Propose Pre-1500 profile parent change, Family Generations, Workington, Curwen

Question

I propose a change that makes Curwen-95 the parent of Curwen-26.

The current parent is Workington-3 and on that page toward bottom of the bio I explain the Alan Curwen Error: Alan Curwen-26 is not a brother of Curwen-95, he should be the son.

essentially no complications to descendants with this generation change. Both Curwen-95 and Curwen-26 do not have any known spouse, so all the other parentage stays intact. I pin confusion on Burke, although others may be a party. there are reasonable sources in agreement that support my proposal. Burke has bungled a few.

I'm not a manager, but am pre-1500 capable, managers of the profile or family members should speak up. Birth date (approximation) that most genealogy researchers have posted for Alan is a big signal things arent smooth for the current version, and the stretch of 95 years between Thomas birth and next 4 generations to Robert Radclyffe birth are much more supportable with sources that say Alan is son of Patrick

I wanted to share this generation list of Patrick de Culwen with the community.

Click here for the image details page or here for the full-sized version (843 x 498).

Comments

Marty,

I took a quick look at this and I may have introduced this parenting when sourcing a relatively unsourced Curwen line at the time. I would defer to what your you think best here.

---

that's helpful to understand the background on the tree.

Its good to get helpful responses of collaboration when we bring the topic to the G2G. Back in 2015, when I was a "WikiTree beginner" I had communicated privately with Kathy who was manager on the profile, about this concern.
This isn't a matter of policy, its just recognizing errors. that is part of my collaborating. Profile managers can leave the birth date discrepancy and error, and not a lot of harm. just means a generation level is off

My positve part of it is to alert you to the Burke lack of accuracy. Has been talked about here before. The other Burke, Bernard almost had things correct.

Bernard Burke
“ (citing Camden) ancient family of the Curwens descended from Gospatric, Earl, (Dunbar-27) who took that name by covenant from Culwen, a family of Galloway, the heir whereof they had married
 Patrick Culwen, Lord of Culwen, in Galloway, by gift of his father, Thomas, son of Gospatric (of Gunillda-Orm), was ancestor of the great family Curwen.
Burke left Alan out of his commentary entirely but his history is correct. and that is what is in the line from Gunnilda.

Unfortunately daughters are really ignored by most of the primary charters, although Gunnilda does appear because of the gifts from her brother Waltheof.

Answer 1

It is possibly very useful to know that CWAAS, the jourmal for local history in Cumbria, is now scanned online. See http://archaeologydataservice.ac.uk

If you do a simple site search using google the words in the pdfs are searched for. I just ran a search for Gospatric and I will not overload the forum by posting it all here.

Comments

Andrew,

Thanks for the lead. but when I went there I must have missed the proper search level because Gospatric only came up with a couple entries

---

Did you try going to google and typing in the following?

"site:http://archaeologydataservice.ac.uk gospatric" 

 

---

Holy Smokes,

you opened my eyes, so glad I confessed that I was inept at that site

---

One of the other things I didn't mention but is relevant to the recently spotlighted need for pre-1500 tactics, ties into doing corrections about generation, even if they aren't impacting descendants.

It helps my comprehension and quality control, to know what generation all these Gospatrics, Patricks, Waltheofs, Gunnildas, Dolfins, Thomases, Gilberts. Adas, were slotted into. because they crop up in large numbers, and if you didnt know that there were 4 Gospatrics, in one generation and 3 gospatrics, the generation before, to make sense of the primary source, or secondary source insertions. Otherwise it is rather mind numbing to move from one source to another.  So that is what gets scribbled in pencil on my work sheets

Am I making any sense here?

Answer 2

Marty, although you could be right about these relationships, I'm personally not happy to make changes solely based on secondary sources when we are dealing with people from the 11th -13th centuries.

The first step should be - can we find some primary sources that identify these people and their relationship to each other?

Comments

For instance - Keats-Rohan in her book Domesday Descendants, page 932, has an entry for Gospatric filius Orm citing various Pipe Rolls of Henry II, and states that he is "son of Orm, son of Chetel, son of Eldred, of Workington, Cumberland" but has no mention of a wife or son, Thomas.

So we need to find some evidence that Thomas Fitz Gospatric is the son of this Gospatric?

---

Do we know that he went by the name Thomas FitzGospatrick? Because that would certainly indicate that his father was Gospatrick.

---

Unfortunately a lot of authors do this for us, so you'll need to look for quotes from primary documents.

---

John,

just to supplement your "Gospatric filius Orm" input. I am fairly certain that on SGM discussions maybe a decade ago, there was some conclusion that Orm had other children, we only have the one on WikiTree, and I cant find my specific notes on the SGM, so I am going on memory here. Maybe soneone else has a thread of this

---

We can extend this request and thread to Thomas father of Patrick also, May get some good input. I don't know where name "FitzGospatric" is used, but Thomas is widespread so I will go with that

A source that could be added to Thomas is:

Register of St. Bees (ed. Wilson, Surtees Soc., p. 551) we find Uctred son of Ketel, together with Alan son of Ketel, Gospatric son of Orm and Thomas his son