Erroneous d.s.p. listings in visitation pedigrees?

Moderator: MOD_nyhetsgrupper

Svar
Matthew Hovious

Erroneous d.s.p. listings in visitation pedigrees?

Legg inn av Matthew Hovious » 17 feb 2005 21:59:13

I'd like to know if anyone can cite any instances of a Visitation
pedigree stating that someone "d.s.p." (died childless) when it has
since been proven that the person named did in fact have children. I
know that visitations in general may suffer from inaccurate forenames,
incorrect surnames and collapsed generations, among other problems, but
I'm interested in learning if this particular type of error has ever
been spotted.

Thanks,
Matthew Hovious

Tim Powys-Lybbe

Re: Erroneous d.s.p. listings in visitation pedigrees?

Legg inn av Tim Powys-Lybbe » 17 feb 2005 22:30:23

In message of 17 Feb, "Matthew Hovious" <dominus_matthaeus@yahoo.co.uk>
wrote:

I'd like to know if anyone can cite any instances of a Visitation
pedigree stating that someone "d.s.p." (died childless) when it has
since been proven that the person named did in fact have children. I
know that visitations in general may suffer from inaccurate forenames,
incorrect surnames and collapsed generations, among other problems,
but I'm interested in learning if this particular type of error has
ever been spotted.

You can have the usual answer:

The visitations were (hopefully) the result of an interview between a
herald and an armiger. The armiger gave the names, etc of the family,
the herald wrote it down plus something about his arms and the armiger
then signed it.

The question is what did the average armiger reliably know? Probably
only the people he had come across, viz his grandparents and the
descendants of his grandparents. Possibly we can add in his wife's
grandparents but I'm not so sure that would be valid. This limitation
was made a rule for later visitations which did not record ancestors
before grandparents and remains a rule of the College of Arms. But the
early visitations had all sorts of lengthy and sometimes dubious
pedigrees.

So: any information outside the descendants of the grandparents is
suspect.

Bear in mind also that the published visitations are mostly not from
the many surviving official visitation documents in the College of Arms
as until fairly recently, twenty or thirty years ago, the College did
not allow these to be used directly. The published visitations were
mostly taken from documents in the Harleian Collection in the British
Library and most of these were indirect copies of the originals and
many have additional information included.

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

Gjest

Re: Erroneous d.s.p. listings in visitation pedigrees?

Legg inn av Gjest » 17 feb 2005 23:58:15

Although your answer is useful, it doesn't answer the question asked.
Can you or anyone cite a specific time where a visitation says dsp and
is demonstrably wrong.



Tim Powys-Lybbe wrote:
In message of 17 Feb, "Matthew Hovious"
dominus_matthaeus@yahoo.co.uk
wrote:

I'd like to know if anyone can cite any instances of a Visitation
pedigree stating that someone "d.s.p." (died childless) when it has
since been proven that the person named did in fact have children.
I
know that visitations in general may suffer from inaccurate
forenames,
incorrect surnames and collapsed generations, among other problems,
but I'm interested in learning if this particular type of error has
ever been spotted.

You can have the usual answer:

The visitations were (hopefully) the result of an interview between a
herald and an armiger. The armiger gave the names, etc of the
family,
the herald wrote it down plus something about his arms and the
armiger
then signed it.

The question is what did the average armiger reliably know? Probably
only the people he had come across, viz his grandparents and the
descendants of his grandparents. Possibly we can add in his wife's
grandparents but I'm not so sure that would be valid. This
limitation
was made a rule for later visitations which did not record ancestors
before grandparents and remains a rule of the College of Arms. But
the
early visitations had all sorts of lengthy and sometimes dubious
pedigrees.

So: any information outside the descendants of the grandparents is
suspect.

Bear in mind also that the published visitations are mostly not from
the many surviving official visitation documents in the College of
Arms
as until fairly recently, twenty or thirty years ago, the College did
not allow these to be used directly. The published visitations were
mostly taken from documents in the Harleian Collection in the British
Library and most of these were indirect copies of the originals and
many have additional information included.

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

Gjest

Re: Erroneous d.s.p. listings in visitation pedigrees?

