When should we create a new profile?

Question

On 6 Mar 2022 Andrew Lancaster wrote on More-390:

Oh. 1. Concerning the question of whether to make profiles of people for whom we only have a first name (no LNAB, and no way to estimate birth or death years), and before (not after) we find more evidence, it seems you are taking it rather seriously? I think we should post my proposed method on G2G and ask for broader feedback. One reason for doing this is because I believe I am following a fairly widely accepted community norm.
2. If there is any OTHER problem with this profile or any others connected to it, please explain them clearly first before you start making accusations and threatening to have someone take the profiles over! You say there is "spurious information"? Or what are you saying? Please explain.

Comments

The question is whether it is normally advisable to create new profiles for people for whom we have only a first name and no LNAB, no clear way of estimating a birth or death year, and no clear evidence taking the person's family tree further to parents or siblings etc.
I am proposing that we do not normally do this until AFTER we find extra information?

Answer 1

I come from the other angle: having a place-holder for a member of the family where we know some sourced facts about them prevents the wrong person being added. It's the curse of the internet trees - a gap is there and someone will add something... anything, no matter how improbable and that is where the problem starts. The place holder can then be developed as new information is found. She's not an uncertain or disputed existence, she just doesn't have a LNAB yet. Some educated estimations can be made on her dates which can be tweaked when more evidence is found. Having a profile may help to link her into her own family network when the More family turns up in someone else's will.

Here we have a woman named Margaret who by Edward More's will of September 1558 has been married to Edward long enough to have 4 children. Son John, by that will probably over the age of 21 (to succeed his father) and legitimate, so Margaret and John married before 1537 and Margaret born before 1522 (at least 15 years old when married) and still alive in September 1558.

Comments

Hi Jo

I agree that 'gaps' in genealogy do get filled and perhaps it is better to have something there that has a reliable source.

I would query though, what we actually know about Margaret.  Does the will actually name her as the mother of the four children mentioned?  Or give an idea of how long she and Edward have been married? The House of Parliament entry for the son John, doesn't name a mother, for instance.  

So I think we need to be clear about what is known about Margaret.  Depending on what the will states, we might only really know that she was his wife at the time the will was written, and everything else is assumption?

---

Jo this is not a family where people are rushing to add popular theories all over the internet. And being cautious in that direction certainly brings problems because these types of pushes often seem to be used as an excuse for one person to add their own preferred guesse before anyone else can add something else. I very rarely see any evidence that we get any other type of "inevitable" rushes to fill gaps, especially since the introduction of restrictions. What I do see constantly are unnecessary confusions about how relationships need to be changed because the guesses people have added to various profiles don't all fit together nicely. The fewer of these types of "forced" guesses we make, the better for genealogy.

Answer 2

I agree, if you only have the first name I would make note of that, in the child’s profile that the mother was “Mary”. Creating a profile for Mary would not serve any purpose for the Big Tree.

Comments

I agree - but only sort of.  What about when you find a person for whom there is and will not be any records?  Do you just consign her to a little note in somebody's bio?

For example: Marie is my 11th great grandmother born in about 1560.  Through several searches on several sites, I have never found her with a maiden name.  Her marriage is 'John Siblye and his wife Marie'.  All of her children's christenings have her as 'Marie'.

But to return to 'should I create a profile for her' - yes! Some of us operate in a visual manner.  If I see a profile for John, and a profile for his wife Marie, I can then begin to visualise the family.  Among her descendants, I can see who is named after her.  In fact, I can see her descendant tree - because she has a profile.  I can categorise her so she appears in locations.  Other WikiTreers can cast their eyes over her profile.  But if she is just a footnote on one of her descendants' profiles, she might never be known.

---

In your example then the answer would be yes because you can deduce the DOB and place of birth based on the marriage and birth records of her children. However the question stated that DOB and DOD could not be determined.

