Are the Children of Savage-940 Correct

Question

In order to correctly ask these questions, I need to explain how I arrived to this point in my research. I am currently researching Joan Savage [Savage-488] who married Ralph Earll/Earle [Earle-82] June of 1631 in Hertfordshire, England. Baptism records indicate that Joan's father is Richard Savage [Savage-489]. I am confident in this connection. It is at this point where I am beginning to find issues when Joan's paternal grandfather and paternal great-grandfather. As it shows today, Richard Savages [Savage-489] father as a Francis Savage [Savage-806] there is no primary source connecting Richard to Francis, other than birth location and last name. Comments on the profile even state that the connection is unproven and needed to be changed or has been changed, however he is still connected. Does this mean that the information is now been proven? In addition, more issues come up with the connect of Francis [Savage-806] as the son of Christopher Savage MP [Savage-940]. The biographical information for both Francis and Christopher are the same, and do not indicate sources for children. Some state that Christopher had only one son - Francis, other state only a daughter, but children on both profiles are still linked, even though sources and biological information do not match. Since Christopher is now included in the pending Magna Carta Trail, I feel it is important to make sure that children information is as accurate as possible, so those like me trying to connect PGM ancestors to older generations in England do not do not link to the wrong profiles. So from what I can see, should the following be done to assure the profile information is correct and linked to the right preceding profiles.

1. Should Richard Savage [Savage-489] profile be unlinked from Francis Savage [Savage-806] and changed to parents unknown.

or

2. Should Francis Savage [Savage-806] profile be unlinked from Christopher Savage [Savage-940] and change parents to unknown.

or

3. Keep profiles linked but place a notice that research still needs to be done before changing parents and children.

Any and all clarification to these issues would be greatly appreciated.

Answer 1

I believe, in this instance, disconnecting Richard from Francis is the best place to start, especially seeing as there is already notice on the profile. It might be good to write a more detailed research note category to explain the reason for the disconnection with an in-profile link to the profile ("disconnected from [[Wiki-ID|Name]] because x") so that the full situation is understood and someone can still find the other profile until further research either corroborates or doesn't.

Nice spotting!

Comments

That is kinda what I was thinking, although probably not going to be a popular decision, as this will mostly cut American ancestors off from a well known noble english family. I am not a profile manager, and since I am not pre-1500 certified I cannot change profile information. Hopefully someone who can will see this message and pick up what I cannot do. Thanks again for your advice.

---

Carrie, I went ahead and removed Francis and Anne as the parents of Richard, as not only is there no evidence to support such a parentage, but significant evidence against such a parentage.

---

While Richard is only a by-marriage connection to me, I'm a huge fan of  removing spurious ancestral connections.  I'm in this for the history and the insights, and I like those accurate and clean.  (Granted I'm also a bit cynical about the real character of a lot of the illustrious notables.)

I think the majority of us feel this way; it's just that a few folks who have an emotional connection to some purported ancestor or other are very unhappy about being disconnected and make a fuss.

So YAY removal of disproven links!

---

Yes, I agree with you on checking that disproven links are removed. In many cases these profiles were added years ago and have been inactive for years. However, this profile had changes as of a week ago, when I looked at all four of them, the confusion as to how and why they were all linked just got to me and is why I reached out. Since Joan is now covered under PGM - "Shout out to those project administrators" and Christopher Savage trial pending as a descendent of a Magna Carta Baron, it only seemed important that the correct profiles are linked. I use Wikitree to verify information found on Ancestry.com, that other family members have used to build their family trees, which I am sad to say has gotten out of control. 90% of the time the information is incorrect . It is really frustrating for those of us that are working hard to make sure the sources they are using are reliable.  Personally, I think Ancestry  should never be used as a source on Wikitree, can it be used to start building a profile, yes, but not as a source, there has to be other sources, not just Ancestry. Family Search as well, do not even get me started on Family Search.  

Answer 2

Carrie,

Taking a quick look at the Francis Savage page, it seems to be derived from this History of Parliament page. On that page it mentions that:
 

In fulfilment of his father’s will he left annuities to his five brothers, including one who was a London apprentice

Which would suggest to me that the parentage of Francis Savage who m. Anne Lygon being Christopher Savage is accurate. I'm not too familiar with the way the History of Parliament website cites their documents, but they have a list of citations at the bottom. 

As for the sons of Francis, his will lists 5 children: Mary, Anne, Anthony, William and Walter. There is no Richard Savage mentioned whatsoever. 

The House of Parliament page says Francis had 4 sons and 2 daughters. Adding in John who was mentioned in a 1634 Visitation pedigree, and you have all 6 children, but no Richard Savage. 

Comments

That helps the Francis and Christopher link, and as stated before, someone who can access the profile for Richard will need to disconnect. Hopefully some where there is documentation of who Richards father is, he may even be someway related to Francis, just not a son. Thanks again.