Legg inn av Gjest » 18 feb 2005 16:27:52

One of the printed Warwickshire visitations (ie, Harl. Soc. vol.12 or
62, it's p.23 of whichever) has a John Stanley as dsp who certainly had
issue, and his actual daughter is instead called his sister. That is
the only example in the few photocopies I have around, but at least
indicates that it can happen.

Nathaniel Taylor

Re: Erroneous d.s.p. listings in visitation pedigrees?

Legg inn av Nathaniel Taylor » 18 feb 2005 16:47:10

In article <1108740472.120809.258440@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
mvernonconnolly@yahoo.co.uk wrote:

One of the printed Warwickshire visitations (ie, Harl. Soc. vol.12 or
62, it's p.23 of whichever) has a John Stanley as dsp who certainly had
issue, and his actual daughter is instead called his sister. That is
the only example in the few photocopies I have around, but at least
indicates that it can happen.

Interesting. What is this John's distance from the apparent informant
for the pedigree (e.g. grandfather, great-uncle, second cousin, etc.),
and what is the independent evidence to correct it?

Nat Taylor

a genealogist's sketchbook:
http://home.earthlink.net/~nathanieltaylor/leaves/

Nathaniel Taylor

Re: Erroneous d.s.p. listings in visitation pedigrees?

Legg inn av Nathaniel Taylor » 18 feb 2005 16:47:58

In article
<nathanieltaylor-3C89CD.10460618022005@news1.east.earthlink.net>,
Nathaniel Taylor <nathanieltaylor@earthlink.net> wrote:

In article <1108740472.120809.258440@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
mvernonconnolly@yahoo.co.uk wrote:

One of the printed Warwickshire visitations (ie, Harl. Soc. vol.12 or
62, it's p.23 of whichever) has a John Stanley as dsp who certainly had
issue, and his actual daughter is instead called his sister. That is
the only example in the few photocopies I have around, but at least
indicates that it can happen.

Interesting. What is this John's distance from the apparent informant
for the pedigree (e.g. grandfather, great-uncle, second cousin, etc.)...

Oh; obviously not grandfather!

Nat Taylor

a genealogist's sketchbook:
http://home.earthlink.net/~nathanieltaylor/leaves/

Paul K Davis

RE: Erroneous d.s.p. listings in visitation pedigrees?

Legg inn av Paul K Davis » 18 feb 2005 17:30:02

I'm traveling now, so I don't have my materials in front of me. I believe
I recall a case that could look like an example, without actually being so.
Specifically, a father had an oldest son who "d.s.p.", and then a younger
son was given the same name and had issue (with yet another son in
between). As I recall, two different visitations gave different selections
of the sons, so that they appeared to contradict each other.

-- PKD [Paul K Davis, pkd-gm@earthlink.net]


[Original Message]
From: Matthew Hovious <dominus_matthaeus@yahoo.co.uk
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Date: 2/17/2005 4:07:48 PM
Subject: Erroneous d.s.p. listings in visitation pedigrees?

I'd like to know if anyone can cite any instances of a Visitation
pedigree stating that someone "d.s.p." (died childless) when it has
since been proven that the person named did in fact have children. I
know that visitations in general may suffer from inaccurate forenames,
incorrect surnames and collapsed generations, among other problems, but
I'm interested in learning if this particular type of error has ever
been spotted.

Thanks,
Matthew Hovious

Gjest

Re: Erroneous d.s.p. listings in visitation pedigrees?

Legg inn av Gjest » 18 feb 2005 17:38:37

re: the Warks. visitation, Stanley pedigree error:
It's a bit of a mystery why the pedigree is in the Warwickshire
visitation at all, in fact, and there is no named informant. It seems
to be a stray pedigree- the only seeming Warwickshire connection is a
purported marriage of a daughter (whose existence is doubtful) to a
Stratford man. The pedigree is a mixture of truth and error generally,
and whoever did supply it evidently wasn't that close to the real
family. However, for there to be an instance of the situation
requested, i.e. someone incorrectly described as s.p., this would have
to be an expected factor. Evidence of descendants in this particular
case is contained, e.g., in Chancery Proceedings reproduced in William
Salt Soc., Staffs Hist. Collections, 1925 volume, pp 27-30 where two
daughters are named, one of them the supposed sister in the pedigree,
the other daughter still then living.

Svar

Gå tilbake til «soc.genealogy.medieval»