Emma de Conteville - Do we keep a relationship that was apparently trumped up to improve status and reputation?

If we are to error then I say truth is a better choice than a myth.
Scott

Great question! We could ask the same question about 100s of profiles in the medieval tree. Our ancestors were just as tempted to inflate their ancestry as some genealogists today ;)

My opinion is that in a collaborative tree we need to strive for intellectual honesty. When the evidence isn't there, it just isn't there -- no matter how attractive the connection might be.

I think possible connections should be put in the profile's overview, preferably with hot links to the possible relatives. That would help anyone researching the line look for additional evidence.

Sometimes you just have to make a judgement call. In this case, reading the MedLands entry, sounds more falsehood than truth.

One suggestion. I do not disconnect another manager's work without documenting it in the overview, with a link to what I disconnected it from, and why I took that action.

I generally work in more obscure areas, and I've learned that just because I may not be able to find a reference that doesn't mean there "isn't" one.

Breadcrumbs ...

I like the idea of sticking to known facts and generally accepted hypotheses and putting the "traditions" that are more creative in the Overiew, as Justin mentioned. And with hot links. As Erica does as well.

I do disconnect another manager's work when it's well known early American vanity genealogy based, with no basis in fact, and where the reputable sources have tried to find evidence for parents and there is none.

I don't even leave links in that instance. Why tempt fate? Where I don't know and there isn't a body of evidence and research, I would leave links.

Hatte, that's an interesting point. I make the distinction a little differently. If the error is so widespread that the average researcher is likely to see it elsewhere, I prefer to add links.

If it seems to be a simple misunderstanding by a modern genealogist, I might reference the mistake (if I think it looks like a mistake someone else could make), but I wouldn't want to make too much of it by adding links.

One difference with well-traveled medieval lines, such as this Emma de Conteville, is that there is unlikely to ever be any new information. If you can't find a reference after a diligent search, there almost certainly is not a reference to be found. Unless of course someone locates a new batch of unknown charters buried in a basement archive ;)

For me, I think it depends whose opinion this represents: "This was probably a trumped up story to improve the status and reputation of Hugh d'Avranches based around"?

I think it's often wise to err on the side of leaving notes in About Me.
The time I'm troubled is when I don't know what to write in the note - when there is no source given, and I don't even know where to search, there's a big chance that there's a source somewhere out there - but the source may be wrong or have no credibility.
One favourite example is the Monymusk Manuscript, which "documents" the descent of the Grant family from Håkon Jarl of Norway; I don't believe it, but I don't know where to cut the chain, and I know others will look for the tree that matches it - so I want it mentioned in the About Me of the profiles, whether the chain is cut or kept.
The chain was added long before I learned about the Monymusk Manuscript, and it was never mentioned in the profiles. But the source existed.

Harald, the Monymusk and Cromdale manuscripts are very late. 17th century? something like that. So, they're secondary sources. Easy enough to cut the link they give when the primary sources run out.

Sharon, I read the Overview for Emma de Conteville as being clear about whose opinion it is.

From FMG, there is a "manuscript relating to St Werburgh´s Chester" that says “Hugo Lupus filius ducis Britanniæ et nepos Gulielmi magni ex sorore” transformed the foundation into a monastery.

Translation: Hugh Lupus, son of the duke of Brittany and nepos of William the Great (William the Conqueror) through his sister" ...

The word nepos is famously ambiguous. Strictly it means a grandson but it was often used to mean nephew. Hugh Lupus was a son of Emma, so she must be the sister and nepos must mean nephew in this case.

But we know from Orderic Vitalis that Hugh Lupus was a son of Richard le Goz. Richard le Goz was not duke of Brittany, and there is no other evidence that Hugh Lupus' father was a duke of Brittany.

So, by digging just a bit we can reconstruct the logic. If the St Werburgh manuscript is inflating Hugh Lupus' ancestry on his father's side, then it is probably also inflating his ancestry on his mother's side.

I wish we had the date of the St Werburgh manuscript. Early or late? But it doesn't seem necessary in this case. The manuscript is problematic no matter what the date.

Just as an aside, I checked Catholic Encyclopedia. It says "in 1093, Hugh Lupus, Earl of Chester, richly endowed the abbey and its church. By the instrumentality of this noble, Chester, which had been in the hands of secular canons, became a great Benedictine abbey"

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15588b.htm

That doesn't help much, although it does tell us the St Werburgh manuscript must be after 1093.

