On Tuesday, June 21, 2016 at 5:32:06 PM UTC+1, Andrew Lancaster via wrote: Thanks Andrew It always amazes me how frequently things boil down to a matter of definition! > I disagree with James that familysearch is a wiki. I think that is a > confusing and unconventional way to use the word, but of course you are > free to try this usage out and see if it sticks. Thanks! For me the "wiki" bit of wikipedia and wikitree refers to the underlying process by which they operate rather than the software. In both cases, the process features: a single, publicly available output, editable by many people (who may be otherwise unknown to each other), subject to community rules regarding their eligibility to edit, and viewed as a common good (i.e. contributors waive their copyright). As such they are the product of (usually) large-scale collaboration on the internet and I agree would be impossible without the software. However, I'd say it's the process rather than the software that is definitive. > If wiki means any group > of people working together on the internet then it includes 3 people > making a google spreadsheet together. In my mind, only if their work is publicly available and for the common good > I personally think if the wiki > software is not involved, it is not a wiki. Not sure I agree. For me software is a tool that meets a need or want. By analogy, I'm an accountant and my profession was preparing spreadsheets (albeit relatively small and simple ones, frequently in pencil) long before we had software to help us. Oh happy days when you had to stick pages of "14-column" together to get beyond column "N"! > And I think I am right to > say that this is the convention followed by most people. > Don't know, I hadn't really considered the point before... > > It is true the word can also be used to refer to one wiki, and by > extension the people working together on one wiki site, using wiki > software, the “community”. > > Obviously any community should ideally have some sort of shared aim, but > I am also not sure I agree with James’ words “essentially a wiki since > it shares a single view of "the truth" to which all members contribute”. > If this means a wiki is any joint effort (and that the shared truth is > just whatever the texts in the wiki end up saying) then I find this to > be a similar mistake to saying familysearch is a wiki. (Definition too > broad). See above. The big problem with the "pure" wiki approach (i.e. all editors are equal) is that objective truth will always be subject to corruption by those who believe differently, based on subjective influences be they religion, hearsay, the newspapers, politics or whatever. > Why use the word that way? If it means that people in a wiki all > agree with each other, well then I think such things do not exist. > (Definition too narrow.) I actually think (like a good Marxist) that a good wiki will almost by definition reflect debate and difference in its framework and editing rules and I'd be the first to say that the structure and processing assumptions of familysearch don't always facilitate the fact that some facts may be uncertain e.g. dates or place of birth for individuals, especially in earlier periods. > I think neither definition is pointing at what > is distinctive and recognizable in a wiki. It is not just any online > collaboration. I agree see above > It is not a form of collaboration where there is a lot of > unanimity. I agree, see above > It does not have to be large scale collaboration. Less convinced about that > Again I > think it is much more meaningful to say that the defining characteristic > of wikis is the software platform, however it us used. There can be 2 > people active on a wiki, or 2 million. Hmmm. > The English language has other > terms for other kinds of online editing. Please educate me! What term would you use for what I've defined above? BTW, while dealing with this topic, the familysearch "wiki" appears to be a subset of wikipedia (i.e. a collection of articles) which may use wiki software, but to my mind lacks the element of common purpose that part-defines a "wiki". Instead it's a supporting tool for their true "wiki" of creating a single family tree for humanity (unrealistic and unobtainable though that may be...) *********************************************** > > > James, concerning the pre-1500 certification on wikitree (it is not on > wikipedia) Sorry, my mistake, I meant wikitree! > there is also a pre-1700 level. Both involve answering some > questions about things like how to name a source properly and so on, and > then having someone approve you. While fairly nominal, this has had a > big impact on the pre-1500 editing quality. It will not be obvious yet, > because this policy is only a few months old. Probably much more > important was the decision to stop the possibility of editing en masse > using large gedcom files. Now, in pre-1500 profiles you have to edit one > person at a time. Just making it less interesting to the less-focused > editors has a big impact. (Human nature, you know.) But you can see that > these policies could be set much stricter in a really quality-focused wiki. > Which I think brings me back to the point that we are at a particular point in the early stages of the development of on-line genealogy, where the focus for most people like me is the processing of the enormous amounts of new data that are now available to ensure that their personal tree is as accurate as possible (and in my case help identify far-flung cousins). Alongside this is the move from personal storage of information to shared, online storage, best represented by the growing realisation that personal gedcoms are not a valid source for online databases... Once that stage is over and as I think I said in an earlier post I can see it taking several years, the focus will shift to quality and accuracy (and the associated debates - and so the rules for managing those debates, controlling editing rights etc.) but these will relate to a much wider group of people than the medieval English gentry / aristocracy. In fact I'd probably say that from the evidence presented in this thread and my experience on Familysearch, that process has already begun... Regards James

