Giles Churchill b 1425

Question

This profile is really mangled.  Self b. 1425, father & mother b. 1275, bro. b. 1325, old unmerged match to nephew b. 1360 (who used to be linked as husband).

Answer 1

Another case of a poorly sourced profile, initial data relying on probably unsourced family trees on ancestry.com, and then probably mangled through numerous dupes.

The sources  I have access to don't typically go back that far. But I'll take a look and see if I can find anything that's better than what's on there now.

Comments

He's listed in Burke's peerage (published 1878, p. 801, and I believe known to have errors); unfortunately, even that provides no dates. Without dates, no wonder things are screwed up. But that's clearly one of the "sources" for this information.

Answer 2

I agree. In 30 years of research I have only turned up two Giles in the English family. They were born a hundred years apart and the last name was not spelled Churchill; Giles b. c 1400 son of William de Cherchill, and Giles Cherchill b. 1305 son of Elyas de Churchvilleas and Dorothy de Columbers. I think the posting refers to the latter and someone has the dates mixed up.. As far as that goes, the Churchill pedigree has several versions prior to 1600 as most genealogies do. Is it time to do away with gedcom downloads?

George churchill

Answer 3

Have added a research note to his 'fathers' profile noting that this part of the Churchill family tree seems to originally come from one produced to show the Norman origins of the Duke of Marlborough and that there is probably little  from this period that can be confirmed. The 19th Century Editors of Hutchins History and Antiquities of Dorset write

"The above pedigree of the Duke of Marlborough is not registered at the College of Arms. Sir Egerton Brydges the editor of the
sixth edition of Collins' Peerage, considered it " suspicious." It has many very obvious errors, and, according to the usual calculation
of the average duration of human life, it does not contain a sufficient number of generations to occupy so long a space of time. Being
almost without dates and unsupported by reference to original evidences, it calls for critical examination "John Hutchins ''The History and Antiquities of the County of Dorset '' Third edition, corrected, augmented, and improved by William Shipp and James Whitworth Hodson  1861-73  vol 4 p 470ff (Minterne)

Latter parts of this pedigree are definitely incorrect . Ironically,  in another section of Hutchin's work, there is a pedigree of the Dorchester Churchills which can be confirmed from primary sources but  which differs  from the same part of the pedigree ascribed to the Duke.

 Was tempted to put an {{Uncertain Existence}} on this and the next generation but the uncertainty is about the lineage ie the  links and dates  rather than the persons actual existence.

  ...and then try to sort out the later generations which are also muddled.

 

Comments

I think that the pedigree referred to was the one " espoused " by Sir Winston Churchill 1st. 1620-1688, the father of John Churchill, the 1st. Duke of Marlborough. It is appropriately referred to as suspicious. Sir Winston was the author of Divi Britannica. This was a work to promote the " Divine Right of Kings " to rule England and only answer to God. There are only four copies left in existence. This work did a great deal to improve the aspiration of Sir Winston to increase the families power at the Royal courts of Charles 1st. through Anne 1st. His somewhat "fabricated" pedigree was an attempt to connect the Churchill family to royal "de Leon" line thus improving the families status at Court. Recent research and DNA testing, however, suggest that his pedigree may not be far off the mark in its end result.