T E Lawrence

Question

When I looked at the nominated profiles, I saw that one stood head and shoulders above the rest.  Offered a VC and a knighthood and turned them down. The source "mysteries" was particularly interesting. Seven Pillars of Wisdom is a great book. Iclicked google+ immediately.

then I saw that.he had been provided with parents only. not even grandparents. This surely should be what wikitree should be about. I have done what I can to improve his ancestry this morning although I had meetings and lunch arranged.

but I protest that there should be a minimum wt contribution in advance of a profile being nominated. Additionally there should be at least three pictures apart from the profiles own pictures.  I had the same problem yesterday with Prof Albert Einstein.

big frown. Now I have to decide whether to vote for everyone else as well

Comments

Sir William;

I beg to differ with you in reference to sources I used from WT,  The info was there,but I did what I was taught.  I did not use the words set down in WT. I used my own words and my own composition.

Secondly, the 5 images excluding Image 4 were public domain, which means they were not copyrited.  Image 4 was a photo that I had copied from the book "Seven Pillars of Wisdom"  Since the book was written in 1923, it is also not copyrited.  I have a hard copy of the book as my own.

Third, there is a (citation needed) under my quote that my information had come from Lowell Thomas letters to me. Exactly, how did you want that citation. ?  It is not heresay and I wouldn't call it second hand information as I do have the letters in a safe place.  Have you a suggestion?

Finally, T.E. Lawrence was illegitimate, and his father gave up his title to live with his companion.  The title you gave his father should have gone to a nephew who was not of his bloodline.

Sincerely, Mary

---

Re last paragraph.    Not so. , I comment below about Baronetcies.  Not sure I believe the snippet about VC and knighthood.  After all he accepted DSO and CB.

William

---

Sir William,

 Perhaps he had his own reasons for not accepting them..  Oh, the source about his father declining the title... check out  "Who Was Who, A & C Black, 1920–2007" I googled it. It is online.  It was published in 2007 making it copyrighted.

Answer 1

Allow me to echo Maggie's gratitude in your contributions to the profile...I must however disagree with your suggested pre-requisites:

First, profile contests are about recognizing the effort put into a profile (whether that effort is in researching and analyzing new sources, authoring a great narrative, improving the visual presentation of the information, etc.) parents, grandparents, children, spouses, and siblings are their own separate profiles.

Second, if users put their time and effort into making a great profile, I can hardly fault them for not creating 2, or 6 or more other profiles as well, regardless how available the information for those profiles is.

Third, a criteria to have profiles for parents, grandparents, or any other relations (spouse, siblings, children) would potentially disqualify many great profiles, where the individual's kin are not known, from being considered.

Perhaps a contest for 'Family Tree of the Month', where the profiles for a family group are judged as a collective whole, should be considered.

Fourth, (and in a similar vein to the third listed point) there are many individuals for whom there are no relevant pictures (or at least none free from copyright). Adding pictures certainly can increase the aesthetic appeal of a profile and probably gives a profile an advantage in the competition relative to text only profiles, but it should not be a pre-requisite for being considered. As an aside photos already have their own contest.

Fifth, there is already a pre-requisite for "substantial recent contributions" before a profile is nominated. In the case of the profile for Thomas Lawrence, the change history shows the immense amount of work that was done in the preceding month by a number of contributors, (most notably Mary Hammond).

Comments

Thank you, Rob.

Answer 2

Thanks a lot, Sir William , for completing the family tree, and Mary, for such an interesting profile !

Comments

May I offer a correction, Maggie?  Sir William added the titles, I finished the tree.

And thank you for the compliment.

---

I am not at all clear on who you think should have inherited the Baronetcy. Titles flow from the Crown iin accordance with the. Original Writ or Summons, which in this case meant that the Baronetcy devolved upon TE's father. If he chose not to use it that is a matter for him (now allowed for by statute law). As, for example Jonathan Porritt and Sebastian Shakespeare choose not to use theirs. They are still the inheritors for life though. And as you say all the Lawrence children were illegit and therefore could not inherit. I don't know where that snippet came from (although it is in Wikipedia uncited) and would like to.

no criticism of the prose though; well done and I hope you win. I have not voted for anyone else.

William

---

It didn't win Sir William.  An american legend won.

Johnny "Appleseed" Chapman.  Thank you for your support though.

Mary

---

Huh!  The readership must be biased.

---

no comment......

Answer 3

Profile of the the profile Week will always be about submitted Profiles not the linage, but i do echo Sir Williams comment in regards that some profiles have no links to family members and i myself have submitted stand alone profiles. But in the last 6 weeks i have started to connect these profiles and i have been plesantly surprised and satisfied with the results. Thank you Sir William for the work you have done on T. E. Lawreance, my childhood hero

Eric

Comments

Just had a look at T. E. Lawrence's Line. Wow Sir William was'nt kidding. What a lot of work and with the proper Titles too

Magnificent