I checked out _The Quatremains of Oxfordshire_ from the local library and the only slightly relevant comment it makes is this (p 58): "Maud [Quatremains] married John Bruley, of Waterstock, Oxfordshire, a few miles north of Thame, a manor which his great-grandmother Katherine, a Foliot heiress, granted to his grandfather John Bruley. Dr. Macnamara gives (p 219 &c.) a clear and interesting history of the Bruley family, but does not follow them into Warwickshire and Worcestershire. I might supplement his account, but content myself with noticing their handsome coat of arms ..." etc. Thus this book makes contact with the Bruley pedigree mentioned by Patrick above (through the marriage of Henry Bruley to Katherine Foliot), but sheds no light whatsoever on the lineage in question. There is no mention of Alice Bruley or of the Spine, Durvassal or Throckmorton surnames. Dave Ebel

Dear Peter and James. You raise some points about definitions and logic! :) I have mainly been explaining how a wiki is a type of software which can be used in more ways than the most well-known ways. That was the most relevant point about wikis, given the question was raised about how to do an online collaboration with more of a quality focus than most large-scale collaborations online. An example of a quality focused project already existing is the Henry project, but it is not currently a wiki. It seemed relevant to me to point to the question of software, because I know wiki software is not always considered for such purposes. Indeed I know that software itself is not often considered as a factor that might make it easier. I also had in mind past discussions about what has been difficult etc in examples such as the Henry project. I disagree with James that familysearch is a wiki. I think that is a confusing and unconventional way to use the word, but of course you are free to try this usage out and see if it sticks. If wiki means any group of people working together on the internet then it includes 3 people making a google spreadsheet together. I personally think if the wiki software is not involved, it is not a wiki. And I think I am right to say that this is the convention followed by most people. It is true the word can also be used to refer to one wiki, and by extension the people working together on one wiki site, using wiki software, the “community”. Obviously any community should ideally have some sort of shared aim, but I am also not sure I agree with James’ words “essentially a wiki since it shares a single view of "the truth" to which all members contribute”. If this means a wiki is any joint effort (and that the shared truth is just whatever the texts in the wiki end up saying) then I find this to be a similar mistake to saying familysearch is a wiki. (Definition too broad). Why use the word that way? If it means that people in a wiki all agree with each other, well then I think such things do not exist. (Definition too narrow.) I think neither definition is pointing at what is distinctive and recognizable in a wiki. It is not just any online collaboration. It is not a form of collaboration where there is a lot of unanimity. It does not have to be large scale collaboration. Again I think it is much more meaningful to say that the defining characteristic of wikis is the software platform, however it us used. There can be 2 people active on a wiki, or 2 million. The English language has other terms for other kinds of online editing. I also disagree with Peter that there is a logical error in saying that a wiki can chose its editors. The point being made was indeed that the procedure or policy concerning allowing new editors can be set in different ways, so I am confident everyone understood me, but there was also nothing wrong with the wording. Perhaps I am not the one who needs to think about this more. I have a clear vision of how wikis really work. :) At first the policy of who can edit can be set by founders, for example. The founders might never actually edit. They might set a constitution instead of making individual decisions. Later it might be decided by a bigger group of people who also may or may not be editors. Or indeed anyone may be allowed to join, like in Wikipedia, but then there may be rules about limited rights and more oversight for a period. But one thing for sure: when new editors are being chosen they will not be existing editors, and therefore there was no logical problem with saying that a wiki (wiki community) can chose editors (new editors) how it wants. The “wiki” of today can chose its editors of tomorrow and the two groups of people do not ever overlap at that moment of choice. :) Concerning chickens and eggs, I came into a pre-existing discussion where a project was already proposed concerning manor histories. During discussion I suggested that for example a project like the Henry project could be moved to wiki software also. It would not change the quality of that project. :) So there seem to be lots of chickens and eggs around. A wiki is just a software platform, a tool. You can use it, or you can find another one. I suggest not thinking too much about specific wikis we do not like for specific reasons. James, concerning the pre-1500 certification on wikitree (it is not on wikipedia) there is also a pre-1700 level. Both involve answering some questions about things like how to name a source properly and so on, and then having someone approve you. While fairly nominal, this has had a big impact on the pre-1500 editing quality. It will not be obvious yet, because this policy is only a few months old. Probably much more important was the decision to stop the possibility of editing en masse using large gedcom files. Now, in pre-1500 profiles you have to edit one person at a time. Just making it less interesting to the less-focused editors has a big impact. (Human nature, you know.) But you can see that these policies could be set much stricter in a really quality-focused wiki. Best Regards Andrew

