A stupid Question - maybe

Moderator: MOD_nyhetsgrupper

Svar
Sue J

A stupid Question - maybe

Legg inn av Sue J » 01 des 2004 06:31:01

Hi List,

From a green horn in medieval literature, what is the difference
between Burke's Peerage that is 2 large volumes and CP. Is there an
advantage of one over the other or do the two books complement each
other and have some different info in each book. Santa may be nice
and give me a choice of either set but I don't want to make the
mistake of getting the wrong one. Naturally, Burke's is the cheapest
of the 2 but my siblings are being nice this year. :-)

Sue in Florida macduff@infionline.net

Sue J

RE: A stupid Question - maybe

Legg inn av Sue J » 01 des 2004 07:31:02

Hi Will,

Thanks for your reply. Now I know exactly which one to tell "Santa"
to bring me. I know about the small print in the edition that crams
13 volumes into 6 books but I have an excellent magnify light that
clamps onto a table or tray table that will work out just fine. Will
make the reading of the small print very easy.

Sue in Florida macduff@infionline.net

-----Original Message-----
From: WJhonson@aol.com [mailto:WJhonson@aol.com]
Sent: Wednesday, December 01, 2004 12:33 AM
To: "Sue J"
Subject: Re: A stupid Question - maybe

Burke's publishes whatever people send them without proving it. CP
does their own research, correcting errors all over the place AND
cites all the documents as well, so you can, if you can, refer back to
them.

CP is by far, up up and away, the better choice :)
imho of course
Will Johnson

Gjest

Re: A stupid Question - maybe

Legg inn av Gjest » 01 des 2004 12:51:02

Sue,

You should also be aware

There are many different editions of Burke's. For example if you are looking
at the 106th edition (1999 I think):

a) This edition only covers peers which are still extant, a small proportion
of the complete peerage
b) It also includes extant Baronets (first creations were in 1611), not
covered in the CP which has been discussed here, although there is an edition
covering the Complete Baronetage, which I have not seen.
c) Burke's will give more of a peer's ancestors and extended family, CP is
more focused on actual peers.
d) Burke's started life as just giving details which had been submitted to
the editors, and early editions contained numerous errors, but the current
editions have been more extensively researched, and it seems to me that the 106th
edition has been updated using CP.
e) Burke's does not give sources and therefore difficult to verify its
accuracy. There is still much material which is wrong, but where Burke's overlaps
with CP, the more recent editions now seem okay, more or less.

But before making a decision, it may be worthwhile looking at copies at a
good library or good book shop, if possible. Also you would find more details in
gen-med Archives, in fact as this subject has so often been discussed, this
is probably why there is not much response to your post.

Adrian


Hi Will,

Thanks for your reply. Now I know exactly which one to tell "Santa"
to bring me. I know about the small print in the edition that crams
13 volumes into 6 books but I have an excellent magnify light that
clamps onto a table or tray table that will work out just fine. Will
make the reading of the small print very easy.

Sue in Florida macduff@infionline.net

-----Original Message-----
From: WJhonson@aol.com [mailto:WJhonson@aol.com]
Sent: Wednesday, December 01, 2004 12:33 AM
To: "Sue J"
Subject: Re: A stupid Question - maybe

Burke's publishes whatever people send them without proving it. CP
does their own research, correcting errors all over the place AND
cites all the documents as well, so you can, if you can, refer back to
them.

CP is by far, up up and away, the better choice :)
imho of course
Will Johnson




Tim Powys-Lybbe

Re: A stupid Question - maybe

Legg inn av Tim Powys-Lybbe » 01 des 2004 17:52:40

In message of 1 Dec, ADRIANCHANNING@aol.com wrote:

You should also be aware

There are many different editions of Burke's. For example if you are
looking at the 106th edition (1999 I think):

a) This edition only covers peers which are still extant, a small
proportion of the complete peerage

b) It also includes extant Baronets (first creations were in 1611), not
covered in the CP which has been discussed here, although there is an
edition covering the Complete Baronetage, which I have not seen.

c) Burke's will give more of a peer's ancestors and extended family,
CP is more focused on actual peers.

d) Burke's started life as just giving details which had been
submitted to the editors, and early editions contained numerous
errors, but the current editions have been more extensively
researched, and it seems to me that the 106th edition has been
updated using CP.

