See Leslie Mahler's article in TAG 80(2005): 217 et seq. > > Cheers, > > Hal Bradley Yes it is the same thanks but I don´t know where I can see that article but does that article agree with the theory that Timothy was son of  Robert Stanley and Ruth Garland. ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to GEN-MEDIEVAL-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

On Tuesday, July 5, 2016 at 12:30:44 PM UTC-7, Paulo Canedo wrote: > Can you tell me the page of the 1623 Visitation of Shropshire in which the > family Pitt of Curewiard appears. Mainwaring of Ightfield: 347-8 Oteley of Oteley and Pitchford: 380-2 Owen of Adbrightlee: 391 Pitt of Curewiard: 402-3 These are all in Part II: https://archive.org/stream/visitationshrop01grazgoog#page/n8/mode/2up taf

Em segunda-feira, 4 de julho de 2016 21:48:09 UTC+1, taf escreveu: > On Monday, July 4, 2016 at 10:13:33 AM UTC-7, Paulo Canedo wrote: > > I have seen in many genealogy websites this connection Richard Mainwaring > > and his wife Dorothy Corbet were parents of Maria Mainwaring who married > > Adam Oteley and were parents of Richard Oteley who married Katherine > > MacWorth and were parents of Sarah Oteley who married Edward Owen and > > were parents of Richard Owen who married Johanna Pitt and were parents > > of the immigrant John Owen. The onomastic and geographical evidence > > support this connection but is this connection true or false. > > The 1623 Visitation of Shropshire (as published) shows, in its Mainwaring of Ightfield pedigree, that Richard and Dorothy had a daughter Mary who married Adam Oteley of Picheford. The Oteley of Oteley and Pitchford pedigree shows Adam marrying Mary, daughter of Richard Mainwaring of Ightfield. They are shown as parents of Richard who married Katherine Macworth (by the way, I doubt this is Scottish or Irish patronymic, but instead is likely an English toponym, probably derived from Mackworth, Derby, so not MacWorth, just Macworth). They, in turn, are shown with daughter Sara, wife of Edward Owen of Brightley. So far, so good. > > The Owen of Adbrightlee pedigree in the visitation shows Edward and Sara to be parents of three children (by 1623), Margaret (b. ca. 1611), Pontesbury (b. ca. 1613), and Thomas (b. ca 1617). No Richard. One could argue that he was a younger son, born after the date of the visitation, but this does not work, because the marriage of Joan Pitt to Richard Owen of Brome appears in the pedigree of Pitt of Curewiard, (then of Perry, near Stoke, and Brome, near Hopesay), in the same visitation - far from being yet unborn, Richard was already married by 1623, and he was not the son of Edward Owen and Sara Oteley. No dates are given for Joan or her parents, but her first cousin (son of the eldest son, which Joan was daughter of the 6th) had a daughter born 1602, meaning Joan was of the same generation as Sarah Oteley. > > In the nature of these things, it is likely that the entire thing is made up - that someone looking for the parentage of John Owen found the marriage of Richard Owen of Broome in the visitation, and liked the idea of a Pitt connection, so simply decided that John must have been son of Richard and Joan. Then, needing an ancestry for Richard, they arbitrarily decided to make Richard son of Edward. My suggestion is that the authentic pedigree goes no further than the immigrant. > > taf Can you tell me the page of the 1623 Visitation of Shropshire in which the family Pitt of Curewiard appears.

On Tuesday, July 5, 2016 at 9:39:14 AM UTC-7, ravinma...@yahoo.com wrote: > Is the following line the "best" (i.e., from the most recent monarch) for Anne Hyde, 1st wife of James, Duke of York? Yes. It's the only line of descent for Anne Hyde from Edward I. Cheers, ----Brad > King Edward I = Eleanor of Castile > Elizabeth Plantagenet = Humphrey de Bohun, 4th Earl of Hereford > Eleanor de Bohun = James Butler, 1st Earl of Ormond > Pernell Butler = Gilbert, 3rd Lord Talbot > Richard, 4th Lord Talbot = Ankaret Strange > Alice Talbot = Sir Thomas Barre > Elizabeth Barre = Sir Edmund Cornwall > Eleanor Cornwall = (2) Sir Richard Croft > Anne Croft = Sir Thomas Blount > Robert Blount of Eckington = Elizabeth Columbell > Anne Blount = (1) Nicholas Towers; (2) Francis Denman; > (by 2) Frances Denman = Sir Thomas Aylesbury > Frances Aylesbury = Edward Hyde, Earl of Clarendon > Anne Hyde = James, Duke of York (King James II of England)

