Is it time to detach Thomas de Bryan from the given parents?

+5 votes
107 views
Thomas de Bryan in unsourced. Sources for other members of the family do not mention him. The dates currently used make him decades younger than his siblings. Should he be detached to encourage further research into his parentage?
WikiTree profile: Thomas Bryan
in Genealogy Help by C. Mackinnon G2G6 Pilot (245k points)

3 Answers

+2 votes
 
Best answer
I would vote yes.  If his purported mother indeed died in 1359, and he was born in 1378, this is obviously impossible...
by Darlene Athey-Hill G2G6 Pilot (371k points)
selected by Gillian Thomas
+2 votes
Have you checked out this village website ?
Sutton Poyntz.- families who have owned the village
http://www.suttonpoyntz.org.uk/index.php/history/owners-of-sutton-poyntz
by
That's a very nice source, says nothing about Thomas but the documents are great. Thank you. Following the land is always a good idea.
+2 votes
Sir Francis Bryan's grandfather Sir Thomas Bryan was chief justice 1472-1500.  I've seen nothing about his origins.  I think there's an ODNB article, which I haven't seen.  If there's nothing in that, there's probably nothing anywhere.
by RJ Horace G2G6 Pilot (562k points)
ODNB says parents of Sir Thomas Bryan (Grandfather of Sir Francis Bryan, Vicar of Hell) are unknown. He was possibly descended from a London fishmonger, John Bryan. That Sir Thomas as we currently have it appears to be the amalgam of two different men pre-dating Wikitree. Whole family seems to be a lot of speculation.
The original target of the Bryan-boosters was the William Bryan - Joan Fitzalan marriage, an obvious magnet.  That didn't work - no issue - so they thought, Joan could have a daughter, by Etchingham, and the daughter could marry a Bryan.  And hey, he could be William's nephew.

But then it turned out none of Lord Bryan's 3 known sons had any sons or could acquire any, so they gave Lord Bryan a 4th son.  But they'd have needed to invent an extra generation.  Instead of which, somewhere along the line, the son's wife Margaret got dated earlier and moved up a generation, so she was no longer a daughter of Joan Fitzalan, which lost the point of her being an Etchingham in the first place.

Related questions

+3 votes
3 answers
+8 votes
1 answer
+7 votes
7 answers
+5 votes
8 answers
+2 votes
1 answer
+2 votes
1 answer

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

disclaimer - terms - copyright

...