GEN-MEDIEVAL-L Archives

Archiver > GEN-MEDIEVAL > 2003-02 > 1045055033


From: Donna <>
Subject: Re: Comments on Internet Genealogy Was Re: VAUX
Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2003 08:03:53 -0500
References: <jPe2a.11805$1q2.1135111@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net>


All I want is to not reinvent the wheel. I'm not writing a book. I'm not
proving new lines. I just want to make sure the lines out there in
manuscripts, books and internet are correct. When lines are given ( like
you said) sources are not usually noted. When the "experts" find lineages
where do they put them??
Reading TAG is hard because "The Experts" just says this surname to that
surname with no real detailed data. Then they give a list of sources at the
end. What I expect from the experts is when they give a marriage to say
what source it came from right there. What is the source that connects the
next generation?

What I'm wanting from this group is to know what books to look for. I
don't want anyone to do the research for me. I just want someone to say
such and such book contains the Vaux family and its very good or very lousy
or So in So has done this line and its located in this book.....


----- Original Message -----
From: "Sutliff" <>
To: <>
Sent: Tuesday, February 11, 2003 5:29 PM
Subject: Comments on Internet Genealogy Was Re: VAUX


> 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: