Can anyone merge these two versions of Catherine Pakenhams?

Question

There is an unmerged match between http://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Pakenham-33  and

http://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Pakenham-10

This dates to December 23 last year.   Pakenham-33 has  a husband other than the Duke of Wellington.  I know that the marriage was reputedly unhappy but suspect there would have been a bit more evidence for a second marriage. 

I don't know the protocol on this. I would like to complete the merge and disconnect the husband. The creator of the second profile who made it an unmerged match hasn't contributed since that date

 (from a personal point of view my alleged  'connection' to the Queen goes through this link and I really don't believe it!)

She is also a 'notable' since she has her own Wikipedia entry  and is also a member of the British aristocracy so presumably should be part of one of those projects.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catherine_Wellesley,_Duchess_of_Wellington

 

 

 

Comments

I am only saying that it was one of the profile managers who rejected the merge.  He will need better sources, not me.

Answer 1

Thanks Helen, I think you have completed some great research on this problem.

However I'm more inclined to suggest that we don't merge the 2 profiles, but move towards making them into 2 separate Catherine Pakenhams.  Leave Pakenham-10 as the Duchess of Wellington, and make Pakenham-33 into the possible Mrs Lloyd.  Disconnect her from current parents, and make as uncertain her dates of birth and death?

We would need to put some notes on the biography to explain what has been done, and not to merge with Pakenham-10 until more research has taken place.

Comments

That sounds feasible. The note would be important since they will still have the same names and dates of birth and death

I've tried to research the family and found no other mention of Catherine Pakenham being the wife of Henry Lloyd.

There is enough  mystery about Alice Mary the wife of  his son Henry 

 Whether his wife was really De visme or not is perhaps  questionable. His sister in law was De Visme on the passenger list  but it is not noted whether she was single or married.

A Henry Lloyd apparently married an Alicia Mary Whittle in 1811. She may have been the daughter of Samuel and Catherine Whittle

http://www.eggsa.org/1820-settlers/index.php/additional-information/l-surnames/1591-lloyd-henry-extra-data

A geni tree has Alicia Mary as both the d of a Col.Samuel Whittle who married Lady Alicia Fleming, the daughter of Earl Upton and also the same Alice with  Gerard de Visme  The source of this appears to be a book called Some Frontier families, a book published with a limited edition in 1969. http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/th/read/SOUTH-AFRICA-EASTERN-CAPE/2013-04/1366015501

Another  post on rootsweb says  Is this a family legend or not? " a researcher in England can find no trace of either Colonel Samuel WHITTLE or the Earl of UPTON."   http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/th/read/SOUTH-AFRICA-EASTERN-CAPE/2006-11/1164203515

I did find an Earl of Upton but he wasn't quite what was expected  as it was a prize bull! http://artuk.org/discover/artworks/earl-of-upton-18556

 

Answer 2

No one can do it until there is better proof about their husband.  Wikipedia and the Peerage are secondary, if not terciary,sources.

Comments

 You are correct because we should provide good evidence However in this case, It's a bit like saying that Washington was married to someone other than Martha. The Duke of Wellington was an important figure both as a prime minister and a military 'hero' and  there are literally hundreds of secondary sources, some written quite close to the time. If there were an alternative marriage it would surely show up somewhere,

Here's his History of Parliament Entry  with his marriage http://www.historyofparliamentonline.org/volume/1790-1820/member/wellesley-sir-arthur-1769-1852

 I suspect primary sources are less easy to find. She was born before 1837 so no registration. She was born in Ireland so parish records aren't easy to find. She died in London and that  was reported in many papers on the 26th April and what seems like an official announcement on the 6th May.  (just checked as I have access to the British Newspaper Archive)  She is reputed to have been buried as Stratfield Saye, where the records probably aren't deposited in the local archives.

 Here's a source that mentions the marriage  It was written in 1816 so just 10 years after the death(edit marriage!)

https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=zWtSAAAAcAAJ&pg=PA74&lpg=PA74&dq=catherine+pakenham+duchess+of+wellington&source=bl&ots=bzCXsXYIKH&sig=hIVvmBYwsUEG32ApLSkdhhrHzOw&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjetLKc4cDMAhUE1xoKHVhMDIo4ChDoAQhFMAg#v=onepage&q=catherine%20pakenham%20duchess%20of%20wellington&f=false

This book was written by a descendant with access to the family archives.  isn't fully viewable because it is recent but  enough to show that this was a first husband.

https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=v_PyjwhTGI8C&pg=PT8&lpg=PT8&dq=stratfield+saye+Catherine+Pakenham&source=bl&ots=ndZ5HbAi0y&sig=86KFWiizjf_G6zJXfo1vbA0VwO4&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiMtZz33sDMAhVD1RQKHQpWBrsQ6AEIPTAG#v=onepage&q=stratfield%20saye%20Catherine%20Pakenham&f=false

 

Answer 3

Based on what I can tell, we should be ready to propose the merge and get approval from the profile managers. I'd remove the unmerged match and submit the merge and wait for the responses from the PM's.

Answer 4

Scott

I do agree with you. They are clearly the same person and there should be only one profile per person. The profile mangers might be able to look at their sources and give clarity about the spouses.

The conflict with the spouses could be noted in the comment box or even in the profile until the problem can be resolved.

Comments

Perhaps we could disconnect the controversial husband and include a link to him in the biography section of her profile. That way the link is snipped and it's added as a side note that this husband was removed during the merge to give researchers time to determine who he was, why he was originally attached as husband, what documentation is needed to support his connection, and such. That may be the easiest way to address this.

We'd need to make a similar comment on the controversial husband's page too.

---

Oh - and we definitely want a G2G question specifically regarding this husband. At least that would be how I would deal with it, if it's not actively being worked.

---

I tried to research Henry Lloyd. I worked backwards from what I could find and so  have been able to  write some comments about  his son  http://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Lloyd-1500  and some of his descendants.

Henry Lloyd's  son  Henry    was one of the 1820 settlers to the Cape. He was a harness maker aged about 36 ( Catherine Pakenham would have only been 11 when he was born  )

 There was a daughter of  what is probably this  Henry Lloyd  baptised in Grahamstown  in 1826. She was called Alicia Packenham Lloyd  (note as I didn't in the comments a different spelling)