Disproven Existence in Hoo family profiles?

+2 votes
121 views
I have discovered research casting doubt on the existence of the earliest profiles attributed to the Hoo family. Hall, Hamilton, FSA. "Pedigree of Hoo. Sussex Archaeological Collections Relating to the History and Antiquities of the County, 1902. pp. 186-197.  [https://www.google.com/books/edition/Sussex_Archaeological_Collections_Relati/fMhCAAAAYAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=Pedigree+of+the+Hoo+Family&pg=PA229&printsec=frontcover  Profile]

The profiles in question are: Hoo-37, Hoo-36, Hoo-35, Hoo-34, Hoo-75, Hoo-6, Hoo-3, Hoo-8, Hoo-2.

I have applied the Uncertain Existence template and wish to bring these profiles to the attention of the Disproven Existence Project.
WikiTree profile: Robert Hoo
in Genealogy Help by Lois Tilton G2G6 Pilot (130k points)
edited by Lois Tilton

3 Answers

+4 votes
What I do in a case where a document can apply to multiple profiles is create a statement which can be copied to all the profiles -- something like "this person is identified by John Doe as one of 13 personal records fabricated by George Jones in his 1317 work."  <ref> John Doe, [enter url here Pedigree of the Hoo Family], Sussex Archaeological Collections, page 229.  Accessed 14 July 2021.  </ref> Spend some time on the entry to make sure it says all that you want it to say, and that the in-line source is complete and functional.  Then you can copy it to all the affected Hoo profiles.

The profile you cited is essentially unsourced and has not been worked on since it was uploaded by Gedcom, so these Hoo profiles are ripe for research.  When enough research has been done to create confidence that there is no documentation waiting out there to be found, the Disproven Existence Project can step in and take over.

At that point the profile can be disconnected from all connected profiles, because persons who never existed cannot have parents, spouses or children.
by Jack Day G2G6 Pilot (367k points)
Yes, I have posted on all the profiles listed.

And added the <references/> tag so the citation will show up
+2 votes

Hi Lois

I've finally managed to track down the article by Hamilton Hall (Google Books would only show me a snippet view) and although I agree that the early Norman members of this family are suspect, I actually don't think the article is all that good as it rarely cites any sources and when it does they appear to be secondary ones.

I would be particularly concerned if it was the only source being followed to prove that this profile of Robert Hoo, the son of Robert Hoo, was being considered to never have existed.

The Complete Peerage, vol. 6, p. 566 has a basic genealogy of the Hoo family starting with the Sir Robert de Hoo mentioned in 1292 but then has a son also called Sir Robert de Hoo, and grandson Sir Thomas de Hoo.  It mostly cites BM Add. Roll 28721 and the charters found in that roll (which I think is now housed in the British Library, but haven't been able to track it down).

Although it doesn't prove anything more, there is a mention of a Robert de Hoo and his wife Hawis in this ipm (no. 692)

So before we do anymore on these later members of the Hoo family, I think much more research needs to take place, preferably with primary sources.

by John Atkinson G2G6 Pilot (486k points)
Ah, John, you've just met up with me!

Robert Hoo-8 is really the most questionable figure in the bunch. I hadn't seen the IPM you cite, thanks for it. I've also seen references to Hawise under the name of Hadwisa.  Richardson is supposed to have something related to Hawise in Royal Ancestry Vol II, p. 661, which is not available to me.

But other sources claim that Robert Hoo-3 had only a son Alexander, not a Robert. So who is the father of Thomas de Hoo-7 - this Alexander or Robert?  (Alexander's existence is a bit tenuous as well.)

This is an extensive task, and I'm not a medievalist nor do I have much experience playing one on WikiTree.

I did find this:  But no way to know for sure that it's the right R de H.  It's the only possibly original source for him that I've found.

July 13.

Robert de Hoo the younger, going beyond seas on the king's service, has letters nominating Henry de Appehagh' his attorney for one year.

1308-9, membranes 21, 20, 19, 18, 17, 16, 15, 14, 13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1

MEMBRANE 21.

The trouble with using the Hamilton Hall article to assess these WT profiles is that they aren't the same.

Hall is addressing the Cooper pedigree (which itself I haven't seen), but the WT profiles have been filtered mostly thru Rootsweb and many of the worst absurdities removed. Hall's criticisms don't always fit.

So independent  evaluations must be made.

If Robert/Hawise is shown to be authentic, it remains to be seen if his sister Rosamund Hoo-2 should remain attached to the parents as shown. I could find no evidence of this, but Rosamund certainly existed and her marriage is attested by evidence.

I doubt her birthplace. I doubt all the entries showing Norfolk as the birthplace of this line of the family.  I think they are quite separate, at least of this period, but have been conflated

I note that the Cokayne entry cites the Cooper article, which makes it possibly questionable.
0 votes

I have researched the Hoo profiles mentioned above and found no evidence of the existence of Hoo-37, Hoo-36, Hoo-35, Hoo-34, Hoo-6 and their respective spouses if given: Evan-2, Walton-235, Malmaynes-14, Chiverson-1, Canmor-1.

The later profiles are attested by evidence and the Uncertain template has been removed.

The exception is Robert de Hoo-75. That is, there is no evidence for the existence of a Robert de Hoo as profiled, however, I have discovered the existence of a Robert de Hoo who might have been the grandfather of Robert de Hoo- 3. It would be possible to re-purpose this profile to represent this attested person.

Robert de Hoo before 1245  https://www.british-history.ac.uk/vch/bucks/vol4/pp289-293

cites the following: 

  • 9. De Banco R. 353, m. 98 d.
  • 20. Excerpta de Rot. Fin. (Rec. Com.), i, 397.
  • 21. Cal. Pat. 1247–58, p. 574.
  • 22. Hund. R. (Rec. Com.), i, 41.
  • 23. Assize R. 1247, m. 13 d.
  • 24. Feud. Aids, i, 83.
Also related:
  • 81. Westm. D. and C. Ct. R. 8938.
  • 82. Ibid.
  • 83. Chart. R. 11 Edw. III, No. 8, and confirmed on Pat. 14 Ric. II, pt. 2, m. 19.
These sources might serve to confirm the existence of the Robert de Hoo mentioned, his daughter Joan, his son John de Hoo (possibly the father of Robert de Hoo-3), and John's wife Alice, who passed on to their son Robert the estate of Knebworth, which Robert is alleged to have passed on to a son Alexander, who is apparently otherwise unattested.
IF they can be located and found to contain the information alleged.
I refer the other profiles mentioned above to the Disproven Existence Project.

by Lois Tilton G2G6 Pilot (130k points)

Related questions

+1 vote
1 answer
+10 votes
1 answer
+19 votes
2 answers
+1 vote
1 answer
185 views asked Mar 17, 2018 in WikiTree Help by Linda Plummer G2G6 Mach 1 (10.7k points)
+4 votes
2 answers
+2 votes
0 answers
75 views asked Nov 9, 2020 in Genealogy Help by Amy Gilpin G2G6 Pilot (131k points)

WikiTree  ~  About  ~  Help Help  ~  Search Person Search  ~  Surname:

disclaimer - terms - copyright

...