Unlock PPP Thomas Farrington & disconnect Haworth

Question

Hello... please unlock and remove [Jane] Howarth as wife of Thomas (PPP), son of Peter Farrington & Elizabeth Shakerley. She's his grandmother.

(Haworth married Thomas de Farrington <https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Farrington-213>, son of William (fl. 1349) <https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Farrington-387>& Jennet Dalton.

Also unlock alleged dau. Isabelle (PPP), who is mis-connected to one or both parents <https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Farrington-210>.

Comments

Just to explain a little better and cut the confusion ... start at William Farrington (Faryington), [[Farrington-387]] to see what's actually going on.

https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Farrington-387

Anything above William IMHO is questionable because of conflicting pedigrees. Gregson (1869) seems to follow earlier Burke constructions. But Crooks (1931), shows descent from de Meles (Meols). I think that's why the previously unsourced line was showing problems. ... BTW the entire early portion of the line was unsourced before my edits; but IMHO there are still unresolved conflicts because of antiquarian constructions already mentioned.

Thomas w/ PPP is a cadet line that needs more work ... I never (seriously never) bother anybody with a disconnect ask unless there's a real problem. I'm all for getting some sourcers on this one, since I truly didn't anticipate working on the Farrington line. I'm actually trying to focus on allied families and the Farringtons weren't sourced and I was looking for info:D

---

Hang in there, Bree!  EuroAristo knows and loves you!  Thanks, John, for working on this!

---

Bree, if this issue has been resolved to your satisfaction, would you please close the question? If not, what is outstanding? Thanks!

---

Hi Jilliane:) Hope you're happy & healthy ...

It's been a while ... John helped out on this one so lemme review first (was waiting and saw that he found a conflation of branches).

Answer 1

It looks like you have posted a message on the profile and it has been answered by someone from the project.

Comments

Both profiles still need to be unlocked.

---

Bree. Projects keep profiles locked when the relationships with the profile have been updated incorrectly, sometimes because of confusing sources and / or when incorrect relationships have been made. Based on what John has posted here and what I could see on the related profiles, it appears that this profile fits in that situation.  If you think that you have found a source that proves that a relationship exists and a change should be made, then that information should be included in a comment on the profile. Stating that a profile should be unlocked because someone wants to make a change with no valid source is not going to have the profile unlocked.  If the project agrees with the information that you present, then they would unlock the profile, make the change, and then lock the profile again.

---

I think everyone is missing the point...

I'm just asking for the one wife to be disconnected, which requires somebody who can unlock the profile and remove the grandmother from being the wife of her grandson. Then I need somebody to doublecheck whether or not Isabella is her kid or her grandsons. No source I've seen shows an Isabella.

---

Bree, I was addressing your statement about the profile needs to be unlocked. Whether a relationship should be changed is up to whomever has it locked and they will want documentation to do it. Just stating that it should be done will NOT get the relationship changed, nor will the profile be unlocked.

---

I think I need some boilerplate to help me word G2G titles. I'm better w/ voice or video communications. The last thing I wanted to do was talk policy LOL:D

Thank-you for your hard work Linda!

Answer 2

I found some other sources that mention the Farrington (and Banastre) families, which I haven't had time to look at them thoroughly yet.

Both families have entries in The Victoria history of the county of Lancaster, vol. 6, edited by William Farrer & J. Brownbill. Though the index for vol. 6 is in vol. 7, the Farington/Farrington entries on p. 367 and the Banastre on p. 342.  Unfortunately the indexes are the sort where entries under a particular name refer to anyone with that name.

The Visitation of Lancashire in 1567 has a genealogy for the Farington of Little Farington on p. 75, which does basically have the same genealogy as the original source on the profile of Thomas Farrington, though with some different names (Phelippa (Phillis) Shakerley instead of Elizabeth, for instance).  There are other genealogies of other branches of the Farington family elsewhere in this volume, and perhaps in other Visitations of Lancashire.

I haven't tracked down where Isabelle fits into the family yet.

Comments

I certainly agree that Jane should be disconnected as his wife.  However, connecting him to Anne Banastre doesn't make sense either.  The profile for Anne Banastre (https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Banastre-81) should probably be changed (she was too late in time to be wife of Thomas Farrington).

---

That's more helpful. Thank-you Kenneth.