I want to add two things.

First, FMG is not exhaustive. It doesn't pretend to be. As Harald says, there could be other sources. In this case they would be known to experts but FMG might not yet have incorporated them.

Second, the family of Herluin de Conteville is very confusing because there are so many different theories and reconstructions. The best reconstruction I've seen was on soc.genealogy.medieval back in the 1990s. I wish someone would take on the project of conforming Geni to that version, then lock down the whole area.

i agree with Mr Alvestrand a note in the bio in about me
for the detail ...well we have plenty of time to modify if ever we found better source

Athanasios Giokaris asked the question "If Emma De Conteville's descendance from Herluin De Conteville is disputed, why is she now assigned parents, the father of whom is reported to have no children?"

Figured I'd post it here for those involved to review - relationship locking may be needed.

Tag: Private User

I cut the fake parents. One of the curators should clean up and lock this area of the tree. Otherwise different speculations will keep being added back as fact.

I was asked to post this by Martin
Emma de Conteville

https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Conteville-5

http://gw.geneanet.org/belfast8?lang=en&p=emma+de+conteville&am...

Note

Not listed at Wikipedia as a daughter of these parents.

Sources

• Harleian Society. The Visitation of Cheshire in the Year 1580, The Publicatons of The Harleian Society (London: The Society, 1882) Vol. 18, Page 4: "The Genealogy of the Earles of Chester. [Harl. 1424, fo. 3. Harl. 1505, fo. 2.]" • Yeatman, John Pym. The Early Genealogical History of the House of Arundel (Mitchell and Hughes, London, 1882) Page 38: "Ermenhilde (Emma), sister of William the Conqueror" • Ancestry Family Trees: Publication: Name: Name: Name: Online publication - Provo, UT, USA: The Generations Network. Original data: Family Tree files submitted by Ancestry members.: Numerous Ancestry Family Trees were included as support for information submitted. • The Millennium File (Heritage Consulting) • Geni. Emma de Conteville, Countess of Chester. Daughter of Robert de Grandmesnil. Wife of Richard le Goz. Mother of 10 listed children

but on wiki https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herluin_de_Conteville
https://www.geni.com/people/Herluin-Count-of-Conteville/60000000026...

Herluin's marriage to Herleva[edit]

Towards the beginning of the 11th century, Conteville and its dependencies appear to be in the hands of Herluin, who married Herleva, the mistress of Robert I, Duke of Normandy and already mother of William the Bastard, called William the Conqueror later. Herluin and Herleva had two sons and two daughters: Odo or Eudes, who became Bishop of Bayeux, and Robert who became Count of Mortain; both were prominent in the reign of their half-brother William. The daughters:--------))))))) Emma, who married Richard le Goz, Viscount of Avranches, and a daughter of unknown name, sometimes called Muriel, married Guillaume, Seigneur de la Ferté-Macé.[6] Herluin is said to have loyally borne Guillaume's body to his grave at Caen after he died in the burning of Mantes.[7]

i sugest the ban of medlands as source on geni wiki is not acurate due of all deformation of genealogy and stay with the writing at that time .

mart

Angus any user who suggests banning use of Medlands as a source should not be listened to

Medlands stays with the writing at that time. It's these other sources that do not. They are much older than Medlands, but they do not cite original sources as Medlands does.

If Mart thinks Medlands is wrong, the way to approach the problem is to find the original documents that Medlands has overlooked.

"Angus any user who suggests banning use of Medlands as a source should not be listened to"

Don't shoot the messenger..lol

I am sure the majority of us will continue to use Medlands as a source over some of these internet sites.

I am sure Martin will read these posts and get back to me,

Wikipedia: very dubious secondary source, main value is clues to further research.
Visitation of Cheshire: secondary source, 400+ years after events (and the Visitations, in general, are not always reliable, especially prior to parish records).
"Early Genealogical History of the House of Arundel", 1882: secondary compilation, no better than its sources and possibly worse (the 19th and early 20th century saw a lot of highly dubious genealogy and several prominent fraudsters)..
Any Family Trees, *including* Ancestry, Geneanet AND Familysearch: secondary sources, may propagate errors, misinformation and outright fraud as well as fact.
Geni: tautological reference is tautological.

Dug up a bit of info about Yeatman - seems he had a bee in his bonnet about the Brits being descended from the Ten Lost Tribes, a formerly popular bit of British whimsy. :-)

Maybe that got him started on genealogy in general? But then how critical was he of his research?