Can someone please edit Hawkins-224? NEEDS pre-1500 CERT.

Question

Hello and good evening,

Can someone please edit Hawkins-224 for readability?  Her name is Margaret Hawkins. The last time this profile has been modified was November 2016!  I'm not pre-1500 cert. yet, and would really appreciate someone who is, to please edit this profile.  The sources are there, just needs cleaning up.  Better yet, can someone award my pre-1500 badge please?  I've completed my list of things to do, except it says that I need to post 2 G2G's here.  I know I have but, it's fine, after this post, I'm going to follow up with another.  Admins can you please look over my managed profiles?  I've been working on them and know they look a lot better than when I first registered.  Perhaps, one of my mentor's can view a couple and leave a message on my profile, Hawkins-9192.  I'd appreciate any suggestions you may have.  Thank you kindly.

Please edit Hawkins-224 for readability.  Needs to have someone that's pre-1500 cert. edit so I can move on with my family biographies.

Best regards,

Paula Ann  

Comments

Have you got any sources for it? My first inclination is to put an unsourced tag on it. It definitely needs some attention.

---

As far as I can tell, there's one source for Margaret Hawkins, which is a pedigree in a Harleian MS that says she was the wife of William Amadas. Several tertiary sources cite Drake's edition of Hasted's History of Kent, p. xxii, which cites Harl. MS 3288. I can't find an electronic copy of HHok though, so can't check. I suspect when it's all over and done, the only sourced info on her could be summarized as "Margaret was a daughter of a Hawkins, who married William Amadas."

---

Yeah, the parents Andrew Hawkins and Joan de Nash are some weird internet invention. Burke places them tempore Edward III (https://books.google.com/books?id=wmNmAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA535#v=onepage&f=false).

---

I'm often astonished by how much difficulty internet genealogists have in grasping concepts of time, like if two people lived in the mid 1300s, some lady who had a kid around 1470 probably wasn't their daughter.

---

This whole tree is bonkers. It's got three successive generations that consist of a grandfather who lived in the 12th century, a father who lived in the 14th century, and daughter who lived at the end of the 15th.

---

Hi Paula, On the subject of readability, it is better to use the standard font and colours when you make posts on G2G. Your colour switches and choice of light coloured text can make your post very difficult to read for those of our members who are colour blind or otherwise struggle with vision.

---

Hasted on Hawkins of Nash

https://books.google.com/books?id=wmNmAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA535

[PS wrong link see below]

Says they came from Yorkshire, hmm.  Makes no attempt to connect them with any Hawkings of Hawking or with anybody in Devon.

---

Once Andrew gets to Nash Court, there's a reasonable chance of tracing real people with real sources, but it doesn't look like the work's been done.

---

Sorry, posted wrong link.  This is Hasted on Hawkins of Nash

https://www.british-history.ac.uk/survey-kent/vol7/pp2-19

Hasted evidently got it from this "Additional Pedigree"

https://ukga.org/DB/13/23/203.jpg

There are dates, so the pedigree-monger does seem to have had a rummage through the deeds box.

But he lies about Andrew.  IPM of Andrew Haukyn-no-s is here

https://archive.org/details/cu31924011387861/page/n338

The faire estate is a postage stamp, and his heir is his daughter Margaret, b about 1316.  So it doesn't look like he's really the father of John Hawkins of Nash.

I suspect Joan de Nash is the wife of John, not Andrew, and the release was by the husbands of co-heiresses.

---

What a mess. Did you see these ones where somebody just inserted a random chain of Osberts between Osbert de Hawking and Andrew "Hawkins"? Some early sources say Andrew was originally of Holderness. https://books.google.com/books?id=Hkwad52cFUMC&lpg=PA247&ots=yRqriTXOiN&dq=%22andrew%20hawkins%22%20faversham&pg=PA247#v=onepage&q=%22andrew%20hawkins%22%20faversham&f=false

---

At least we know he died around 17 Edw III. I agree that it appears he had no male heirs. BHO has these Inquisitions too - a little easier to navigate than the increasingly flaky Internet Archive reader.

J. E. E. S. Sharp, E. G. Atkinson and J. J. O'Reilly. "Inquisitions Post Mortem, Edward III, File 69," in Calendar of Inquisitions Post Mortem: Volume 8, Edward III, (London: His Majesty's Stationery Office, 1913), 287-308. British History Online, accessed September 30, 2018, http://www.british-history.ac.uk/inquis-post-mortem/vol8/pp287-308.

The question now is whether the Andrew Hawkins profile should be made into an Uncertain Existence or harmonized with the real Andrew Haukyn.

---

So there are four phases to the generation of this mythical pedigree:

17th-18th century - unknown pedigree monger fabricates ancestry of Hawkins of Nash back to Andrew Haukyn.

19th century - Mary Hawkins, very innocently, suggests that Osbert de Hawking was the ancestor of Andrew (who has now become a Hawkins per se).