To the best of my knowledge Burke still uses the same method of getting
family members to produce the pedigrees. It may be that more of the
families now use CP. It also may be that Burke editors no longer
approach people who trot in known-to-be-erroneous pedigrees.

e) Burke's does not give sources and therefore difficult to verify its
accuracy. There is still much material which is wrong, but where
Burke's overlaps with CP, the more recent editions now seem okay, more
or less.

Burke volumes tend also to leave out dates whereas CP authors made
efforts to find them.

But before making a decision, it may be worthwhile looking at copies
at a good library or good book shop, if possible. Also you would find
more details in gen-med Archives, in fact as this subject has so often
been discussed, this is probably why there is not much response to
your post.

May I add to this. I use Burke, as others do, because it gives more, a
lot more even, information on non core relatives and families of the
peers. But if it leads to an entry in CP, then that is even better news.
The question then is which volume do use use as a reference to others of
the viability of your assertions? This is where it no contest: CP wins
hands down every time, particularly if you factor in Volume XIV and
Chris Phillips' marvellous collection of updates.

--
Tim Powys-Lybbe tim@powys.org
For a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org

Gjest

Re: A stupid Question - maybe

Legg inn av Gjest » 01 des 2004 19:01:02

In a message dated 01/12/04 17:15:58 GMT Standard Time, tim@powys.org writes:

I wrote
<snip>

d) Burke's started life as just giving details which had been
submitted to the editors, and early editions contained numerous
errors, but the current editions have been more extensively
researched, and it seems to me that the 106th edition has been
updated using CP.




Tim replied>

To the best of my knowledge Burke still uses the same method of getting
family members to produce the pedigrees. It may be that more of the
families now use CP. It also may be that Burke editors no longer
approach people who trot in known-to-be-erroneous pedigrees.



<snip>

Introduction to Burke's P&B, 106th Ed., p XXX, end of penultimate paragraph

"Burke's Peerage & Baronetage carries out its own research on the people it
features as well as asking them to supply information directly."

I suppose they could by fibbing -:)

regards,
Adrian

Tim Powys-Lybbe

Re: A stupid Question - maybe

Legg inn av Tim Powys-Lybbe » 01 des 2004 22:00:40

In message of 1 Dec, ADRIANCHANNING@aol.com wrote:

In a message dated 01/12/04 17:15:58 GMT Standard Time, tim@powys.org
writes:

I wrote
snip

d) Burke's started life as just giving details which had been
submitted to the editors, and early editions contained numerous
errors, but the current editions have been more extensively
researched, and it seems to me that the 106th edition has been
updated using CP.

Tim replied

To the best of my knowledge Burke still uses the same method of
getting family members to produce the pedigrees. It may be that
more of the families now use CP. It also may be that Burke editors
no longer approach people who trot in known-to-be-erroneous
pedigrees.



snip

Introduction to Burke's P&B, 106th Ed., p XXX, end of penultimate
paragraph

"Burke's Peerage & Baronetage carries out its own research on the
people it features as well as asking them to supply information
directly."

I stand corrected. But both some acquaintances and myself have been
asked to provide information with no suggestion that Burke would do
in-depth research themselves. I certainly got the impression that if
they got no further information, no action would be taken. Though my
experience is that those making the requests were well informed.

I suppose they could by fibbing -:)

The problem is that research requires bodies and competent people are
expensive and I just don't think there is enough money to staff a
thorough research team. In principle a few cross-checks should be
sufficient to establish that the contributors are reliable: this is
a very acceptable method of quality assurance.

Bt the way has anyone seen that the Scottish Landed Gentry is now being
remaindered off at 48ukp from a RRP of 295ukp? http://www.heraldrytoday.co.uk
(again); got for the Genealogy and Reference section. (I've ordered
mine!)

--
Tim Powys-Lybbe tim@powys.org
For a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org

Peter Stewart

Re: A stupid Question - maybe

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 01 des 2004 22:20:51

ADRIANCHANNING@aol.com wrote:

<snip>

"Burke's Peerage & Baronetage carries out its own research on the people it
features as well as asking them to supply information directly."