On 21/06/2016 5:49 PM, Andrew Lancaster via wrote: > Denis Beauregard wrote: > > > Asking money to support wikis? They are made of stealing material, so > > why would someone who accept to use stolen material accepts to pay for it ? > > No one is asking for money for wikis. A wiki can be set-up for free and > have whatever policies or editors it wants. Perhaps it would be worthwhile to do some more rigorous thinking about what a 'wiki' is - here you have made it into some kind of syndical entity with a will of its own. Surely you mean it can be set up for free and have whatever policies its editors want. There is first the practical question: who are these editors and who gets to select them? The wiki may be the egg (or the yolk) but it can't very well be the chicken, much less the chicken farmer. Peter Stewart

I don't think of FamilySearch as a Wiki either (more like a series of databases), but they do have a Wiki - https://familysearch.org/wiki/en/Main_Page On Tue, Jun 21, 2016 at 12:31 PM, Andrew Lancaster via < gen-medieval@rootsweb.com> wrote: > > > Dear Peter and James. > > You raise some points about definitions and logic! :) > > I have mainly been explaining how a wiki is a type of software which can > be used in more ways than the most well-known ways. That was the most > relevant point about wikis, given the question was raised about how to > do an online collaboration with more of a quality focus than most > large-scale collaborations online. An example of a quality focused > project already existing is the Henry project, but it is not currently a > wiki. It seemed relevant to me to point to the question of software, > because I know wiki software is not always considered for such purposes. > Indeed I know that software itself is not often considered as a factor > that might make it easier. I also had in mind past discussions about > what has been difficult etc in examples such as the Henry project. > > I disagree with James that familysearch is a wiki. I think that is a > confusing and unconventional way to use the word, but of course you are > free to try this usage out and see if it sticks. If wiki means any group > of people working together on the internet then it includes 3 people > making a google spreadsheet together. I personally think if the wiki > software is not involved, it is not a wiki. And I think I am right to > say that this is the convention followed by most people. > > > It is true the word can also be used to refer to one wiki, and by > extension the people working together on one wiki site, using wiki > software, the “community”. > > Obviously any community should ideally have some sort of shared aim, but > I am also not sure I agree with James’ words “essentially a wiki since > it shares a single view of "the truth" to which all members contribute”. > If this means a wiki is any joint effort (and that the shared truth is > just whatever the texts in the wiki end up saying) then I find this to > be a similar mistake to saying familysearch is a wiki. (Definition too > broad). Why use the word that way? If it means that people in a wiki all > agree with each other, well then I think such things do not exist. > (Definition too narrow.) I think neither definition is pointing at what > is distinctive and recognizable in a wiki. It is not just any online > collaboration. It is not a form of collaboration where there is a lot of > unanimity. It does not have to be large scale collaboration. Again I > think it is much more meaningful to say that the defining characteristic > of wikis is the software platform, however it us used. There can be 2 > people active on a wiki, or 2 million. The English language has other > terms for other kinds of online editing. > > I also disagree with Peter that there is a logical error in saying that > a wiki can chose its editors. The point being made was indeed that the > procedure or policy concerning allowing new