GEN-MEDIEVAL-L Archives

Archiver > GEN-MEDIEVAL > 2003-02 > 1045010175


From: Roz Griston <>
Subject: RE: Comments on Internet Genealogy Was Re: VAUX
Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2003 16:36:23 -0800


great info hap.
thanks for the clarification on N.N. i had assumed it was No Name.

question:
if you have found evidence of a person existing, but with unknown dob
or dod.
is it considered okay to put in something like.
john griston fl. 1464
as in john flourished in 1464. and then source where the reference was
found. i.e; a quitclaim regarding land.
roz

On Tuesday, February 11, 2003 2:30 PM, Sutliff
[SMTP:] wrote:
> Donna,
>
> Please forgive my using your post for commenting about a number of
> issues in
> play here with this and your other post and those from some others.
> My
> comments are not meant to be disrespectful of you in any measure (as
> I
> understand you were quoting others' work and not your own), but to
> point to
> a few clues as to what to look for when you come across this kind of
> data on
> the internet:
>
> 1) Whenever you find an ancestry such as the two below that have
> given
> birthdates to everyone, approximate or otherwise, it is almost
> certainly
> compiled by an amateur who has arbitrarily assigned guesstimated
> birthdates
> which are not based on any form of scholarship. Documentation is
> everything
> in genealogy and without it anything must be considered immediately
> suspect.
>
> 2) Exact death dates have a similar problem. These may be based
> reliably on
> a death in battle or from an Inquisition Post Mortem. However, one
> wonders
> if some of these things are simply pulled out of the air. For
example,
>
> Oliver de Vaux shown in both alleged pedigrees below died between
> April
> 1238 and March 1241 (Sanders:41).
>
> 3) Whenever someone calls a woman "Miss" so and so in a pedigree as
> someone
> did in your other post, this is also usually indicative of an amateur
> effort. Scholars generally use N. N. when a name is unknown. This is
> for
> the Latin, Nomen Nescio.
>
> 4) Any medieval pedigree which contains individuals with middle names
> (as
> below) is immediately suspect. Middle names are a fairly recent
> invention.
> They were virtually unknown before the Stuarts came to the throne in
> the
> 17th century and not used by the masses until a much later date.
> Medieval
> pedigrees containing individuals with middle names are often
> indicative of
> two possibly distinct individuals who have been merged in order to
> obtain a
> desired result. Middle names are in such common use these days, that
> people
> still try to force them on those of us who do not have them and some
> incorrectly assume that they have always been used.
>
> 5) Applying birth locations to all individuals is also problematic.
> Generally it is best to identify someone "of" a location as in the
> properties owned by the individual as say "of Pentney, Norfolk as for
> Oliver.
>
> 6) The same holds true for death locations. It is generally only wise
> to
> list what you have found in documentation, not what is suspected or
> assumed.
>
> 7) Although genealogy can be done on the internet as a hobby, anyone
> with
> any aspirations for creating reliable and scholarly work simply must
> use
> libraries. There is just too much garbage on the internet; most of
> them are
> vanity projects trying to link to famous people in order to validate
> themselves or their agenda. Too many contain ancestries of forced
> answers of
> equating two individuals of the same name without foundation. Persons
> interested in wanting to know who their families really were rather
> than who
> they want them to be or by simply downloading someone else's rubbish,
> must
> use libraries. There are no shortcuts to the integrity of
> genealogical
> research. The web page FAQ for Gen-Medieval discusses sources and how
> to use
> them.
>
> In no way am I trying to discourage you or anyone else in
> genealogical
> research. My point is trying to educate the lurkers here as to how to
> improve the quality of their work and what to realistically expect by
> posts
> to this forum. The experts here can be very demanding and rightfully
> so. We
> are asking them to use their time to look up solutions for our
> problems and
> they have the right to expect some effort from us.
>
> Again my apologies for using your post to make my comments, but just
> have
> seen too many similar posts of late not to speak up and hopefully
> others
> will step forward to help educate us with their thoughts.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Henry Sutliff
>
> P. S. As your other post refers to Alice Freeman Thompson Parke,
> perchance
> if you descend from the Parke family, I would caution you to be
> careful of
> some of the British ancestries published in The Parke Society
> newsletters as
> there are many errors contained therein. I believe there is an effort
> to
> correct some of the past mistakes, but wanted you to know that whole
> lines
> have been dropped in this ancestry if this is yours.
>
>
>
> "Donna" <> wrote in message
> news:002401c2d1d3$4b451b40$...
> > I need help with the Vaux line
> > according to
> > http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/Plains/9004/Vaux.html
> > a.. Harold Vaux (1065- )
> > a.. Robert Vaux (1099- )
> > a.. William Vaux (1117- )
> > a.. Robert Vaux (1140- )
> > a.. Oliver Vaux (1170-1244)
> > a.. Roger Vaux (1200-1244)
> > a.. Nicholas Vaux (1226-1275)
> > a.. Robert Vaux (1254-1305)
> > a.. Elias Vaux (1284-1330)
> > a.. William Vaux (1324-1373)
> > a.. William Vaux (1345-1401)
> > a.. William Thomas Vaux (1370-1405)
> > a.. Eleanor Vaux md Thomas Gifford
> >
> >
> > but according to
> >
> http://216.239.53.100/search?q=cache:6ltXzhkgbckC:www.stanford.edu/
> ~jerfox/F
> > oxTree.pdf+eleanor+vaux+thomas+gifford&hl=en&ie=UTF-8
> >
> > there are some differences.
> > a.. Harold Vaux (1010- )
> > a.. Robert Vaux (1030- )
> > a.. Robert Vaux (1055- )
> > a.. William Vaux (1120- )
> > a.. Robert Vaux (1140-)
> > a.. Oliver Vaux (1170-)
> > a.. Roger Vaux (1230-)
> > a.. Elias Vaux (1270-)
> > a.. William Vaux (1300-1373)
> > a.. William Vaux (1330-)
> > a.. William Thomas Vaux (1365-1405)
> > a.. Eleanor Vaux (1408-1469) md Thomas Gifford
> >
> http://www.genealogy.com/users/h/a/l/Scott-P-Hall/FILE/0002text.txt?
> Welcome=
> > 1044970535
> > has this same line also except he stops at Robert (de
Vallibus/Vaux)
> > he
> > doesn't take it up to Harold
> >
> >
>
>
>


This thread: