LNAB Change Pre-1500

+13 votes

I have sourced this profile and determined that the correct LNAB should be "Engaine". The profile manager was very quick to respond, but since they are not pre-1500 certified, they cannot make the necessary edit. Since only the profile manager can edit the lnab, is there a leader that can fix this or a work around that I'm not aware of?

Thank you
WikiTree profile: Thomas Engaine
in Genealogy Help by Jayme Arrington G2G6 Pilot (188k points)
reopened by John Atkinson

2 Answers

+8 votes
Best answer
Jayme, I've taken care of it.
by Darlene Athey-Hill G2G6 Pilot (558k points)
selected by Jayme Arrington
+6 votes
Darlene beat me to it, but I question why he is called the 3rd Lord Engaine?

In the Complete Peerage he is called the 2nd Lord Engaine (of the second creation) does Richardson call him the 3rd Lord Engaine and given any reason why?

Also The Complete Peerage gives Dengaine as an alternative name, and this probably should be added as an Other Last Name
by John Atkinson G2G6 Pilot (637k points)
Douglas Richardson has Engaine-5, Sir John d' Engayne, as the 1st Lord Engaine, then he has Thomas' father as the 2nd Lord Engaine, and then Thomas as 3rd Lord Engaine. I'm looking now to see if I can find how the complete peerage refers to Sir John d' Engayne
Magna Carta Ancestry by Douglas Richardson (p. 545) calls him 2nd Lord Engaine. I think there had been discussion previously to not show which number a person was (i.e. just show Lord Engaine as opposed to 2nd or 3rd Lord Engaine).  Probably for this very reason!  ;)

I've added d'Engaine in the OLN field.  I've changed it to 'Lord Engaine' in the Nickname field, and added a note in the biography that he's referred to as 2nd and 3rd Lord Engaine by various sources.
Sounds good! I don't have my notes in front of me, so I apologize for any error. I previously used to leave out the number, but then I saw the naming standards were updated to "Titles may include numbers (i.e. either ‘Earl of Arundel’ or ‘3rd Earl of Arundel’ is acceptable)." So now I'm not certain which one is preferable. I'll lean towards leaving it out : )
The Complete Peerage, indicate that Thomas' great-uncle, Sir John Engaine, 1st Lord Engaine (Engaine-5) died without any issue, and essentially Thomas' father, another Sir John Engaine, was essentially re-created as 1st Lord Engaine (of the second creation).

At this time period they were effectively created as Lords by a summons to Parliament, rather than by the title being inherited and perhaps not giving them a number is a good idea.

Related questions

+33 votes
5 answers
2.1k views asked Mar 31, 2016 in Policy and Style by Robin Lee G2G6 Pilot (883k points)
+5 votes
1 answer
+4 votes
1 answer
104 views asked Aug 22, 2021 in Genealogy Help by Andrew Lancaster G2G6 Pilot (145k points)
+5 votes
0 answers
178 views asked Nov 2, 2018 in Policy and Style by Andrew Lancaster G2G6 Pilot (145k points)
+3 votes
1 answer
93 views asked Feb 6, 2019 in WikiTree Help by Living Sutherland-Fisher G2G6 Mach 4 (45.9k points)
+8 votes
2 answers
+26 votes
4 answers
+43 votes
9 answers

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

disclaimer - terms - copyright