editors can be set in > different ways, so I am confident everyone understood me, but there was > also nothing wrong with the wording. Perhaps I am not the one who needs > to think about this more. I have a clear vision of how wikis really work. > :) > > > At first the policy of who can edit can be set by founders, for example. > The founders might never actually edit. They might set a constitution > instead of making individual decisions. Later it might be decided by a > bigger group of people who also may or may not be editors. Or indeed > anyone may be allowed to join, like in Wikipedia, but then there may be > rules about limited rights and more oversight for a period. But one > thing for sure: when new editors are being chosen they will not be > existing editors, and therefore there was no logical problem with saying > that a wiki (wiki community) can chose editors (new editors) how it > wants. The “wiki” of today can chose its editors of tomorrow and the two > groups of people do not ever overlap at that moment of choice. :) > > > Concerning chickens and eggs, I came into a pre-existing discussion > where a project was already proposed concerning manor histories. During > discussion I suggested that for example a project like the Henry project > could be moved to wiki software also. It would not change the quality of > that project. :) So there seem to be lots of chickens and eggs around. A > wiki is just a software platform, a tool. You can use it, or you can > find another one. I suggest not thinking too much about specific wikis > we do not like for specific reasons. > > James, concerning the pre-1500 certification on wikitree (it is not on > wikipedia) there is also a pre-1700 level. Both involve answering some > questions about things like how to name a source properly and so on, and > then having someone approve you. While fairly nominal, this has had a > big impact on the pre-1500 editing quality. It will not be obvious yet, > because this policy is only a few months old. Probably much more > important was the decision to stop the possibility of editing en masse > using large gedcom files. Now, in pre-1500 profiles you have to edit one > person at a time. Just making it less interesting to the less-focused > editors has a big impact. (Human nature, you know.) But you can see that > these policies could be set much stricter in a really quality-focused wiki. > > > Best Regards > > Andrew > > > ------------------------------- > 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, June 21, 2016 at 10:20:54 AM UTC-4, taf wrote: > I guess what I am saying is that the participants here have spent all of 5 days looking for proof, perhaps insufficient time to draw definitive conclusions given the vague manner in which the evidence is presented. However, that doesn't preclude a continued search for evidence, wherever it leads. Agreed. My point was merely that if I were developing a proof or publishing a book, I would not draw anything even close to a solid line to the names of these wives. If Mr. Throckmorton had access to rather inaccessible documents, that is no help to me or anyone really unless he describes the key contents of those documents instead of just his conclusions drawn from them. It may be the case that Gary Boyd Roberts has seen these documents, but I doubt it. --Joe C

re: Big online genealogy includes things like ancestry, geni, familysearch etc, which are NOT wikis. Geni.com in fact uses Wiki software in their Project software. The controls are as tight or as loose as the project collaborators make it. Here's an example of a well controlled project with 5 active collaborators setting the parameters: https://www.geni.com/projects/RMS-Titanic/275 Geni's Basic membership is free, PRO membership gives access to more tools. Volunteer curators "look after" the "big tree;" about 200 of us world wide, with pockets of specialties. GEDCOM imports stopped in 2010.