---

Ros I know the feeling but on the other hand I have left gaps in my own pedigree where I only have a first name. Dave is right, if I had a way to at least roughly estimate then that can change things, especially in some cases. You are pointing to the fact that some profiles have special importance for various reasons. I am sure that we all draw those lines in slightly different places, and I do not want us writing rules about that, but this is a question of what to do "in general". The background is that it has in effect been suggested that my approach is very wrong.

---

Andrew, I'm going to agree with Ros on this.  In early colonial times in the Americas we often have a single reference to a person (usually a wife).  We do not know her DOB or DOD or her maiden name.  Yet I almost always create a profile for her with estimated DOB  and an open DOD.  We know she existed, she's real.  If we later find her maiden name we can merge away.  But generally I like the the idea of one person - one profile.  The REALLY important thing is to put all your guesses and assumptions in the biography.

---

Stephen I think all types of genealogy have these situations, and of course, just to say it one more time, I have no problem with the basic idea. I also do this. But when should we do it? The topic of this discussion here is whether an editor is doing a bad thing by not immediately making a new profile when they discover a first name. If you agree with that, then I think we just have to agree to disagree on that general rule (though probably we might agree most often in practice). I hope, in any case, that I will not be forced to work that way in all cases?

Personally what really concerns me as a genealogist in many of these cases is the propagation of guesses which become "facts", and so I would tend to follow the spirit and letter of the rules here and only add a person when I have a serious way of estimating a birth or death year. Of course that will always be a judgement call, so (once again) in practice we probably agree in most cases,
 

But I think what is really important to think about is that many problems happen because of date guesses. They spread, become solid, and then require extensive research and discussion just in order to work out where they came from. I don't know how many times we see this happen in pre-1500, but it is very common and somewhat frustrating because it is not "positive work". 

...so IMHO we should not see date guesses as a safe option, but as a problem we might be creating for future researchers. There is no such thing as a free lunch as they say, and so we should ask ourselves what could go wrong in each case.

If we really want to get philosophical we all should keep in mind that as genealogists the animal instinct which is most likely to take control and make us go too far is our love of filling in those frustrating gaps. Filling in gaps, as an aim, is in practice often in conflict with the aims of good careful research, which needs to be systematically sceptical. We should keep that danger constantly in mind IMHO.

---

No problem with any of that, Andrew.

Nobody is trying to force you or Sarah to work a particular way.  I do not think there is a prescribed method, though there are proscribed ways!

The only wrong way is to not detail why one makes an educated guess or to omit the actual sources that we have for a person. (I also personally loath weirdass fonts and colours...)

In summary: It's (almost) all good!

Answer 3

For context: The profile in question is a 1500s woman whose name is given in the probate of her husband. I believe that is ample evidence to create a profile off of, and to then use that profile to create a launch point for research on her LNAB. It allows for the accurate assignation of children, and prevents spurious spouses from being attached in place. Including that research information on her husband’s profile only clogs up his profile. We should strive for accuracy and completion in our profiles, and in that spirit I see nothing wrong with creating a profile based on probate documentation such as this.

Additionally, referring a profile to the MPT is not a punishment or a threat, but is a step to ensure the health of our collective tree. The profiles we manage do not belong to us, and so we should not feel defensive or threatened when errors are identified or a profile is submitted for review.

Comments

NOTE: adjusted

Sarah on the first point people might get confused about what I am asking, and what the situation is. To make sure it is clear for everyone, the will only mentions her first name, right?

The question is whether we invent a profile before we have more information, or whether we initially post research notes on relative's pages. I think most of us take the second option 90% of the time.

On the second point I think you might again not be fully aware of the way we usually work. If you think something is spurious then you either fix it or post a comment explaining what is spurious. We don't normally go looking for third parties to overrule editors before we have explained what we are worried about. This is nothing to do with individuals trying to control articles, but a point about coordinating well. If there is something unclear we generally try to get clarification first by posting questions on the profiles.