I suppose they could by fibbing -:)

They haven't all taken Burke's as seriously as some of its readers do -
consequently there are some practical jokes from the past that probably
remain in the latest edition (I haven't checked).

One family for instance was augmented with names given to the pups of a
favourite dog: the successor of the peer who did this had no intention,
more than 25 years later, of spoiling his father's prank.

Peter Stewart

John Townsend

Re: A stupid Question - maybe

Legg inn av John Townsend » 01 des 2004 22:32:38

Tim Powys-Lybbe wrote (snip)
To the best of my knowledge Burke still uses the same method of
getting family members to produce the pedigrees. It may be that
more of the families now use CP. It also may be that Burke editors
no longer approach people who trot in known-to-be-erroneous
pedigrees.


L.G. Pine was well respected by contemporary professional genealogists. In
his Preface to the 1952 edition of B.L.G., he suggests that pedigrees
submitted by families will, from now on, receive more critical analysis than
before. As far as I know, these laudable objectives continued under the
able editorship of Montgomery-Massingberd.

Best wishes,

John Townsend
Genealogist/Antiquarian Bookseller
http://www.johntownsend.demon.co.uk

David R Teague

Re: A stupid Question - maybe

Legg inn av David R Teague » 01 des 2004 23:11:02

On Wed, 01 Dec 2004 21:20:51 GMT Peter Stewart <p_m_stewart@msn.com>
writes:
ADRIANCHANNING@aol.com wrote:

<snip>

One family for instance was augmented with names given to the pups of a
favourite dog: the successor of the peer who did this had no intention,
more than 25 years later, of spoiling his father's prank.

<snip>

Sounds a bit like the "genealogy" in the 2nd half of I Chronicles 25:4,
where the names of the "sons" are actually the lyrics to a Hebrew psalm.

DRT

________________________________________________________________
Juno Gift Certificates
Give the gift of Internet access this holiday season.
http://www.juno.com/give

Bronwen Edwards

Re: A stupid Question - maybe

Legg inn av Bronwen Edwards » 03 des 2004 02:20:44

Not being a competent genealogist by any means, I found Burke's useful
in that, first, it keeps up to date whereas CP does not. If you would
like to bring a medieval family up to the present day, CP will be
disappointing. Also, when I began looking for genealogical information
in regard to my own family, Burke's was use-friendly and got me
started. Of course, I had to revise much of the information
eventually, but as a beginner with non-academic reasons for doing the
research, Burke's was useful. Bronwen

ADRIANCHANNING@aol.com wrote in message news:<140.38b3c55f.2edf0912@aol.com>...
Sue,

You should also be aware

There are many different editions of Burke's. For example if you are looking
at the 106th edition (1999 I think):

a) This edition only covers peers which are still extant, a small proportion
of the complete peerage
b) It also includes extant Baronets (first creations were in 1611), not
covered in the CP which has been discussed here, although there is an edition
covering the Complete Baronetage, which I have not seen.
c) Burke's will give more of a peer's ancestors and extended family, CP is
more focused on actual peers.
d) Burke's started life as just giving details which had been submitted to
the editors, and early editions contained numerous errors, but the current
editions have been more extensively researched, and it seems to me that the 106th
edition has been updated using CP.
e) Burke's does not give sources and therefore difficult to verify its
accuracy. There is still much material which is wrong, but where Burke's overlaps
with CP, the more recent editions now seem okay, more or less.

But before making a decision, it may be worthwhile looking at copies at a
good library or good book shop, if possible. Also you would find more details in
gen-med Archives, in fact as this subject has so often been discussed, this
is probably why there is not much response to your post.

Adrian


Hi Will,

Thanks for your reply. Now I know exactly which one to tell "Santa"
to bring me. I know about the small print in the edition that crams
13 volumes into 6 books but I have an excellent magnify light that
clamps onto a table or tray table that will work out just fine. Will
make the reading of the small print very easy.

Sue in Florida macduff@infionline.net

-----Original Message-----
From: WJhonson@aol.com [mailto:WJhonson@aol.com]
Sent: Wednesday, December 01, 2004 12:33 AM
To: "Sue J"
Subject: Re: A stupid Question - maybe

Burke's publishes whatever people send them without proving it. CP
does their own research, correcting errors all over the place AND
cites all the documents as well, so you can, if you can, refer back to
them.