On Tuesday, June 21, 2016 at 11:18:25 AM UTC-4, taf wrote: > On Tuesday, June 21, 2016 at 7:43:12 AM UTC-7, Jan Wolfe wrote: > > > Perhaps this quitclaim suggests that William Spyne's widow Margery married > > a Walter de Sutton: > > > > http://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/details/r/C5520869 > > Reference:E 210/9005 > > Description: John son of Hugh de Northfolk to Walter de Suttone of > > Warwick, Margery his wife, and the heirs of William de la Spyne: > > Quitclaim of a messuage and land in North Littleton: Worcs. > > Date: 11 Edw. II. [8 July 1317-7 July 1318] > > Just as a reminder, VCH Warwickshire, in covering Coughton, says: > > "In 1300 William 'of Spinney' was said to hold that part of the vill of Coughton with its wood and plain which was 'on the side of the river Arrow towards the west', (fn. 83) and in 1315 he was holding Coughton as ½ knight's fee of Guy, Earl of Warwick. (fn. 84) He died before the end of 1316, (fn. 85) having enfeoffed William de Sutton of Warwick of the manor.* In 1318 the manor was settled on William Sutton and his wife Margery for their lives, with remainders to William son of William 'del Espine' and his issue, or Joan his sister, Alice her sister, or his right heirs, (fn. 86) and William de Sutton is referred to as lord of Coughton in 1320. (fn. 87) It is possible that William de Sutton had married the widowed Margery de Spineto and obtained the guardianship of her son and his estate. " > > 83. Select Pleas of the Forest (Selden Soc.), 120. > 84. Cal. Inq. p.m. v, p. 405; Cal. Close, 1313–18, p. 278; cf. Feud Aids, v, 178. > 85. Cal. Inq. p.m. vi, 70. > 86. Dugd. 748; Feet of F. (Dugd. Soc. xv), 1489. > 87. P.R.O. Anct. Deeds, B. 1653. > > taf Perhaps TNA abstracted de Suttone's given name incorrectly in the quitclaim, or perhaps a clerk wrote it incorrectly. In the published series, Ancient Deeds, B. 1653 states: [ ] B. 1653. Grant by Nicholas de Kyggeleye to Maculmus Musard and Isabella his wife, of lands in the territory of Kynggeleye. Saturday after St. Barnabas the Apostle, 13 Edward II. https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=mdp.39015013091643;view=1up;seq=383 Any idea what deed is meant in footnote 87?

From: JuneM via [gen-medieval@rootsweb.com] Sent: 19 June 2016 13:19 > > I am a volunteer researcher with a village history group in Barnsley, Yorkshire, and am currently researching the Dodworth/Dodsworth/Dodworthe family of Gawber Hall, Manor of Shepley, & Lascelles Hall in the 14th, 15th & 16th centuries. I have traced family members mainly through their witnessing of documents and have formed the opinion that they are legal people. Another document - an appointment of Attorney - has further convinced me that I'm on the right lines. However, as I'm still in my infancy as a medieval researcher I'd welcome the list's thoughts on this. > > June M > ------------------------------- That sounds very interesting, June. It is now recognised that there were many levels of provincial and local lawyers below the elite London attorneys, apprentices-at-law and sergeants, and there is a small literature on the problems of identifying them in the records. The footnotes to pages 83-85 of this article will guide you to some of them: https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=8Vq_-ZFRtnkC&pg=PA73&dq=%22employ+lawyers+when%22&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwibjb7t67jNAhXMVhoKHZ5AAf8Q6AEINjAA#v=onepage&q=%22employ%20lawyers%20when%22&f=false Unfortunately it's only a Preview, so at least one of those pages will probably be unavailable. If you'd like to see it all, I can send you the text as an attachment. Witnessing charters and other documents would not in itself normally be evidence that an individual was acting as a lawyer - anyone could be a witness. Appointment as an attorney could sometimes be a pointer to a lawyer, but it depends very much on the circumstances - could you describe the document you have found more fully? Matt Tompkins