---

"third parties to overrule editors"

Er...these are a team within a project - and they are trying to help, not overrule.

---

I tend to be with Sarah on the creation of profiles. There is nothing wrong with creating a profile where no LNAB is known and all we have is a first name for a spouse or parent. There will almost invariably be some date information, even if very approximate (eg X was living at such and such a time) or of the born/died/married "before” or "after" kind, so some birth or death date information can be given, even though it will be inexact.

I see this as largely a matter of personal preference: but creating a profile can help to safeguard against wrong relationships being added and may lead others to attempt research to establish the LNAB. And there may be other information about the spouse or parent that can go on their profile. I am very pragmatic on this myself, and I do not have an altogether consistent practice. I do not regard that as a fault on my part :-)

For Magna Carta Project profiles, I would generally create a profile for a spouse in these circumstances. I would be less likely to do so for a parent for whom all I had was a first name.

In some cases, there will be trees on the web that give a wrong identification for the spouse or parent: where that is so, creating the profile can be particularly advantageous in helping to safeguard the accuracy of our worldwide tree, even if all that is known is a first name and some indicative date when the person was alive.

Another circumstance where creating the profile can be particularly advantageous is where there is more than one marriage, but we have no LNAB for one of the spouses. Creating the profile can help to distinguish clearly between children of the different marriages, and reduce the risk of their being attached to a wrong parent.

I would never object or feel upset if, for a profile I managed, someone created a profile for a spouse or parent whose LNAB and birth/death dates were not known.

---

Very sensible comments, Michael.

Edited to fix typo.

---

NOTE: Revised wording, quotes removed. Apparently that's how its done now.

Ros, I guess you didn't have a chance to check the background. I am not saying there is any team going to do anything. I have no problems with any of our teams ASFAIK. I am however concerned to be receiving messages (from an individual editor, not a team as such), which clearly indicate that profile management would be called in because a suggested approach of mine was disagreed with.

The cause and effect in the message was clear don't you think? To be clear, the last sentence of my post which was being replied to was "So then the difference between us is whether to wait or not. Does this make sense to you or do you think my approach is wrong?" So I do not see that there was any big problem.

---

Michael, I too would generally see this as a judgement call and not something to discuss too far. That is in fact kind of the point! We have a case here where both editors think more information can probably be dug up (including probably LNAB proof) but one wants to rush to make a profile before we know what that information will say. It is being asserted that this has to happen. In that type of case however, I think there is a good reason to wait and see .

Concerning the old argument that we should rush to put a guess in quickly, in order to stop others putting a worse one, we've done that sometimes over the years, but it has been very much over-used. Mainly I would think that would be in cases where we know there are popular theories being pushed? I don't believe that is the case here.

I think here we are dealing with a case where some leads for future research have been posted by me here on Wikitree. I think next steps should normally be coordinated with me in that type of case, but instead there is a push to say it is not up to me and a profile MUST be made.

So the devil is in the actual details of this case. Do we HAVE TO make new profiles in situations like this?

---

No we don't have to make a new profile for this person, but as Bobbie and Laura have answered below, there is enough information to fulfil the requirements to create one.

And while it is great that you have posted the research that would enable such a profile to be created, it isn't up to you whether that profile is created or not.

As Michael has posted above and I know, people add on other family members to profiles I manage all the time.  As long as they are appropriately sourced, then I have no objections, nor should I have any objections.  To me that is what collaboration is all about.

---

John to be clear there is is no debate about whether we can make profile as long as we accept this date guess as a reasonable estimate. There is also no question at all of me demanding any special powers. I just think usually we look at the details of the case?

However, this G2G thread exists because I am being told we HAVE TO make a profile. And the second part of the message I received is that my research sections are a bad thing.

Is there anyone who agrees with Sarah that we HAVE TO make a new profile and that my research sections are so bad that they require intervention?

---

reposted as an Answer.