Answer 3

If that 1567 Visitation is correct (and that's not certain), then the wife of this Thomas Farrington is a different Anne Banastre (born ca. 1467?).  Her wikitree profile is here:  https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Banastre-25   The dates still don't fit well, but she is a lot better fit than the Anne Banastre (b. ca. 1500) who married James Anderton.  

Comments

Here's another clue with the allied family of Anderton for sourcers...

William Farrington & Alice Ashton had a dau. who married James Anderton of Worden, co. Lancs. She's either Alice or Anne ...

https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Farrington-540

BTW ... I uploaded some more screenshots of Vis. in various parts of the branches and finally figured out why the old Farrington (before edits), started w/ a "Warine Farington"... 

https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Farrington-391

Warine is really "Warine BUSSEL of Penwortham" (d. abt. 1150). ... 

I think what happened was that somewhere along the way ... there was some speculation that he started the line based on Crooks (1931) research. But there's about a 200 year gap between Warine and Avice Bussel, wife of John Farington and I haven't seen anything showing how or if the two Bussels are related. So if anyone wants... plz note it if you find it. 

Also... Warine is a duplicate, and John has the main profile. I put in a merge a few hours ago.

Lastly... if anyone finds anything ... anything at all:D ... that proves the DALTONs are an allied family of Farrington, please tell me! (That's what sent me on this quest LOL! ... I've been working on the Daltons for at least a month and ran into the Farringtons, only to think that maybe the Daltons are NOT an allied family ... But it's rather odd, since they were in the vicinity. So if anyone has info... that's what I'm looking for!).

---

Thanks Bree

I've been trying to research the Farington's of LIttle Farington for most of today and it does look like the genealogy goes Thomas > Peter > Thomas > Peter (though the Visitation appears to be the original sources for this) but the first Thomas is the son of a Sir John Farington, not William, and his wife is Joan Howick, the dau and heiress of Henry Howick, not a Joan Howarth/Haworth.

I'm still trying to get find some firm dates that might help a to sort this out and came across The rolls of burgesses at the guilds merchant of the borough of Preston, which amongst the list from 1415 has Thomas Farington, son of John, and his three sons; Gilbert, Edmund and Peter - see pp. 9-10.  But then the list for 1459 on p. 12 has Thomas and his 3 sons again, so I'm not sure what is going on.

And it looks like the daughter Isabelle, who married Sir William Martyn and didn't seem to fit anywhere is a Faringdon from Dorset, not a Farington from Lancashire

I'll had sources and update profiles over the next few days.

---

If the first Thomas Farington was born about 1375, then he would be about 40 years old in 1415.  And he could still be alive in 1459 when he was about 84 years old.

---

I found a genealogy of the main Farington line in Documents relating to the Priory of Penwortham, edited by Hulton that at least appears to be quoting original records, gives some dates and looks to be the most reliable I've seen.  Genealogy starts on notes on p. 71 and continues to p. 75.

Some of the earlier generations currently on WikiTree then need some date changes.  For instance Agnes, the wife of the first William de Farington, is quoted as issuing a deed as a widow, in 1330 naming 3 sons and a grandson, so must have been born before 1320.

---

I've been looking through the Bannestre family and Anne prob. was born closer to the 1480s. Her father Henry Banestre died in 1525. 

Her second husband James Anderton is more challenging to source. I'm not sure that Anne Bannestre is currently  attached to the correct James Anderton. The one she's connected to has a page at Lewis' site but no wife is identified for him, and there are other men with the same name but of different locales... so still researching that.

https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Banastre-81

---

The wife of James Anderton of Euxton, Lancashire who was the son of Hugh, and had a son also named Hugh, appears to be named Agnes.  See the Victoria History of the County of Lancashire, vol. 6, p. 19 and 20 

A James Anderton of Worden, married Anne Farington, dau of Sir William Farington - see same volume, p. 12 (in middle column of notes).

Not sure what the source is for Anne Banastre, widow of Thomas Farington of LIttle Farington, marrying secondly a James Anderson, but maybe there was some confusion?

There are many other references to men by the name of James Anderton in the index in Volume 7 

---

John, I trust that you took a look at the charts but just to put it in the thread for everyone for convenience ...

The Banestre pedigree of Vis. 1567 shows Anne, dau. of Henry, d. 1525, (who starts the chart) & his first wife as marrying twice: m.1 Thomas Farington & m.2  James Anderton (Of ... where is the question ... assuming that they even married).

Farington of Little Farington only states that she was the wife of Thomas.