Sometimes I think its getting to me.

[duckweed]

I find myself shouting at long dead authors and erroneous family trees on screen. I really think I'm cracking up. I read a book supposively well researched and quotes 2 real documents but the rest is drivell. The author claims another researcher has obviously got it wrong because the person didn't get the right probate date as it didn't fit their dates. The fact that the author wrote it about 80 years ago and is long dead doesn't stop me wishing I could throttle her.

There was a long court case between nephews about inheritance, with several court documents recording dates people died and when the dispute arose but this writer has ignored all that easily available information,(it was printed in contemporary collection of charters and chancery records) so not only did she miss all that she cast scorn on what was probably good research. If only I could find his history.

Then there is a second family history where in spite of the fact that the 2 families have different coats of arms and no obvious link the author links them together because both families, though not even the same birthdates, have 3 brothers with the same first names and roughly same surname. There is clear evidence in the Parish records that they did not suddenly bunk off to Norfolk as one brother died in infancy.

Why has no one ever questioned these people in 80 years? Why are they continually quoted as authorities?

So I find myself frightening the cat shouting at the computer or a book.

 

[benny1982]

On Anc I asked a lady what evidence she had about an ancestor coming from Romford in the 1700s then moving to a mid Essex village 20 miles away and she said "I got it from another member's tree" which had no sources, so I thought, forget it. I like to clarify things myself.

 

[Ellie]

It's amazing how many people take the information from someone else's tree as gospel.. hence the expression barking up the wrong tree

 

[benny1982]

Many Anc trees have people who married before they were born and after they died. I have seen a tree with a mutual ancestor of someone born in 1790 died in 1650. I didn't bother messaging them.

When that lady said "I got it from another tree", I thought, if that is your attitude with a tree that has no sources, you deserve everything you get if you find it is all wrong later on.

 

[duckweed]

Yes but these books were written 80 years ago and it seems no one has really questioned them in 80 years.

 

[leefer]

It's amazing how many people take the information from someone else's tree as gospel.. hence the expression barking up the wrong tree

:biggrin:
Should be on the stage Ellie.....get yer coat

 

[benny1982]

I have seen a dog barking up the wrong tree before.

 

[leefer]

Well its been so cold in Swindon the dogs have been freezing to the lamposts.

 

[duckweed]

This isn't a case of someone nicking off someone else's. It's the case of only taking the facts that are attractive to your view of your family tree and disregarding any facts that mean you are a commoner rather than descended from Royalty. In this case noting a marriage to someone related to Royalty but refusing to accept that there were no surviving children to carry on that line.

 

[p.risboy]

This isn't a case of someone nicking off someone else's. It's the case of only taking the facts that are attractive to your view of your family tree and disregarding any facts that mean you are a commoner rather than descended from Royalty. In this case noting a marriage to someone related to Royalty but refusing to accept that there were no surviving children to carry on that line.

The old selective family tree DW.:biggrin:

They obviously wanted to 'go up in the world' socially.

 

[duckweed]

Problem is now I have a Jane Blythe who married a Tristram Revell and had a son Thomas. Trouble is according to different sources she has 3 fathers, Thomas of Barnby Dunn, William of Barnby Dunn and William of Norton Lees. William of Barnby Dunn would be only 10 years old so I can rule him out but I can't find when Jane was born, married, died , to try and work out who her father might be. I know she died before her husband as he married twice and he seems to have died in about 1532 in Carlingthwaite.

 

[leefer]

Is there any info on the British History online site Duckweed....maybe search Barnby Dun on there....never know.

 

[duckweed]

I'm guessing her father was Thomas since they called their first son Hugh after Tristram's father and the 2nd son Thomas which would logically be after her father.

 

[benny1982]

I sometimes use naming patterns as a possible lead.

 

[duckweed]

Naming Patterns only work if you already have an idea of family firstnames. In this case there aren't many Thomases in the family, and certainly none on the husbands side. They already called one child Hugh, grandfather's name so it makes sense that 2nd child would be other grandfather's name ie. Thomas. However I'm still looking for better evidence than that. I have 3 sources now quoting Thomas but they are not reliable sources as I have now found out. Her brother if she is Thomas's daughter also had a son called Thomas.

What annoys me is these people have actually said others were wrong because it didn't fit their idea of the family tree. If they had bothered to look up available old documents they would have known who was right.

 

[Mike Clifford]

I have studied the Revell family extensively and my fully referenced notes are available on Rotherham Web

Briefly Tristram Revell is named in his father (Hugh's) will (dated 1504) and Tristram was born post 1482, possibly ca 1487. Tristram married first Jane daughter of William Blythe of Barnby, Yorkshire. Tristram and Jane had a son Thomas and three daughters Margery, Ann and Mary. Tristram married second Bennet (Benedicta) daughter of John Foljambe of North Wingfield, Derbyshire. Tristram was buried South Normanton 1540. Hugh and Margaret are presumably children of the second marriage.

Tristram's father Hugh married Margery Greenalgh and his father was Thomas revell, serjeant-at-law, of Higham. Earlier generations are uncertain but i do have some notes if you are interested.

Hope this helps.

mike

 

[leefer]

Hi Mike and welcome.

Duckweed will indeed be pleased.
If you have more info...............beware!:biggrin:

All the best,Lee

 

[duckweed]

Yes I am interested. I think there may be family connections somehow further back. Foljambe is an interesting name too as there was a plough design called the Rotherham plough that was made by a Foljambe of Rotherham and a Walter Blythe (said to be from Birmingham)

 

[Mike Clifford]

I am expecting to receive copies of some new (to me) records from the Derbyshire Local Studies Library and they should arrive this week. When I have studied these I will update my notes as necessary regarding the earliest Derbyshire Revells (first half of 15th century) and try to connect them to the Warwickshire Revells. This will probably consist of a critical comparison of four or five widely promulgated trees / pedigrees with an indication of what I have confirmed from wills, fine rolls, patent rolls, etc.

In the meantime have a look on Rotherham Web for the previous update of Part 4 The Revells of Derbyshire, plus the various tables 4a to 4f. Part 5 deals with Yorkshire. Part 6 with Nottinghamshire. All are in a permanent state of flux and are updated as new information accumulates. There are over a hundred A4 pages and many hundred references, most of which are available electronically.

I may be temporarily without internet connection part of next week so future replies might be delayed.

Mike

 

[Ellie]

:biggrin:
Should be on the stage Ellie.....get yer coat

:2fun::2fun: