Advice before editing this pre-1700 Beasley profile?

+1 vote

I have information to contribute to the profile of Francis Beasley. This is what I can add:

There are sources mentioned in this article that might be helpful in locating the origins of the Beesley/Beasley name other than the trees cited as sources

These are the sources I am using:


I was unable to add this source to this profile.

WikiTree profile: Francis Beasley
in Policy and Style by Karen Mason G2G6 (8.7k points)
edited by Karen Mason
the article at the site is not a primary source

it is just the same as a magazine article

you would have to locate the sources it references if they exist

reference to son George in Rec Soc Lancs Ches

not online but the Society has a site you can enquire of for

information to be emailed to you

Francis's brother, the Venerable George Beesley, was beatified.

His IPM in the Vic County History cited by Eddie is in

 Rylands  (ed) Lancashire Inquisitions returned to th Duchy of Lancaster 1-11 James 1. Lancashire and Cheshire Records Society 1880 vol 3 p.138

Editing reference

with all this stuff online, who tagged him probably nonexistent?
Both current Profile Managers were active in the last week.

The profile needs post-merge cleanup.

According to the Oxford Dict Nat Bio, George the Martyr was the son of George and Ellen and had a brother Richard. (sorry full article requires subscription:access with many UK library cards )

The Francis of this profile has parents  Francis and Ann.  The vic county hist says that he is a brother of the Ven George so he would seem to have the wrong parents.

Back in 2017, before the merge, the parents as mentioned in the Biography were George and Ellen.  (That mention is still there in the uncleaned post-merge bio.)

Parents as originally attached were George Beasley-264 and Ellen Breslau (Breslau-15) who seems to have become Annie Middleton Middleton-1619, while poor Ellen is now Ellen Unknown UNKNOWN-249681
And now I'm getting dizzy and seeing George the son as his own grandfather.  Oy.
Annie Middleton Middleton-1619 supposedly married Beasley-264 in 1619, when she supposedly died in 1617.  (Even double-dates wouldn't do that!)

Ok, I was NOT dreaming up the looping profiles.  Currently we have:

Francis Beasley-265 as the father of George Beasley-264 who is married to Annie Middleton-1619 who is the mother of Francis Beasley-265

I took 2 Tylenol LOL

Isn't there a project that can protect this profile after it gets sourced and straightened out ?
I think it's more than just poor Francis that needs protecting.

Well, you guys and gals got me searching and here is where that article is sourced from.     BRITISH HISTORY ONLINE  --- search that site for Lancaster County, Goosnargh Township and the name Beesley.     There is another Beesley family in Oxford County and I think they are the ones with the Quacker heritage.  The Goosnargh family goes back to 1200's and are Roman Catholic, which is probably why they came to the colonies, because they were persecuted and fined for recusancy.  Has the profile been opened up so that I can insert some links to sources?

4 Answers

+2 votes
the profile has been flagged as probably non-existent

you would need irrefrutable, PRIMARY sources
by Eddie King G2G6 Pilot (620k points)
Eddie,  see my comment under the original inquiry.  Here is the  source. It proves Francis does exist.  This might be what all the Beasley/Beesley researchers have been looking for in England.
+3 votes
Karen I was unable to find that link . Family trees are not considered a proper source for pre-1700 profiles ( they might once have been, but not now). They can give hints to where to find sources.
by Marion Poole G2G Astronaut (1.2m points)
she's found a good source that the other researchers didn't find

I just awarded her a Community Star badge
I copy/pasted the link and it came up Error page not found,, hence my comment.
you might have included the asterisk accidentally?
Just tried it again still same result
Yes that worked, but I am none the wiser. Hopefully it will point in the direction of a proper source.
You have to read all the way down the page to find Francis.  As adherents of the Church of Rome many were persecuted and killed for their faith.
my link above is the uk archive of the real book

should count as a primary source, right?
I am familiar with the work that is linked. It is interesting reading and worth consideration. However, it is far from adequately sourced to use as profiles on WikiTree. Certainly, there is some information about the existence of some of these people, but the family relationships are speculative.
the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography and the Institute of Historical Rearch, School of Advanced Study at the University of London are excellent sources for wikitree profiles
The Oxford dictonary of Nat Biography is recent.and the articles written by experts in the field ( though that doesn't  mean experts in genealogy ) it's a good secondary source. I'll c and p the references  used in an edit.(on phone at the moment) They will be worth chasing up.

The Victoria County Histories are older.These were envisaged to provide authoritative County Histories as opposed to some of the more speculative antiquarian works. They used primary and good secondary sources and cited them.They are now considered to be old fashioned in their definition of local history but if you're looking for people who held land then they are a good first port of call. This particular entry cites Francis's inquisition post mortem (see link to  transcript in comment above) This is a reputable transcript of a primary source. We therefore  know Francis existed, died in 1609 , the land he held and that his heir was a George born c. 1586(was 23 in Sept 1609)

  There is also a mention of a George Beesley compounding for sequestered land in 1632 (ref 224) This coud be the son so is worth following up. There are also quite a lot of Beesley entries in the church of England parish records from the mid 1600s so some of the family may have at least outwardly conformed(Free reg )

I don't think  son George's death location is likely to be correct. It's  surely too much too much of a coincidence: Fleet Street is where his uncle George was hung.