CP is by far, up up and away, the better choice :)
imho of course
Will Johnson




Chris Phillips

Re: A stupid Question - maybe

Legg inn av Chris Phillips » 03 des 2004 10:00:45

Bronwen Edwards wrote:
Not being a competent genealogist by any means, I found Burke's useful
in that, first, it keeps up to date whereas CP does not. If you would
like to bring a medieval family up to the present day, CP will be
disappointing. Also, when I began looking for genealogical information
in regard to my own family, Burke's was use-friendly and got me
started. Of course, I had to revise much of the information
eventually, but as a beginner with non-academic reasons for doing the
research, Burke's was useful.

Volumes 1-13 of the current (second) edition of CP didn't attempt to include
peers who succeeded to their titles after 1900, but volume 14 did bring the
accounts of surviving peerages up to date.

Burke's Peerage, of course, only includes peerages that still survive, so
the proportion of entries that include medieval ancestry is small.

The one aspect of Burke's Peerage that's potentially more useful than CP is
that daughters and younger sons are listed, as well as those who actually
held titles. In CP, they appear in footnotes in some accounts, but not in
others.

The disadvantage is the lack of references, coupled with the fact that in
the past Burke's Peerage has been notorious for including inaccurate - and
sometimes plain legendary - information. As others have said, serious
efforts have been made recently to improve the accuracy of BP. Not having
used a recent edition, I can't say how much accuracy has improved, but
surely a secondary work which doesn't state its sources can't really be more
than a pointer towards possibilities.

Chris Phillips

Gordon Banks

Vol XIV CP

Legg inn av Gordon Banks » 03 des 2004 21:11:02

Before springing for the 95 pounds, may I ask how much of Vol. XIV is
devoted to corrections of the old stuff vs. recent peers? I'm only
related to one current peer and he became a lord through his
professional endeavor, not because of our common ancestors, who were
silversmiths. My interest in CP is genealogical, and I have little
interest in the current aristocracy or life peers.

Thanks.

Sharp, Ann

Re: A stupid Question - maybe

Legg inn av Sharp, Ann » 04 des 2004 03:21:01

ADRIANCHANNING@aol.com wrote:

One family for instance was augmented with names
given to the pups of a favourite dog: the successor of
the peer who did this had no intention, more than 25
years later, of spoiling his father's prank.

Ann:
That's what comes of claiming them as dependents on the tax
return! The successor may have been envisioning an early version of
back taxes plus exorbitant fines plus interest ....

L.P.H.,

Ann

Feudalism: when it's your Count that votes.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Doug McDonald

Re: A stupid Question - maybe

Legg inn av Doug McDonald » 04 des 2004 17:10:01

Sharp, Ann wrote:

ADRIANCHANNING@aol.com wrote:


One family for instance was augmented with names
given to the pups of a favourite dog: the successor of
the peer who did this had no intention, more than 25
years later, of spoiling his father's prank.


Ann:
That's what comes of claiming them as dependents on the tax
return! The successor may have been envisioning an early version of
back taxes plus exorbitant fines plus interest ....



Neuter them and list them in Burke's as "dsp".

Doug McDonald

Peter Stewart

Re: A stupid Question - maybe

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 05 des 2004 23:10:50

Doug McDonald <mcdonald@SnPoAM_scs.uiuc.edu> wrote in message news:<cosngq$bbd$2@news.ks.uiuc.edu>...
Sharp, Ann wrote:

ADRIANCHANNING@aol.com wrote:


One family for instance was augmented with names
given to the pups of a favourite dog: the successor of
the peer who did this had no intention, more than 25
years later, of spoiling his father's prank.


Ann:
That's what comes of claiming them as dependents on the tax
return! The successor may have been envisioning an early version of
back taxes plus exorbitant fines plus interest ....



Neuter them and list them in Burke's as "dsp".

That would spoil the fun for ever - what if one of the canine
collaterals should eventually inherit the peerage?

If a female, she wouldn't be the first....

By the way, I wrote the sentence wrongly attributed above to Adrian.
His name was given with the same number of chevrons as my text because
his earlier post had been quoted in mine.

Peter Stewart

Svar

Gå tilbake til «soc.genealogy.medieval»