21st century - internet genealogists, by hook and crook, invent the generations between Osbert (now also a Hawkins) and Andrew, either by making up a bunch of Osberts or inventing fanciful dates

21st century - internet genealogists take the fancifully redated Andrew and turn him into the previously unknown father of Margaret (Hawkins) Amydas

---

Huge thanks to those who replied to my post.  I'm overwhelmed by all the people who helped.  Your time is appreciated!  

@Lynda Crackett:  I'm so sorry for typing in different colors.  I must say, "it certainly stands out, doesn't it?"  I'll tone it down a little.  Perhaps, next time I'll  use darker colors on light background or light colors on dark background.   Anyway,  I think it's great WikiTree gives us the options to "dress up" our comments.  They are there for a reason,   Or else why have them? 

Sincerely,

Paula Ann Hawkins-Reinke

P.S.  No, I'm not the author of "Girl On The Train."  Thanks to those who noticed.

---

Not a problem for me Paula, but some people do struggle to read light coloured text or to differentiate red and green. Feel free to dress them up if that is what you like, but be aware that you may be reducing the number of people who will take the time to read your post and offer you help.

---

I'm not even sure the Osbert "de Hawking" reading is correct.

The Red Book of the Exchequer has the knights holding of William de Albrincis listed (1166) and one of them is "Osbert de Haveringes" (also "Heveringes" in the Black Book.) I'm guessing this is a case of "wishful misreading".

https://books.google.com/books?id=RqhEAQAAMAAJ&pg=PA192#v=onepage&f=false

Answer 1

I can understand your frustration with that profile since it has duplicate headings and poorly sourced information. If you would like a pre-1500 certified person to spend time on improvements you might like to provide some more accurate sources for them to work with.

Answer 2

The profile for Margaret Hawkins has been twice merged and not cleaned up afterward.  I agree that it needs to be "cleaned" and am willing to do something with it.  I would, however, recommend that Margaret be removed as a daughter of Andrew Hawkins and Joan de Nash, unless some sort of substantiation can be found.  I already entered two sources for her husband, and some researcher's notes for Andrew Hawkins.  IF Margaret was their daughter, then her daughter, Joan married her uncle.  Usually, there would be some mention of that fact in the old books.

Margaret is an ancestor of Captain William Hawkins, so you probably can find someone from the Plymouth Bay Colony group who would love to research this profile further.  You may want to edit your original question and add the tag for Plymouth to it.  Here is one reference for her descendant:  https://archive.org/details/plymoutharmadahe00byuhawk/page/3

Also, Captain William Hawkins appears to be the father of Sir William Amadas Hawkins, whose Find A Grave gives some further information.  https://www.findagrave.com/memorial/80478465/william-amadas-hawkins

Comments

I cleaned up Osbert, and I'll go detach him now. I made him an "uncertain existence" since the LNAB is wrong for the real Osbert. I think Andrew can remain a real person if his dates are changed to more realistic estimates. There might be more information on him around too, and, who knows, maybe some day someone will put him into a real tree.

---

There used to be a string of Osberts, to span the yawning centuries.  But they all got merged up into this one

https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Hawking-38

---

Plymouth Armada Heroes says that Andrew was a resident at Nash Court, temp. Edward III but, if you go back to the prior source  (A Genealogical and Heraldic Dictionary of the Landed Gentry of Great Britain and Ireland, Volume 1 by Sir Bernard Burke, Ulster King of Arms, published by Harrison, Pall Mall, London, 1858, page 535)   ... it describes "Nash Court, temp. Edward III"

The same source states that Andrew's son, married a descendant of Sir John Trelaway, descendant of Edwin,  who held the lordship of Trelawny, temp. Edward the Confessor (who ruled from 1042 to 1066.)  So, I think that the temp. in this case refers to the time at which the title was created, and does not give us an idea of the time that Andrew or his son lived. 

So, now you have Osbert Hawking [[Hawking-38]] born 1163 in Hawking, Folkstone, Kent, England and Osbert Hawkins  [[Hawkins-229]]   Born about 1393 in Faversham, Kent, England, who you removed as the father of Andrew ... and you reworded my researcher's notes.  

 

---

Yes, I reworded your notes because they didn't make any sense. Do you know what temp. Edward III means?

---

"The first person of this family of whom anything is known is Andrew Hawkins, Esq., who was resident at Nash Court, temp. Edward III."

I fail to see anything even slightly ambiguous about that, and more to the point his inq. post mortem is dated 17 Edward III.

---

RJ's right about this - this is simply a fraud that some pedigree monger concocted centuries ago (obviously in or before the Harleys' time), and credulous researchers just keep repeating it because they've all been too lazy to go look up that IPM dated 17 Edw. III that it's all based on. I honestly don't see any evidence that Andrew had any connection to Nash Court, and it's obvious from his IPM that he didn't have any surviving sons when he died.