In The history of the county of Derby, ed. by T. Noble, Volume 2 By Stephen Glover, he mentions the term "of old feoffment" which he says was a term used in ancient records which means: "to hold lands & c. which were enfeoffed or possessed by the ancestors of the person alluded to in the record before the death of Henry I", which he states was in 1135. Is this statement still accurate? I just want confirmation or clarification of the meaning. My example is the following: Galfr. de Georz, 30 H 2. (fn. 1) gave account of xxs. that the deed or charter which he had of William de Georz concerning the land of [Lughburgh] should be read in the kings court. Agnes, who was wife of Geoffrey de Georz, 13 Joh. (fn. 2) gave account of 16l. 13s. 2d. for the custody of the lands, &c. Galfr. de Jorz paid two marks for one knights fee in Burton, in the former part of the reign of Henry the third, afterwards Richard de Jorz was found to hold a knights fee of Oliver de Eyncourt, who held it of the king of the old feoffment. Robert Spencer

Hello Jeanie, I know nothing on the de Say family but "de veteri feffamento" is an comprehension. See: https://books.google.at/books?id=YqFWcZvE9H8C&pg=PA186&lpg=PA186&dq=feffamento&source=bl&ots=Pc5PS89qN6&sig=lbb2mQii3G-mJxK4sD-cckroD6k&hl=nl&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi76Z7B9tzNAhXQ0RoKHYYFA2AQ6AEIGzAA#v=onepage&q=feffamento&f=false "de veteri" says nothing with regards to the person William de Say. An avunculus is usually the proper Latin word for an uncle on the mothers side, so I guess that the avunculus could be the j militem de Witehurst. The "William filius" could perhaps refer to be the son of the previously named knight (not mentioned by you). Like I said before I know nothing on the de Say family but most times it is better to write more down then to try to deduce from less. Hans Vogels Op zaterdag 2 juli 2016 23:33:24 UTC+2 schreef Jeanie Roberts via: > In Volume 1 page 373, is the Carta of William de Say. It begins with: > > Isti sunt milites William de Say de veteri feffamento: my attempt to > translate: (these are the knights of William de Say of the old > feffamento). > This is followed by a list of knights. > On the following page it says: > De noviter feodatis de domnio meo: (The new feodatis of my lord) > The first name is: > Willelmus de Say avunculus meus j militem de Witehurst: ( William de Say, > my uncle, one knight's fee ) > other knights names then > Willelmus filius, quintam parem militis in Kembolton. ( William son 1/5 > knights fee Kimbolton). > > The date is 1166. In Medieval Lands, William de Say of Kimbolton was the > s/o William de Say and Beatrix de Mandeville. Does the first part of the > Carta refer to the elder William who according to Medieval Lands died about > 1155? Who is being referred to as My Lord in the beginning of the second > part. And who is calling William de Say my uncle? Does the William de Say > of the Carta have an Uncle named William and a son named William? Or do I > have this completely wrong. > > Hoping someone is bored this Saturday morning and can help. > > Jeanie

See also Anderson, George F. Sanborn Jr., Melinde Lutz Sanborn, The Great Migration 1634-1635, Boston, 2009, Vol. VI, pps 455-456. Doug Smith He was son of a Robert Stanley m. to Ruth.

Is the following line the "best" (i.e., from the most recent monarch) for Anne Hyde, 1st wife of James, Duke of York? King Edward I = Eleanor of Castile Elizabeth Plantagenet = Humphrey de Bohun, 4th Earl of Hereford Eleanor de Bohun = James Butler, 1st Earl of Ormond Pernell Butler = Gilbert, 3rd Lord Talbot Richard, 4th Lord Talbot = Ankaret Strange Alice Talbot = Sir Thomas Barre Elizabeth Barre = Sir Edmund Cornwall Eleanor Cornwall = (2) Sir Richard Croft Anne Croft = Sir Thomas Blount Robert Blount of Eckington = Elizabeth Columbell Anne Blount = (1) Nicholas Towers; (2) Francis Denman; (by 2) Frances Denman = Sir Thomas Aylesbury Frances Aylesbury = Edward Hyde, Earl of Clarendon Anne Hyde = James, Duke of York (King James II of England) https://books.google.com/books?id=DG5KAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA53&dq=%22nicholai+nicholai%22+%22towers+browne%22&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjwxeCE4dzNAhVK5CYKHUPrClwQ6AEIIDAA#v=onepage&q=%22nicholai%20nicholai%22%20%22towers%20browne%22&f=false https://books.google.com/books?id=pq9CAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA159&dq=%22retford+by+whom+she+had%22&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjb9end4NzNAhXG3SYKHbNOCrYQ6AEIKTAC#v=onepage&q=%22retford%20by%20whom%20she%20had%22&f=false

Em terça-feira, 5 de julho de 2016 16:25:17 UTC+1, Hal Bradley via escreveu: > If you are referring to Timothy Stanley of Hartford, Connecticut, then his father was not John at all. See Leslie Mahler's article in TAG 80(2005): 217 et seq. > > Cheers, > > Hal Bradley Yes it is the same thanks but I don´t know where I can see that article but does that article agree with the theory that Timothy was son of Robert Stanley and Ruth Garland.