Answer 4

From the profile we know she died after 1558.

Answer 5

Specific information is found here in Help: Person Profile - Minimum requirements for creating a profile. It states:

The requirements for creating a profile are:

• a name or relationship to another person,
• a date, though it may be estimated, and
• a source, saying where you obtained the information.

Answer 6

Profiles like this are created all of the time as long as there is a source that shows the person did exist. It is usually how more information is discovered. These pages reference creating profiles like this: Minimum requirements for creating a profile, Special rules for required fields, and Estimated Dates.

Projects work in a collaborative manner to research and improve profiles. They are not third parties trying to overrule editors. In this case, the discussion has been about creating a new profile. I am not clear on why these accusations were made. The person that creates the profile will be the manager and can request a project to co-manage it.

Comments

Laura, yes it is clear that we may create a profile. It could be debated that it meets the bare minimum (as long as we ignore the preference that Wikitree has for creating unnecessary "unknown" LNAB profiles, and as long as we accept that we have a "date", which is stretching it a bit). 

The question in the discussion was whether we MUST create the profile. Is there is any PROBLEM asking for a delay on that in case we can find the LNAB, or any second document to at least confirm that first name, or give a real date instead of one of those viral fake dates which REALLY are a big problem on Wikitree? 

Why is there such a desperate urgency to make a profile? What am I missing?

---

There is no 'MUST'.  But you seemed to be suggesting that Margaret didn't even qualify to have a profile created, or that it was somehow 'better' not to create a profile unless you had some definite information.  Others in this thread are suggesting that yes, it is 'better' to start a profile, even if you don't have swathes of totally-solid evidence.  You start a profile, then you have somewhere to put all that solid evidence.

---

Ros, that makes things a little more clear. If we are all agreeing that there are two reasonable approaches worth considering, and that we should discuss it as colleagues based on the case, then that is good. That is what I came here to confirm. Do we agree on that?

FWIW I was suggesting we would normally look at the situation as colleagues, but that style of working was not accepted. For example: 

• Is more information such as the LNAB likely to become clear soon? (Apparently Sarah believes so, and Elizabeth Prosser has posted a remark on the son's article that she has an article about to come out.) 
• Is this a "hot" article which will inevitably attract someone to add the profile in a problematic way? (I think not. I've looked around the internet.)

The answer to that was that the discussion was over and action was going to be taken. The tone of the replies on profiles can certainly be described as personal criticism of me and a refusal to discuss my ideas, but no one has defined anything I've done wrong. That was the reason for coming to G2G. 

---

I don't believe Sarah was trying to insult you or your work at all. She simply disagreed with your approach and believes the profile should be created. I am not aware of anywhere where she has said it MUST be created. I think she got the Managed Profiles Team involved not as a way of suggesting that the discussion was over but rather as a way to resolve the two different (and valid) approaches.

---

Sorry Oscar but I don't follow you on this one. I'm not seeing how you can read it that way. 

"If his wife Margaret is mentioned in probate documentation, then it’s safe to say she should have a profile created" 

"on the unreasonable end of things."

Me: "So then the difference between us is whether to wait or not. Does this make sense to you or do you think my approach is wrong?"

"I do disagree with the approach, yes. [...] I’ll refer this profile to the Managed Profiles Team for further work, as the profile, and family group as a whole, seems poorly constructed; the sort of thing that will lead to spurious trees and information being repeated on the internet."

And on Ballon-4 where I have raised concern about the idea of working by comparing Wikitree guessed dates (which is presumably what will also happen to the Moore family):

"I do not believe that this thread has any productivity left in it, and will not be responding to further commentary. If you are not interested in feedback from other members on profiles that you manage, I would suggest you reconsider the contents of your watchlist."

I really do hope it is a misunderstanding, but to me it looks like communication is being refused and the methodology being insisted upon revolves around the comparison of date guesses (which is a controversial methodology and also one of the reasons I am concerned about placeholder profiles sometimes). 

