Should we pick one wife when there are two theories?

+5 votes
As explained in a special section on the profile, there are two very respectable theories about who Peter's wife is. Currently, we simply have both, as if he had two wives named Aubrey (Albreda), both apparently sister to a Eudo (Odo) married to a Rohese (Rose). (Yes, remarkably there might be two such people.)

I am wondering if this is the way we would normally keep it, or should we "pick a winner" for the family linking, and mention the other theory in the text using wikilinking?

The second question would be which winner to pick. Keats-Rohan is one of the most important authorities for this period but in this case she is the proposer of a new idea and perhaps not everyone has been convinced yet.
WikiTree profile: Peter de Valognes
in Policy and Style by Andrew Lancaster G2G6 Mach 7 (78.3k points)
I'm not sure what would be best.  A related question is whether the sons Robert and Roger attached to Piers are his sons.  Robert seems a possible fabrication along with the three sons attached to him (none with any other attachments or sources).  Unless someone has evidence for their existence (Robert and sons), I would propose we merge them away.  Roger needs sources attached; if he's not a son, he should be detached.

Robert is the only child attached to Aubrey de Rie.  An option would be to leave Albreda as spouse of Piers and have the link to Aubrey in the bio.  On any children's profiles, Albreda could be marked 'uncertain'.

It is indeed not encouraging that one of Robert's sons is "William Noel Ellenhall Ee", and another was supposedly Scottish.

But coming to the point, I don't see any big significance in Robert's mother. I think the two mothers are both legitimate theories about the wife of Peter, but as far as I know none of the theorizing involves connections of a specific mother to the children of Peter?

In practice, in any case, I feel the first step is a good bit of pruning on Peter's profile?

No idea where that name came from.  Unless someone pipes in with sources for Robert and sons, I'll find them a new home in a few days.

It would be lovely if you get out your pruning shears and have at it with Piers' profile . . .  wink  Thank you, as always, for everything you do to correct these EuroAristo profiles!

Thank you! I suggest that we wait a bit for feedback. I will get to this profile. I do not want to miss any information that anyone has forgotten to post.

2 Answers

+9 votes
Best answer
Just my opinion coming up. If both theories are respectable then we should have neither. Detach both and explain it all in the bios. The protection won't stop them being added back but they are pre-1500 so should be okay.
by C. Mackinnon G2G6 Pilot (194k points)
selected by SJ Baty
Yes that is one option I did not think of, although I suppose the community will prefer to show a relationship if it can? But I would be ok with that.

I agree that in this period, now that pre 1500 is restricted, if we set this up more neatly it should be stable. So it is just a question of finding that neater format. (Similar problems in many profiles of course.)
This would be my perspective as well.  Show them both -- with links -- in Peter's  biography.  Have a similar paragraph in the bios of both Aubreys with a link back to Peter.   Do not link to either woman in the data field.  Since Keats-Rohan has proposed a new theory it will be discussed among the scholars and maybe there will be a new consensus -- these things can still be dynamic a milennium later -- the an attachment can be made.  Meanwhile, one is telling the truth, and nothing more than the truth!
Yes in general I can work that way. In practice, the main job is clean-up either way, so I'll wait a bit before starting the job. Maybe more ideas will come.
Is this not a good reason for Project Protection and adding a project as manager?  While it won't prevent all changes, it would at least provide notice to a project that can monitor the profile and put things back if someone changes it.

I would also think that such a situation would be a good example of why there should be occasional exceptions to the concept that all profiles of people prior to a certain date should have open privacy protection.  If the privacy protection were set at a higher level that allowed display but prevented people other than those on the trusted list from making changes, it would greatly reduce the likelihood of someone reattaching the uncertain relatives.

A middle  ground might be to develop a template with a banner like estimated dates that would warn people coming to the profile not to reattach the uncertain people and leave it in the bio.

I think this is a relatively common problem when we get back to the period around the beginning of common mandatory record keeping for births and deaths and marriages where unsourced genealogies have made a lot of assumptions based on little more than common names.
Mary, I think the game has changed for pre-1500 profiles.  I see very little need for Project Protection because if any of the less than 500 pre-1500 certified people did something irresponsible, they'd have their badges pulled.  I think 100% -- or at least 99 44/100% of the junk among pre-1500 profiles was created before WikiTree closed the door to new junk.

That said, I think it's good to have a project as profile manager for many of these profiles.
Yes I think it is already project protected. But as you can see above, three of us who edit in this period do not expect too much trouble if we make things clear....

...which makes your last proposal quite important. I was intending to place some kind of striking header note at the top of the article about the wife, as we often do in such cases. I tend personally to prefer custom-made ones than the templates, which are very unspecific these days, and also have a "this article is not good" effect because of their blocky grey format. :)

BTW, keep in mind that the period we are talking about is about 700 years earlier than mandatory BDM records, so we are very deep in the woods here in an time where almost every birth or death year is an estimation.
+1 vote

I have done some pruning and tagging but not yet disconnected either of the 2 Albredas from "her" husband and children.

We have profiles for two children of Peter, who have also been tagged: [[Valoignes-8]] and [[Valoines-18]]

Before disconnecting, one theoretical doubt I have about this method is that I think no-one ever proposed that there are two Albredas. The only record for either Albreda is the wife of Peter, which is one person. Theoretically we could argue that her article would be merged.

Practical answer to this concern: if we only have one Albreda profile then explaining the alternatives becomes more complex because she would not only have two possible brothers, but also two possible sets of parents.

So I am ok with this. (I would also be ok for picking either of the two Albredas as a winner and linking secondarily to the other.) Any last words?

BTW anyone following this can feel free to move it ahead.
ago by Andrew Lancaster G2G6 Mach 7 (78.3k points)

Related questions

+2 votes
2 answers
+10 votes
0 answers
1.2k views asked Jul 24, 2016 in The Tree House by Vic Watt G2G6 Pilot (320k points)
+7 votes
4 answers
+4 votes
1 answer
59 views asked Jun 18, 2018 in The Tree House by Pip Sheppard G2G Astronaut (1.5m points)
+4 votes
1 answer
100 views asked Nov 26, 2017 in Genealogy Help by Jack Day G2G6 Pilot (286k points)
+2 votes
3 answers
119 views asked Apr 13, 2017 in Genealogy Help by Patricia Hawkins G2G6 Mach 2 (23.1k points)
+5 votes
1 answer
+6 votes
2 answers

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

disclaimer - terms - copyright