upload image

European Aristocrats Project Reliable Sources

Privacy Level: Open (White)
Date: 1 Dec 2018 [unknown]
Location: [unknown]
Surnames/tags: Euroaristo Pre-1500 Pre-1700
This page has been accessed 1,254 times.

This page is for people to consult with regard to sources that are considered reliable, as well as those that are not deemed reliable, in dealing with profiles encompassing European royalty, nobility and aristocracy.

This page is currently UNDER CONSTRUCTION!

Reliable Sources

  • Royal-Titled-Noble-Commoner website, which includes many descendants of the Magna Carta Sureties; only use this source when it specifically cites Douglas Richardson's books (and be sure that Richardson's books support the information shown). free online database

Unreliable Sources

  • Geneanet trees: Geneanet trees are user-contributed trees, many of them unsourced. A tree with precise dates and places will usually be a good guide of where to look for primary records. Some Geneanet trees have sources. Look for the source and check it for yourself; do not use the Geneanet tree as source.
  • Other user-contributed trees: FamilySearch, Ancestry, Geni, MyHeritage, Rootsweb, etc. See Geneanet trees.
  • Find A Grave memorials: Most pre-1700 memorials come without an actual burial place and burial details, and are in fact reconstructed from trees. These cannot be used as sources. Some memorials, for instance those for royals interred at Saint-Denis, are reliable, but there are usually other good sources available for these people.
  • Burke’s Peerage and Baronetage: This source is rife with errors and is not deemed reliable.




Memories: 1
Enter a personal reminiscence or story.
Keith, what it says is that "user contributed trees" at ancestry.com are unreliable. Certainly some trees have sources attached that you can review and try to confirm data...
posted 18 Jul 2019 by Darlene (Athey) Athey-Hill   [thank Darlene]
Login to add a memory.
Collaboration


Comments: 3

Leave a message for others who see this profile.
There are no comments yet.
Login to post a comment.
Keith, ancestry.com is obviously a big website. But the way I read it, this comment on reliability is about the user-contributed trees. Perhaps that should be made more clear.

I think it is true that user contributed trees anywhere on the internet often give leads, but reliable sources are sources we can trust without too much re-checking.

posted by Andrew Lancaster
UNRELIABLE SOURCES VS RELIABLE SOURCES

Ancestry.com is listed as a unreliable Source, but I have found this to be false. Ancestry is a starting point, and can take you to the correct source by copying & paste the Ancestry info, and then search where the info came from on google or any search engine. 9 x out of 10 you will find what you need to be considered a source to use.Good luck everyone

posted by Keith Mann Spencer
Magna Carta Project Reliable Sources lists the Royal-Titled-Noble-Commoner website under "Reliable Sources with Conditions" and notes: "Facts citing reliable sources (such as Richardson) should be confirmed against those sources."
posted by Liz (Noland) Shifflett