I don't think  son George's death location is likely to be correct. It's  surely too much too much of a coincidence: Fleet Street is where his uncle George was hung.


That reads like another internet fabrication for convenience. 

marion, that is why I tried to add a source other than the trees that were originally listed as sources.  I know that trees shouldn't be used as a source.
+2 votes

I am admin of the Beasley Surname Study and the Beasley DNA Project. Along with my colleague, John Beatty,  Board Certified Genealogist at Ft Wayne IN we have been researching Beasleys for years. This tangled mess of profiles was disconnected from the lineages we can verify. I didn't try to sort them out because the whole lot of it is unsourced. 

This William Beasley ( is the one this bunch was connected to. Typically, people have correctly linked William Beasley with Mary Ripley, but mistakenly identify her as the mother of the children. She was a second wife, mother of children unknown.

The next generation identified as the father of Beasley-677 is a "William Beasley m Elizabeth Ripley", again copied from tree to tree with no source.

I agree that primary sources are needed. Whether they need to be untangled (son as his own grandfather) is a technical matter for WikiTree to determine.

by Douglas Beezley G2G6 Mach 3 (30.4k points)

This is the space page where the most recent copy of the PRELIMINARY study by John Beatty is available. (This is posted with Mr. Beatty's permission.) I realized that I had an earlier version on that space page, so I replaced it just now. This is cautioned as containing speculative information, some of which have been superseded. We use it as a basis for comparing new information for consistency. We are not near a replacement because the information we have will be rearranged into separate manuscripts. I am pleased to participate in a discussion of new information. Only a small portion of the Beasley Study is located at WikiTree. The data is so massive, I can't do it myself. The most current information will be made available to anyone who asks. I would be happy if people use the research we have done, including the YDNA project. I have worked with numerous Beasley researchers at WikiTree and elsewhere. I'm presently working on a more effective means of communication.

Thanks for your input.  (Did you need headache relief when you departed that tangle?)

Francis existed, as did his son (George) and brother (George the martyr).  Their parents were George and Ellen.  What else is fact and what is internet fiction has yet to be determined.  Hopefully we can sort it out with the correct connections — or no connections at all, if that's what we come to.

I doubt, as well, if this strong to the death Roman Catholic family are somehow also Quakers.  (Forget where I saw that.)
Thank you, Melanie. There is a LOT to be done on the UK side. Because of the amount of data and my lack of experience with England resources, I've not tried to do much. Certainly, these are real people and worthy of inclusion... as long as we have cause for the connections we make. I would love to have Study colleagues from the "other side of the pond"... and ESPECIALLY YDNA testing.

I watch G2G for any Beasley activity and I look at everything I see. Without being insufferable, I hope that people would come to see me as the "go-to" guy for all things Beasley/Beesley/Beazley/Beezley, etc.
I'm about to make a Beasley posting on G2G in case anyone is interested in the project.

the University of London has a contact/ask a question form

Thanks Douglas,   this might be what we need to trace the Beesleys back to England.   British History Online has consumed the greater part of my afternoon, evening and early hours of today
Eddie, you posted this but I was already busy reading and reading that site....gobs of information for both Lancaster and Oxford Counties referring to Beesleys.   Thanks.
+2 votes

I think I've come up with the simplest way of fixing the circular relationships. The key to it was Annie Middleton. She was George's wife and circuitously, his grandmother. I clipped Annie as a mother of Francis and now all is well... at least, logically if not factually. Here's what we have:

Thomas Besleg-1 1216-1272 (no wife), father of

Richard Beesley-16 (no date, no mother, no wife), father of 

Francis Beesley-15 (no date, no mother, no wife), father of

Francis Beasley-265 (1550-1609, no mother, wife Jane UNK), father of 

George Beasley-264 (1586-1635, mother Jane UNK, wife 1 Ellen UNK, wife 2 Annie Middleton m 1619)

Since the last two generations have dates that work out, we can at least say it is logical if not supported by evidence.

The three earlier generations lack dates, evidence, and mathematical sense with more than 300 years from Thomas Besleg to his great-grandson.

by Douglas Beezley G2G6 Mach 3 (30.4k points)

Thanks for doing that!


There'd be at least another George needed, with wife Ellen, as parent/s to Francis (1550-1609) Beasley-265

That'd help a wee bitty bit with that multiple century gap.

Related questions

+6 votes
1 answer
+5 votes
0 answers
41 views asked Apr 20 in The Tree House by Douglas Beezley G2G6 Mach 3 (30.4k points)
+6 votes
3 answers
+5 votes
0 answers
0 votes
1 answer
60 views asked Dec 17, 2019 in Genealogy Help by anonymous
0 votes
2 answers
117 views asked Sep 3, 2019 in Genealogy Help by anonymous
+9 votes
0 answers
+5 votes
1 answer

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

disclaimer - terms - copyright