These things do honestly concern me.

Answer 7

For all interested parties, I will be conducting a review of this family group on behalf of the England Project’s Managed Profiles Team. The relevant profiles will be identified through comments on their respective comments section. Please feel free to add any source documentation you may have to the comments section.

Best, Sarah

Comments

Sarah one thing which is confusing and concerning me still is why you don't just post and edit as a fellow Wikitreer? What value is being added by responding to my proposal in terms of project managed profiles?

If I look at the normal situations where project management is called for this does not seem to fit the bill? I'm not seeing any big genealogical debate either here or anywhere else?

As far as I can see, this G2G discussion has confirmed that questions about whether to use placeholder profiles and research notes are seen by most wikitreers as things people can have valid personal preferences about. There is no rule that one is always bad and one is always good?

I have also posted a note on the profile Edward More's son, pointing out that there may be an article which was due to come out this year, which may contain more evidence.

---

Posting and editing as a fellow WikiTreer would be just fine.  Sarah is helping by including the England Project's Managed Profiles Team - which itself includes several specialists on this era, sources, and WikiTree policies.  Just like you say you are a 'medieval genealogist', so many of the Managed Profiles Team would fall into that category as well.

An example: if a person falls sick, they go to their GP (family doctor).  That doctor may well refer them to a specialist.  Here, Sarah is the doctor, and is referring the situation to the specialists of the Managed Profiles Team.  What's wrong with that?

---

Ros, yes that is how I understand the intention of profile management. So invoking project management would not normally be used as a way to over-rule a fellow editor because they suggested a different approach to yourself would it? I don't see any evidence that the article (or the profile manager) is "sick". It is not subject to any big controversy. It is already managed by an editor with a lot of experience with the sources and period? Of course Sarah can and should make proposals and edit, but the discussion on the profile goes a lot further than that, and it does honestly concern me. It does not seem like our normal way of working.

---

Sarah is not 'invoking project management'.  Yes, the Managed Profiles Team usually work with profiles where at least one of the managers is the England Project, but in this case, she is calling in a team of specialists who will help, not override.  And the "sick" example was just that: an example, or an allegory - something completely made up which illustrated the concept.

---

All help is welcome Ros, of course. That is not a concern, and I hope that is clear. Nevertheless, I still feel awkward about the chain of events and remarks leading to this specific announcement.

Answer 8

Hi Andrew,

To answer your main question 'When should we create a new profile'?...that's tricky. We have guidelines for IF a new profile can be created, but as far as I know nothing saying when a profile MUST be created. It mostly operates on a case by case basis, as far as I'm aware, and what people are saying is that in this case a profile should be created. 

I understand your hesitancy to create the profile. Margaret does meet the basic requirements to have a profile created, but your concern is you don't want to make the profile right away while you're still unsure about the LNAB and other details of her life (correct me if I'm wrong on that point). 

While I do not think a profile MUST be created, what I think and what others have been saying is that in this particular case it would be very beneficial to create it. If Margaret had a profile, that would be a great place to collate current research on her LNAB. It would make it easier for other researchers to find and contribute to, rather than just having her in the notes of someone else's profile. This would definitely aid in the LNAB search, to my mind. 

I appreciate that you only want to add the profile once you are assured of the quality of the information contained within it. I understand all too well the tendency to only want to add a profile once we have all the information on a person, but the great thing about WikiTree is things can always be edited, changed, and updated as we go along. You can add Margaret More as a spouse of Edward, with an 'unknown' LNAB for now, and a death date of 'after 1558'. This is not invention or rushed guesswork, we know these things to be true, even if the information is limited. You can go back later and amend/add information as it is found. This is the approach I have seen most often for deep ancestry profiles where we only know the first name and rough life span of a person, which is the case for many early modern and medieval women.