Denis Beauregard wrote: >Asking money to support wikis? They are made of stealing material, so why would someone who accept to use stolen material accepts to pay for it ? No one is asking for money for wikis. A wiki can be set-up for free and have whatever policies or editors it wants. Also, I have no idea what you mean by "stealing", but I can not think of anything being discussed which amounts to stealing. If citation of other sources is "stealing" then all researchers are "stealing". If what you are talking about is the need for proper citations of sources, then this seems to me to come under the general category of quality control, which also has other aspects to it. (For what it is worth, many well-known wikis have policies that all material should be properly cited. Policies do not always equate to reality of course.) I think there is a false equation between "big online genealogy" and wikis. Big online genealogy includes things like ancestry, geni, familysearch etc, which are NOT wikis. That these are problematic for good genealogy is a well-known concern. Wikis are united only by the kind of software they use. A wiki can be set-up by academics or doctors or within one organization. They do not even need to be on the internet. Using the software does not turn good researchers into bad ones. :) For what it is worth, I do not see any pattern whereby the wikis being used for large scale online genealogy (such as Werelate and Wikitree) are worse than things like Geni. I would actually argue that their quality tends to be better? Regards Andrew

On Tuesday, June 21, 2016 at 7:43:12 AM UTC-7, Jan Wolfe wrote: > Perhaps this quitclaim suggests that William Spyne's widow Margery married > a Walter de Sutton: > > http://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/details/r/C5520869 > Reference:E 210/9005 > Description: John son of Hugh de Northfolk to Walter de Suttone of > Warwick, Margery his wife, and the heirs of William de la Spyne: > Quitclaim of a messuage and land in North Littleton: Worcs. > Date: 11 Edw. II. [8 July 1317-7 July 1318] Just as a reminder, VCH Warwickshire, in covering Coughton, says: "In 1300 William 'of Spinney' was said to hold that part of the vill of Coughton with its wood and plain which was 'on the side of the river Arrow towards the west', (fn. 83) and in 1315 he was holding Coughton as ½ knight's fee of Guy, Earl of Warwick. (fn. 84) He died before the end of 1316, (fn. 85) having enfeoffed William de Sutton of Warwick of the manor.* In 1318 the manor was settled on William Sutton and his wife Margery for their lives, with remainders to William son of William 'del Espine' and his issue, or Joan his sister, Alice her sister, or his right heirs, (fn. 86) and William de Sutton is referred to as lord of Coughton in 1320. (fn. 87) It is possible that William de Sutton had married the widowed Margery de Spineto and obtained the guardianship of her son and his estate. " 83. Select Pleas of the Forest (Selden Soc.), 120. 84. Cal. Inq. p.m. v, p. 405; Cal. Close, 1313–18, p. 278; cf. Feud Aids, v, 178. 85. Cal. Inq. p.m. vi, 70. 86. Dugd. 748; Feet of F. (Dugd. Soc. xv), 1489. 87. P.R.O. Anct. Deeds, B. 1653. taf

On Tuesday, June 21, 2016 at 10:20:54 AM UTC-4, taf wrote: ... > True, yet he does cite his sources: Dugdale and Coughton Records. The former gives no information on the wives of these men. As to the latter, these are the unpublished deeds and other documents of Coughton manor, and it is unclear if the details he provides (in footnotes on a chart) represent everything he was going on. > > For the Durvassal connection, it looks like William Spyne was serving as paper-plaintiff in a fine resettling Spernore on William Durvassal and his mother (or step-mother) Sibyl. I am not sure why this implies a relationship, but it is notable that Throckmorton shows this woman married to William de Sutton, and I see no mention of him elsewhere that explains his inclusion, so it appears there is more to these Coughton Records than is being detailed in the footnotes. ... Perhaps this quitclaim suggests that William Spyne's widow Margery married a Walter de Sutton: http://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/details/r/C5520869 Reference:E 210/9005 Description: John son of Hugh de Northfolk to Walter de Suttone of Warwick, Margery his wife, and the heirs of William de la Spyne: Quitclaim of a messuage and land in North Littleton: Worcs. Date: 11 Edw. II. [8 July 1317-7 July 1318]

