A pre-1500 profile is inaccurate how can it be edited?

Question

Hi All,

As part of my OT2 I have been looking at the profile of John Corbet (Corbet-61), and his supposed father Thomas Corbet b. 1455 (Corbet-70).  This is as part of my work on Agnes Booth (Booth-3371) who is the subject of my OT2.

The profile for Thomas has some information missing on the spouse, probable inaccuracy on the parents and he does not appear to have a son called John according to Family Search. (https://www.familysearch.org/search/record/results?count=100&q.batchNumber=P006611&q.fatherGivenName=Thomas&q.fatherSurname=Corbett&q.motherGivenName=Jane&q.surname=Corbet&f.collectionId=5).  

There is a reference to a John Corbet which I am still exploring but I think he is the son of another Thomas Corbett.  

I think this all originates from someone uploading a GEDCOM from Ancestry and the reliance on the Visitations which I have found to be in-accurate on both occasions that I have referenced it

:-( 

Can someone undertake to update the record on my behalf or can you tell me how I can go about that process myself?

Comments

(What's an OT2?)

---

Pre 1600 Orphan Trail.  

It's run as part of the English project.  I had thought it might universal as it is such a good idea...

England Project - English Profile Standards (wikitree.com) 

---

I'm happy to work with you on this Chris.  Thanks.

Answer 1

Hi Chris

I'm not sure that I am seeing a problem with the profiles of Thomas Corbet and his son John as they are currently on WikiTree, apart from the fact that the birth dates, particularly for John and probably for Thomas, would appear to be far too early.  (Their birthplaces are also a problem.)

For instance, the Houses of Parliament article for John Corbet of Leigh place his birth as 'by 1500'.  It uses the Visitation of Shropshire, pp. 142-143  as the main source. Although I agree that Visitations in general can be problematic as a source for pre-1500 profiles, it is usually genealogies that extend a long way back where there are many errors. John and his father Thomas are only 5-6 generations or about 100 years from the date of the actual Visitation and there is a stronger possibility the information is correct.

The source currently used for many of the Corbet profiles, The family of Corbet, its life and times, by A.E. Corbet does cite some primary sources in other parts of the book (at the moment we only seem to be citing the genealogies), see for instance vol. 2, p. 186 for some discussion of John Corbet.

Lastly I think we need to wary of some of the FamilySearch generic databases. 'England Births and Christenings, 1538-1975' as an example, is based on "data collected by the Genealogical Society of Utah" and the wiki recommends that the information is verified.

Comments

Thank you John, for responding and obviously spending some time on looking into this.  I see that you frequently respond to such questions and have on 20 occasions received the 'Best Answer' sticker.  This must be a source of pride for you.

 

I am sorry if I gave the impression that the whole thing was wrong though.  That was not my intention or my belief. 

 

I am right with you on the dates for John Corbet and have some other evidence that I have researched that, I believe, could be usefully added to the profiles as research notes.  For example, I can find Robert Corbet (1507) and Roger Corbet (1530) as Sheriffs of Shropshire but not John in 1526.  There is also little evidence for John's third wife, Agnes, (others including a PhD student and a member of the Magna Carta Project also take this position) but I have recorded what I have checked and would like to add this information as research notes to the profile for John to save others doing the same research in the future.    

 

I also reviewed the Visitation of Shropshire, spent an entertaining few hours reviewing the Henry VIII Letters and Papers Foreign and Domestic (Letters and Papers, Foreign and Domestic, Henry VIII | British History Online (british-history.ac.uk)) and the Owen and Blakeway book, History of Shrewsbury (A history of Shrewsbury [by H. Owen and J.B. Blakeway]. : Hugh Owen, John Brickdale Blakeway : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive). 

 

The History of Parliament page you quote makes much use of the Visitations or the Harleian Society which I have not been able to prove in other ways and brings us back full circle.  Similarly, I was unable to attend the National Archive so have not been able to review the detail of the various documents identified as being relevant to John Corbet and referred to in that page CORBET, John I (by 1500-55 or later), of Leigh, Salop. | History of Parliament Online (histparl.ac.uk). 

 

I am interested in your observation (and that of Suzanne below) about FamilySearch.  My impression was that the records I was referencing were taken directly from images of, in this case, parish records.  I appreciate that these could be mis-transcribed (as has been the case in the latest 1921 Census, for example) but are you suggesting that the records are in themselves somehow corrupt?  Are you suggesting something beyond the possibility that the records have been mis-transcribed?  If so, could you explain further? 

Lastly, I am working with my Orphan Trail 'Trailblazer' (mentor) Susie who I now understand can make whatever amendments she believes are appropriate.

---

Just an FYI -- John is one of the leaders of both the European Aristocrats Project and the Medieval Project here at Wikitree.  We're all very fortunate to have him!

Answer 2

Leave a comment on the profile for the profile manager, explaining what you think is wrong, citing the relevant sources

Comments

Thank you.  I shall try that.

---

Actually, when it comes to pre-1500 profiles, the best way to assist with them when you don't have pre-1500 certification is posting on G2G (as you have done) linking from the profile.  There are unfortunately a large number of pre-1500 profiles with non-pre-1500 certified PMs, meaning they can't edit the profiles.  Therefore, no one who can edit will be notified of the profile comment.  So . . . post on G2G, link from the profile, and tag the G2G post with medieval, pre-1500, and any country (England, France ...) that applies.  That way the largest number of members will be made aware of the information.  Thanks!

Darlene - Co-Leader, Medieval Project

Answer 3

Leaving a comment is the best way through this kind of situation, as already suggested. I don’t think you can put any weight though on your FamilySearch search - this period is long before parish records started, and anything you find in FamilySearch for this period is likely to be out of someone’s family tree (could be researched from proper sources, could be confused fantasy). I’d also advise for earlier English genealogy that you search without mother’s name: it was not recorded in many parishes until much later.

If you haven’t already, it might be worth searching the British History Online website for the parish of residence. They have a lot of county histories with references to landowning families in each parish, which often have well-sourced genealogical detail of how property passed down families.

Comments

Thank you Suzanne for your feedback,  

Interesting point on FS.  I thought I was referencing records (or transcripts of records to be accurate), not the family trees but I will check to make sure.  

I am familiar with BHO and the pedegree charts (such as the Visitations) thanks.  The BHO is useful but the visitations I find to be a mixed bag.  :-)