A lot of profiles here are works in progress, and that is just the nature of this platform. We all work in different ways, but there is certainly a very good case to be made for creating the profile, as has been outlined in some other comments on this post.

~ Oscar

Comments

Hi Oscar I'm fine with all of that, of course. But I think at least one thing might be missing. Space holder profiles tend to be filled with more guesses. The whole aim of them is often to try to make things look "solid". I think they often end up making it look like the research is done, and in effect it can lead to Wikitree becoming the source of viral guesses, which is what we are supposedly trying to avoid?

My point is not that this always happens, but that we shouldn't treat them as a perfectly safe option in all cases, which no one should ever object to. They can also cause problems.

For example: say that we find the name of a widow. If we move to quickly to start filling in gaps and making profiles, the widow will inevitably tend to become the mother of the man's children. Dates will also be created, and these will be copied around the internet and may come back to haunt us.

Put it this way, coming from another direction: we certainly wouldn't want to make profiles for every person who we know something about. Keeping trees like that from becoming "truth" would be impossible. We know this because we can see what happens on other websites, and also we know what problems we had in the past.

A second point is that the demands being made are not just about space-holder profiles, which are clearly often used and at least sometimes useful, but also a criticism of the use of research notes sections. One reason I think many of us prefer to use those is that they make it clear when things are uncertain.

Is there any movement against research sections on Wikitree? I never heard of that.

---

You make a good point about space holder profiles being filled with guesses, and this can and does lead to issues. This is one of the reasons for project/team protection, which is, I think, what Sarah has been trying to do. If Margaret's profile was created with only the definitively known information and then project protected, it would prevent just anyone from adding in their guesses and contributing to the proliferation of spurious dates around the Internet. 

There is no movement against research notes that I am aware of. What I think people are getting at is that sometimes putting all the information known about a person into the research notes on the profile of someone else can clog and clutter said profile (though there are of course times where it is appropriate). It is also unfortunate that many women from this time period are relegated to the research notes of their husband's profile. I think that if Margaret's profile was created with sufficient research notes, that made any and all uncertainties clear, that would prevent people from taking any estimations made as gospel.

"Put it this way, coming from another direction: we certainly wouldn't want to make profiles for every person who we know something about." ...This is true. We shouldn't be making profiles for everyone we know something about. But sometimes it is appropriate, particularly with deep ancestry profiles such as this which will require a big collaborative effort. Having that profile provides a great springboard for researchers to work off of.

It is certainly a tricky business, but the answers to this thread show there is community support for the creation of the profile, with many experienced WikiTreers commenting in favour of giving Margaret a profile. I think at the end of the day that's the key thing here. Profiles like this, which could potentially have thousands of living descendants, require a high level of collaboration and community input. 

---

Hi Oscar, again that all sounds fine by me as a general statement. (The detailed practical implications are not really clear for this case though. I'm be interested to see what Sarah proposes but I'm not sure how or why we would be protect this particular line by adding a profile.)

Two general comments:

Concerning research sections, I think no-one would deny that (like any part of any article) they can sometimes build up and then need tidying. That's a normal evolution of course because our editors are meant to be researching. None of the articles involved are "polished". But was that the concern being raised? It does not seem so. I would suggest that we should normally be careful about deleting research notes for tidiness reasons, when research is on-going by another editor?

Unfortunately one of the reasons that women are relegated like that is because there is much less documentation about them. So there is a real limitation to what we can say about many of them. Unfortunately, the flipside of this reality is that wives are the traditional place to attach speculative or even fraudulent relationships. That kind of creeping expansion of trees by using wives as a "weak point" in family trees has been happening since the old visitations.