On 2016-06-19 22:00:16 +0000, Kay Allen via said: > Dear Patrick and all, > VCH Warwickshire is available at British History Online.  This might > throw some light on the Durvassal-Spiney=plus perhaps Holt issues.  The > archives may have some discussion also. Hello, Kay -- As far as I can see, all that VCH Warwickshire (specifically, "Parishes: Coughton" in volume 3, pages 74-86) tells us about these generations is: William de Spineto, also called "del Espine" (d. "before the end of 1316") = Margery | William "del Espinee" (d. bet. 1370 and 1398) = Alice | Sir Guy Spine = Katherine | Eleanor = John Throckmorton, son of Thomas Throckmorton of Fladbury, Worcs. I searched the whole multi-volume county history for all the variants I could imagine of Spine/Spyne/Spineto/Spinney; nothing came up indicating any marriages to Durvassals or Bruleys. -- Patrick Nielsen Hayden pnh@panix.com about.me/patricknh http://nielsenhayden.com/genealogy-tng/index.php

On Tuesday, June 21, 2016 at 5:13:10 AM UTC-7, joe...@gmail.com wrote: > And here we are. The identity of the families of the wives of the William > de Spines and Guy de Spine has no evidence whatsoever other than the word > of Mr. Throckmorton, who has been clearly shown to be very unreliable. True, yet he does cite his sources: Dugdale and Coughton Records. The former gives no information on the wives of these men. As to the latter, these are the unpublished deeds and other documents of Coughton manor, and it is unclear if the details he provides (in footnotes on a chart) represent everything he was going on. For the Durvassal connection, it looks like William Spyne was serving as paper-plaintiff in a fine resettling Spernore on William Durvassal and his mother (or step-mother) Sibyl. I am not sure why this implies a relationship, but it is notable that Throckmorton shows this woman married to William de Sutton, and I see no mention of him elsewhere that explains his inclusion, so it appears there is more to these Coughton Records than is being detailed in the footnotes. For the Spine/Bruley connection, he seems to be depending on some ambiguous grants of rents, but again it is hard to tell. > How exciting. We can throw away these (probably false) identities, and > start with a clean slate to identify the proper individuals. > I guess what I am saying is that the participants here have spent all of 5 days looking for proof, perhaps insufficient time to draw definitive conclusions given the vague manner in which the evidence is presented. However, that doesn't preclude a continued search for evidence, wherever it leads. taf

On Monday, June 20, 2016 at 11:50:45 AM UTC-7, taf wrote: > On Monday, June 20, 2016 at 11:29:28 AM UTC-7, paulorica...@gmail.com wrote: > > Em sábado, 18 de junho de 2016 14:17:58 UTC+1, cynthia.ann...@gmail.com escreveu: > > > On Wednesday, June 15, 2016 at 11:08:13 AM UTC-4, cynthia.ann...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > Now that I understand that the Camville line breaks down because the > > > mother of William de Camville isn't Milicent de Rethel but instead > > > Richard de Camville's first wife Alice, does anyone have evidence who > > > this Alice is? > > > > We can´t be sure the line breaks down we don´t have enough information > > to say who is the mother of William but the genealogists seem to support > > Millicent. > > We can't be absolutely positively sure that William was not son of Millicent, but it is extremely unlikely that he was. > > 'The genealogists' first drew the conclusion that William the younger was son of Millicent simply because Millicent was documented as wife of William the elder. Given what they had in hand, this was a reasonable assumption - if a man only had one known wife, then the default conclusion is that his legitimate children were born to that wife, unless there is evidence to the contrary. Unfortunately, at the time they lacked the precise details on the pattern of inheritance of Millicent's land, which is exactly the kind of evidence to the contrary that suggests that the older sons of the elder William were not children of Millicent. > > This is a case where we have to be willing to reevaluate old assumptions, whatever the cost to our tree, and when we do this we find that in all likelihood the line breaks, that William was likely son of an earlier wife and not Millicent. > As Peter has made clear, I left out an alternative - it is certainly possible that these genealogists were unaware that William the elder had two wives (I think we sometimes forget how easy we have it is locating obscure publications, or knowing that a not-so-obscure publication we wouldn't think to check has something relevant). That being said, it is also possible that they knew that Gerald was son of one mother and that Isabel was daughter of another, so how do they determine which one is likely mother of William? They pick the one with the better pedigree. However it arose it was an ill-informed conclusion. taf

