"Can a Pre-1500 Certified member merge De_Hawking-2 into De_Hawking-5?"

+2 votes
166 views
"Can a Pre-1500 Certified member merge De_Hawking-2 into De_Hawking-5?"
WikiTree profile: Osbert de Hawking
in Policy and Style by Andrea Pack G2G6 Mach 5 (57.2k points)
retagged by Maggie N.

2 Answers

+5 votes
 
Best answer
I think we need to hold off on any merges, apart from the fact that the appropriate name according to naming standards should be Hawking, there are 6 Osbert de Hawking profiles in a row until we get to to an Osbert Hawkins.

None of them have any sources, having 7 straight generations all withe the same name is highly unusual during this time period, which suggests that most of them probably never existed and if any of them did, that there name probably wasn't Hawking.
by John Atkinson G2G6 Pilot (620k points)
selected by Maggie N.
Since 'de Hawking' is wrong, there's no reason not to merge, as they would have to be corrected anyway.  I also can find no legitimate reference for this lineage.  So I've merged as many of the Osbert de Hawking profiles as I could get to; one merge is hung up in the system . . .
+4 votes

They link up with reality somewhere down here

https://www.wikitree.com/genealogy/Hawkins-Family-Tree-220

Apparently William Hawkins was a pirate.  His parents and his mother's parents seem to be known.  There's no known connection between John Hawkins of Tavistock and his wife's mother Margaret Hawkins from Cornwall.  We can assume that John didn't really marry his niece as shown here.

Hawkins was a common name of patronymic type with independent origins in many places.

There's a village called Hawkinge in Kent, near Folkestone on the south coast.  Apparently an Osbert de Hawkinge appears there in the 12th century.

Then in the 15th century an Andrew Hawkins appears in Faversham, on the north coast of Kent.

Then the usual forces take over.  Somebody decides they'll have Andrew in Kent for the father of John in Devon and Margaret in Cornwall.

Then they decide that Andrew's surname didn't originate the usual patronymic way, he was actually a descendant of Osbert de Hawkinge, so they fill in the gap with a chain of as many Osberts as seem to be needed.

I would propose (a) disconnect Andrew from parents and children (b) merge all the Osberts into one new Osbert de /Hawkinge/ dated 12th century.

But these things are virtually impossible to achieve on WikiTree.

[PS having just rediscovered this old thread, I'll add that there seems to be no record of any Andrew Hawkins anywhere near Faversham.  That's just Hasted over-interpreting his dodgy source.]

by Living Horace G2G6 Pilot (633k points)
edited by Living Horace
I merged a bunch of them.  One is hung up in the system and I can't get to it.  Also disconnected them from Andrew.  RJ, such little faith you have!!  ;)

And it turns out it isn't even Osbert de Hawking, it's Osbert de Havering,

So Ireland messed up the reading ca. 1829 and created Osbert de Hawking out of thin air. Then someone in a few years later (Burke?) decided Osbert de Hawking=Hawkins and Andrew Haukyn=Hawkins and said "hey Andrew could be descended from Osbert." A couple more 19th C authors repeat (i.e. plagiarize) that. Along comes the internet, and someone reads Burke or ''Plymouth Armada'' and turns "could be descended from" into "was the son of". They realize that the dates are totally impossible, so they pad a couple generations of extra Osberts in there. Maybe in the original database, that was just intended as a convention, but whatever the case, someone copied it and took it literally. And thence to Ancestry.com, WeRelate, Geni.com, Wikitree, Aunt Mabel's website, etc. etc.

Related questions

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

disclaimer - terms - copyright

...