If you are referring to Timothy Stanley of Hartford, Connecticut, then his father was not John at all. See Leslie Mahler's article in TAG 80(2005): 217 et seq. Cheers, Hal Bradley > -----Original Message----- > From: gen-medieval-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:gen-medieval- > bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Paulo Canedo via > Sent: Tuesday, July 5, 2016 7:34 AM > To: gen-medieval@rootsweb.com > Subject: Timothy Stanley and his grandfather Peter Stanley > > We all know that many famous americans are descendants of the immigrant > Timothy Stanley , it is known that his father was John Stanley and his > grandfather Peter Stanley but the ancestry of Peter Stanley is > controversial , many genealogy websites make him the son or grandson of > Thomas Stanley 2nd Earl of Derby but I don´t see any evidence for that > , but it seems of general consensus that him was descendant of the > great Stanley family but is there some evidence about his ancestry. > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to GEN-MEDIEVAL- > request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in > the subject and the body of the message

Em terça-feira, 5 de julho de 2016 15:53:27 UTC+1, taf escreveu: > On Tuesday, July 5, 2016 at 7:34:08 AM UTC-7, Paulo Canedo wrote: > > We all know that many famous americans are descendants of the immigrant > > Timothy Stanley , it is known that his father was John Stanley and his > > grandfather Peter Stanley but the ancestry of Peter Stanley is > > controversial , many genealogy websites make him the son or grandson > > of Thomas Stanley 2nd Earl of Derby but I don´t see any evidence for > > that , but it seems of general consensus that him was descendant of > > the great Stanley family but is there some evidence about his ancestry. > > I know nothing about the specifics here, but 'general consensus' is an extremely poor guide in such questions. Of course, descendants are going to agree that they descend from the most important family of the surname. If there is no evidence, general consensus is completely worthless. > > taf Oh I saw just now http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~stanfam/tenterden.htm that shows that Timothy and his brothers were NOT sons of John but of Robert Stanley and Ruth Garland.

On Tuesday, July 5, 2016 at 7:34:08 AM UTC-7, Paulo Canedo wrote: > We all know that many famous americans are descendants of the immigrant > Timothy Stanley , it is known that his father was John Stanley and his > grandfather Peter Stanley but the ancestry of Peter Stanley is > controversial , many genealogy websites make him the son or grandson > of Thomas Stanley 2nd Earl of Derby but I don´t see any evidence for > that , but it seems of general consensus that him was descendant of > the great Stanley family but is there some evidence about his ancestry. I know nothing about the specifics here, but 'general consensus' is an extremely poor guide in such questions. Of course, descendants are going to agree that they descend from the most important family of the surname. If there is no evidence, general consensus is completely worthless. taf

We all know that many famous americans are descendants of the immigrant Timothy Stanley , it is known that his father was John Stanley and his grandfather Peter Stanley but the ancestry of Peter Stanley is controversial , many genealogy websites make him the son or grandson of Thomas Stanley 2nd Earl of Derby but I don´t see any evidence for that , but it seems of general consensus that him was descendant of the great Stanley family but is there some evidence about his ancestry.

On Tuesday, July 5, 2016 at 6:38:46 AM UTC-7, Paulo Canedo wrote: > Thanks for the info but since the immigrant John Owen was from the area > of Shropshire do you think he may have been from another branch of that > family Owen. Let me start by saying I know nothing about this immigrant, but do we know he was from Shropshire from contemporary reference to his place of origin, or is he said to be from Shropshire because he was made o be son of RIchard Oen of Broome? As to being from a different branch of that Owen family, we are talking about two Owen families, those of Adbrightley and Broome, and they don't appear to be connected. The Visitation shows another three Owen families. The Adbrightley family only began using the Owen surname in the generation right before Edward who married Sarah Oteley, so there isn't that much opportunity for another branch. Bear in mind that this is a Welsh patronymic, so there will be a lot of Owens completely unrelated. More importantly, this is going about it the wrong way. Trouble can arise from trying to 'fix' a broken line by looking for a way to rescue it, when there was never any evidence for it to begin with. This is not a case where someone made a mistake. Someone outright invented connections. Rather than trying to find another place to put John within this pedigree, you want to go back to John and see just what, exactly we know about his parentage once you set aside this invented connection, and work back from there. taf