Answer 9

Hi Andrew, Do we have to or don't we have to? That's a very black and white question for WikiTree where a lot of grey exists - especially when it comes to early profiles. There is sufficient evidence to create a profile for this individual.  Do you want to?  Obviously not.  Does Sarah want to?  Obviously does.  Would I?  Yes I would based on the evidence.  What is right or wrong? Clearly there are two approaches.  But.  As nobody owns any Profile, and as both approaches are OK, then it is completely up to Sarah if she does or doesn't, and respectfully, even though you manage the profile of the spouse of the individual in question, it really is a moot point.  Where enough evidence (appropriate for the timeframe in question) exists to create any profile, then it makes sense to.  What evidence is required for each individual profile, to satisify an individual researcher is up to them.  As long as the evidence meets the community agreed requirements (eg. reliable resources for the time frame), then it's ok in my humble opinion.  BTW, I don't think Sarah is rushing.  The profile [edit: of the spouse involved] has not been touched for a long time. Cheers, Susie

Comments

I feel very confident to say that all information available will be evaluated by whoever in the England Project works on these profiles...all input is welcome and will be critically appraised and refer to reliable sources etc.  

I see comments have been posted on the profile of Edward and son John that reviews will be done, as any good WikiTree collaborater does with profiles in this time frame, EP or not.  Won't it be great if this English family can be developed further!  I'm sure Sarah (or whoever else ends up collaborating on these profiles) will welcome any other research or inisight you have available.  

---

Significantly editing posts after the fact gets things out of sequence, so I'm not going to attempt to address the additions to point 1) as I don't know what was there originally and what you've edited I'm sorry ... 

Re the now added point 2) and the project management comments...Please know it's just that the England Project takes love and interest in all English profiles .  When any of us come across a profile we see could use some development/love/attention, as in this case, and we have time, we take an interest.  Please don't feel special or singled out.  It is done always with the best of intentions.

Re you feeling you've been ticked off for not having created the profile of Margaret....You've voiced your opinion and annoyance which is your prerogative. 

I'm not representing the England Project when I say this, I'm just saying this as a regular WT'er....I think it's time to move on and accept that both ways are acceptable.  I would venture that there will be no apologies as none are required as there is no right or wrong.

---

That's of course all fine Susie. The devil will be in the details. Perhaps as a kind of closing statement(?) I'll point to the types of actions I would personally find concerning. You could see them as a bit cautious, but we are dealing with a borderline medieval profile. The further back we go, the more systematically cautious we need to be...

1. Understating or removing of discussions about uncertainties or alternative possibilities would be a concern.

2. Obviously I am also concerned with any push to say that we know something before we have enough evidence - whether this happens in a new profile or not. The temptation is always great.

I suppose we are unlikely to be finding a large number of new records, so the above points are likely to be important ones in terms of trying to improve the profiles in a balanced way.

---

Could not agree more Andrew.  It's terribly important that all facts are cited with reliable resources. That all date estimates are backed up with documented/sensible assmptions.  And that all useful research already undertaken is retained.  I daresay Research Notes will be an important element of the profiles involved.

---

Great. Thanks.

---

Just leaving this here: 

It won't help with a maiden name but there is a grant of administration for a Margaret Moore of Peasonhall dated 1589. This may be the wife dying 30 years after her husband.  (It may be  also be the daughter.There's usually a little extra info in the admon; spinster, widow etc + relationship to the person granted administration https://nrocatalogue.norfolk.gov.uk/index.php/moore-margaret-of-peasenhall-suffolk

It's on microfilm so shouldn't cost too much if anyone is inclined to investigate it.

Edward's will is also on microfilm. Also catalogued with the spelling Moore.

https://nrocatalogue.norfolk.gov.uk/index.php/moore-edward-of-peasenhall-suffolk

---

 thanks Helen

---

Norwich Consistory Court wills (and admons I believe) are available on Family Search.  

You might need to browse through the images but can use the date and folio number provided by NROCAT.

---

Helen,  thanks so much for these, I will add them to my growing stack of research for this family group! Please feel free to send anything else along via PM to me or on their respective profiles via comments.

best, Sarah

---

Good luck and Happy hunting, Sarah!