On Monday, June 20, 2016 at 10:06:49 AM UTC-7, taf wrote: > Yes, but I posted back in January how this proposed Durvassal / Holt / Throckmorton connection is based on nothing more than the fact that John Holt's wife and John Throckmorton's wife were both named Eleanor, and further that the inheritance of Spernore (entailed to the right heirs of John and Joyce Durvassal), by William Spernore's daughters on the death of Walter Holt demonstrates that Walter Holt did not have any surviving sisters - indeed that the entire descent from Nicholas Durvassal, Walter's grandfather, must have become extinct. > In both this and the previous post I made, I gave the wrong name to John Durvassal's wife - she was Sibyl. taf

On Tuesday, June 21, 2016 at 7:24:20 AM UTC-4, Patrick Nielsen Hayden wrote: > On 2016-06-19 22:00:16 +0000, Kay Allen via said: > > > Dear Patrick and all, > > VCH Warwickshire is available at British History Online.  This might > > throw some light on the Durvassal-Spiney=plus perhaps Holt issues.  The > > archives may have some discussion also. > And here we are. The identity of the families of the wives of the William de Spines and Guy de Spine has no evidence whatsoever other than the word of Mr. Throckmorton, who has been clearly shown to be very unreliable. At this point, Mr. Throckmorton should be cast aside and RD800 should have a correction added. Does anyone have a way to contact Gary Boyd Roberts? How exciting. We can throw away these (probably false) identities, and start with a clean slate to identify the proper individuals. --Joe Cook

On Tuesday, June 21, 2016 at 9:09:05 AM UTC+1, Peter Stewart via wrote: > Perhaps it would be worthwhile to do some more rigorous thinking about > what a 'wiki' is - here you have made it into some kind of syndical > entity with a will of its own. > Dear Peter I thought I'd posted a reply yesterday but it seems to have got lost en route. Essentially I was making a similar point about the difference between familysearch (which I would say is essentially a wiki since it shares a single view of "the truth" to which all members contribute) and ancestry.com (which is more of a collection of individuals' work). I am certain that the familysearch platform could be improved in many ways, and its reasons for wanting such a unified view of history may not be shared by everyone including me, but that doesn't stop it being a useful tool... On the question of theft, I agree with you about the importance of citations and also with Stewart's point about some people mis-using sources, but to some extent that's why I hold by the main point of my posts, which is that wikis will always be rubbish if the people who have the knowledge and experience to make them better don't get involved. In which regard, prompted by this thread I did some exploring on wikipedia and discovered that they have a special group of people who are "pre-1500 certified" so you can't make changes unless you've been approved. I didn't look to see what the entry hurdles were since there is no way that I'd qualify but I thought that it shows what can/could be done. James

(Apologies to soc.genealogy.medieval that this is totally off-period, even if genealogical.) Renia, I would appreciate contact with you about Mary Palliser. Could you contact me privately, please.

I for one see no use to a wikitree and no reason to support them. If you have free time, then use it in the so many indexing projects. Wikis are basically research stolen to other sites. wikipedia will rewrite stuff to "kill" copyrights, but in genealogy, this just doesn't work. Copying from another web site is stealing the work on that site. Anyway, wikis will die some day. Stealing the works from other will improve their position in google research but at the same time, the site will no be usable. Asking money to support wikis ? They are made of stealing material, so why would someone who accept to use stolen material accepts to pay for it ? No wiki only means you can search original material made by dedicated specialists and enthousiastics, not by beginners. Denis -- Denis Beauregard - généalogiste émérite (FQSG) Les Français d'Amérique du Nord - www.francogene.com/genealogie--quebec/ French in North America before 1722 - www.francogene.com/quebec--genealogy/ Sur cédérom à 1785 - On CD-ROM to 1785