Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 12 of 12
  1. #11
    Super Moderator - Completely bonkers and will never change.
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    England
    Posts
    9,616

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by davehand View Post
    I find it ironic that Mr. Hand from Houston's lineage can so easily be dismissed because "records before the 1600's are sketchy"
    I think if you re-read the posts made in this thread you will find no dismissal of Mr Hand's lineage, just a statement of facts. e.g.
    Quote Originally Posted by Jabberwockie View Post
    I have reached a dead-end with Sir Hand 1420. I have some reason to suspect he is, in-fact Sir Henry Stafford. Many genealogy sites claim Sir Henry Hand (1440) was married to Countess Lady Margaret Beaufort (some don't).
    Yes, Margaret Beaufort did marry Sir Henry Stafford, but his lineage is proven, and he was never Sir Henry Hand.

    by the British Genealogy group who must pride themselves in their knowledge of history and genealogy to assist people in their lineage research.
    Although we are almost entirely amateurs (a few members over the years have also been professional genealogists) I know that that Admin and the Moderators have huge respect for our members and their ability to find even the most obscure fact/website.
    I agree records can be inaccurate, that information recorded can include misspelled names and incorrect dates but a $1B genealogy industry has spawned to provide facts as loose as they may be and assistance to millions who want to know about their own personal history. Just as we cannot prove anything absolutely from the 1400's, we also cannot completely deny a connection when we have multiple sources of information. Before the common use of given names and surnames many people were referred to as John of Gaunt, Henry the Elder or Hand de Benenden so with sketchy records how do we know people like Henry Stafford didn't drop previous handles to become Henry Stafford?
    We don't know if 'a' Henry Stafford may have been known by a previous name, but we do know that he's not the Henry Stafford who married Margaret Beaufort.
    IN many families with multiple Henry's and Thomas's and Edwards it is easy to see the how records can become confused.
    Been there, done it, and got the T-shirt, even in the 1800s.

    In my case, Sir Thomas Hand in 1462 definitely uses a traditional name and his father Sir Henry Hand of Kent(1440) did indeed marry a Margaret and before that we have Henry Hand de Benenden. Britain should be proud of their records and with churches and gravestones still standing, the chance of piecing together a story in Britain is a lot better then Bulgaria or countries that have not existed consistently since 1066.
    Yes, we are very lucky that so many of our records have survived, but we are also entitled to have a rant when the one parish register we really need got lost when the church burnt down!
    In short, I don't think we can claim 100% that anything is absolute from these times but we cannot dismiss absolutely either. Dave Hand of Toronto from Dallas, Texas
    That also applies in more recent times.
    One Thomas baptised in 1800, with another Thomas baptised in the same village in 1801. Which is the one who stayed in the village and became my 3x great-grandfather and which is the one who moved to Cambridge?

    Pam
    Vulcan XH558 - “Don't cry because it's over, smile because it happened.”

  2. #12

    Default

    I think it’s a matter of realism not pride. As you say, we aim to help, and we therefore have to make members aware of the limitations of the records when they are collecting their evidence. My post 5 in this thread lists many of the reasons why. It’s true that the richer people with bigger houses stood a better chance of their records surviving, but it’s still a lucky chance. Many of those big houses were targets in the Civil Wars, for example.
    Confusion can arise because every brother in a family was under pressure to call his eldest son after their father, because priests frequently didn’t name women, or only gave their forenames, or because records did not survive. Also, tenants often called their children after their landlords.
    The people of the Royal court lived their lives in the public eye and it would have been noted (with glee) if the man who was the very proud head of a powerful family suddenly changed his name - not just in the genealogical records but also in the histories or the gossip in the letters home from assorted Ambassadors.

    BTW One of my 18th century grandmothers was a Margaret Hand. She was not related in any way related to any form of nobility.

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Select a file: