Is it possible for GENI to hold onto records who have come into disfavor?

;)

When Dale gets his long-lost inheritance he's going to sue us all . . .

Justin or Mavin: Do you know why Robert Phillips 1582 son of Anne Phillips and who did not inherit Picton Estate was deleted from the main Ancestory file? And why on Earth was I made to look like I presented the information as having submitted it? That honor belongs to a down line niece who put the data up Sept. 2014....? Kindly remove my name as Curator. All I did was correct his date of Birth considering his mother would have only been 3 with what had been entered. Ms. Erica was notified prior to the correction. This feels very much like a set up, frankly and I do not appreciate it.

Further: A.E. Halpin entered the data on Sir John Perrott and Anne Phillips on June 5, 2007....long before I got here. So the Anne Phillips daughter of Sir John Perrot mother of Robert Phillips 1582 are shown as a new and seperated file. Robert Phillips is the father of Elizabeth Price and that linkage has now been severed as well. Whom ever is doing this please stop...I only agreed to change the DOB on Robert Phillips.

Dale, I'm not an expert in that line. I can't answer most of your questions, but a quick glance at Robert Phillips suggests a reason for the disconnect -- this is a Maryland immigrant. His parents are unknown. Burke's Peerage does not list him as the son of Sir John Phillips and Anne Perrott. It's not a surprise he didn't inherit Picton Castle -- he wasn't even a relative.

In other words, this is one of those fantasy connections so loved by American genealogists in the early 1900s. It's not a surprised that it's been cut.

No one on Geni particularly cares who entered a profile. If it's a duplicate it's going to get merged. If it's wrong it's going to get corrected. You are not the curator for any of these profiles. You are a manager of some. No one but you can remove you as manager. As far as I know, no one, not even you can remove you as the person who added a profile.

He's listed as the father of Elizabeth Price....I do not want to be tarred with this....I changed his date of birth about 3 or 4 weeks back. Deal me out please.

Dale, you need to be clearer about what you're asking.

I find a profile for an Elizabeth Price, daughter of a (different) Robert Phillips. Or maybe it's the same Robert Phillips but a duplicate profile. I don't see your name attached to either one.

I don't see your name attached to the other Robert Phillips either.

Good, then it's already been changed it was there 60 min ago. Thankyou.

The only place I found your name was as manager and added of the profile for Sir John Philips. It was a duplicate of an older profile, already on Geni. I merged them, so now someone else shows as the person who added it, but you are still the primary manager.

There is a way to remove yourself as manager if you want to do that.

Yes PLEASE!

Go to profile view. Click Actions, then on the drop drown menu choose Manager Options.

Find your name in the list of managers, then click the x next to your name.

A dialog box will ask if you're sure. If you're sure, click Relinquish Management.

You can do this for any profile you manage.

http://www.geni.com/path/Edmund-Drake-of-Crowdale+is+related+to+Joh...

The I-1 Drakes of South Leigh meet the White /Perrott's North Leigh and they end up in of all Places: Fairfield Con where Charity Derby, 2nd cousin by marriage to Edmund Rice is down the road at Pomfret Con.

And the Francis Drake of my DNA match is to be born in 200 years about 1850. The common law marriage of Charity (no record found in Con. or New York) leads toward the inevitable mixing of Drake/White/ at Rice? What's to be understood about the confluence of lives at Fairfield Con? I leave it to better researchers than I. I can't untangle this myself but I couldn't resist showing you how these names keep forming around the Rice family. Just ignore the information, I am.

Dale, at your age I wouldn't think we'd have to be explaining the birds and bees ;)

People came from all over England to settle in America. The ones from gentry families were already linked to each through centuries of intermarriage with other local families. Once they got to America, their descendants continued to intermarry.

You've never really gotten the hang of this idea. Every one of us with pre-1850 American ancestry is linked to every person who came. Every.single.one.

That's the reason there can be a website like Geni. It's surprising only if you're used to thinking of your family as isolated from the whole. Direct line only, no siblings, no in-laws, no cousins.

All of us -- millions of people in the world today -- could play this game, finding our links to these same people. You're the only person I've never met who thinks it means something.

Dale - thinking geographically is great, it will help a lot. But you also need to bind "in time."

I do not know whether the Charity Derby you mention is a candidate for Mrs. Charity Rice, but I do think you're going down a wrong path to suggest it was a common law marriage. From what I gathered of the Rice's of that time & place, they were pious folk. Not being to locate a marriage record does not mean there wasn't a marriage.

PS. I have to doubt that Charity's marriage was common law. There was no such thing in her time. Without a church marriage it was just fornication. She'd have been whipped by the town. All all her children would be illegitimate, and none of them would have inherited a dime from their father.

Not being able to find a church record is not all that uncommon, especially in places like Virginia that were repeatedly theaters of war (French & Indian War 1753-1761; Revolutionary War 1775-83; Civil War 1861-65).

Even in "peaceful" places the church could burn down, and if the records were stored there, too bad so sad - up in smoke.

That's when you turn to alternative primary sources like wills, land records, and other legal documents. If it said "So and so, wife of such and such", you could pretty well bet she was the wife of such and such.

This. is. BASIC.

Maven: Do you know of Mary Beatrice Meierhouse? I uploaded the site into the records here. She flatley states that the Mary Berkley was the wife of Thomas Perrott, a gentleman of the Privy Chamber of Henry VII. She also reports that the child she bore, was indeed the son of Henry VIII and his name is Sir John Perrott....a favorite at the Court of Henry VIII and was raised at court and began amasing his thousands of acress in and around Milford Haven as a young man, blessed by the Henry VIII generosity, Participated as a family member in the coronation of Elizabeth I...and granted Carew Castle by Mary Tudor, made a knight by Edward VI.

Beings I specialize in behaviors of people and why they do what they do, it looks as if earlier writers all down the ages believed him to be the kings son and in recent times the revisionist view has taken hold. Is that your view also?

http://archive.org/stream/southpembrokeshi00mirerich/southpembrokes...

It's in section #48 in the above citation. DCR

The woman's an old gossip, reporting popularly believed legends (like the Essex "ring" story).

Just because it's in a book, that has been digitized on the Internet, doesn't mean it's true. (The Oz books have been digitized by Project Gutenberg - does that mean they are nonfiction?)

That's why asked your opinion.

This fellow went digging for facts, and was perhaps disappointed in what he found: http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~parrott/PDFs/Turv...

It's not as though Henry was known for his chastity and fidelity - quite the contrary. So anyone who resembled him in the slightest, and had any connection with court, was likely to come under suspicion of having been fathered by him. Sometimes, as with Henry "Fitzroy" (son of Henry and mistress Bessie Blount), it was even true.

Dale, it might help you a bit to understand both the history of publishing.

Before the 20th century there weren't enough people with enough disposable income to support much of a publishing industry outside of reprinting the classics and current political controversy.

One small, but almost insignificant exception was that in the 18th and 19th centuries gentlemen of leisure often formed themselves into local antiquarian societies. They poked around local legends, folklore, and curious customs. They drew pictures of local ruins, rummaged through their family papers, and wrote articles about what they found, as well as elaborately polite but essentially snarky letters about what others had missed. Then the society paid to privately publish the stuff in its limited-edition periodic journal, charging hefty subscription fees. No professionals. Just the men's equivalent of the local garden club.

It's easy to miss this background and to think those old articles are something more than they really are.

If you don't pay attention, it's easy to come away with the wrong impression. Maven hits it exactly when she says this woman is an old gossip She is writing late enough (1910) that women are beginning to enter a male stronghold, and late enough that publishing is becoming substantially cheaper, but not yet late enough that anyone is thinking of local history as anything more than getting the local legends written down before they're lost forever.

Dale, you would be wrong to see this article as proof that everyone believed the Perrott story until modern historians started mocking it. Instead, you should see a story like this as going through three stages.

1. Before about 1900 no one would have cared or been particularly impressed. Most prominent families had some signature story about an illustrious origin. The Howards were descended from Hereward the Wake. The Fieldings were descended from a Habsburg prince. The Stewarts were descended from Banquo. Come to that, the British themselves were descended from refugee Trojans. It was very much a case of "I won't laugh at your claim if you don't laugh at mine."

2. About 1900 men like Horace Round started breaking the gentlemen's agreement not to snicker. He and others started disproving the old stories. They began to create our modern world of demanding proof, but they made a lot of enemies. In the same period, antiquarians in Britain and genealogists in America were still just repeating the old stories without any analysis. Those who were aware of the problem fell back on the argument that preserving the stories for future generations was in fact more important than wasting time looking for proof.

3. After World War II a group of academics ("the Annales School"), mostly at the University of Paris, started to reject the idea that history is just lists of wars and kings. They thought it has to also include the social history of the common people. Largely because of them, all the old chatter about folklore and genealogy became a subset of history. From then on it became impossible to just record the local gossip without analysis and think it could be called history.

Ms. Meyerhouse had the correct family, but I think tangled a generation. Sir Owen Perrott, father of Sir Thomas Perrot was a night Bachelor in Henry Tudor's court 1513. When Owen died in 1521 the guardianship of of Thomas was purchased by Lord Berkley etc, etc.

The proximity of a 16 year old betrothed to Thomas Perrott would no doubt have been a delight and a temptation to a RANDY King....given his admiration of Sir Frances Brandon's sister "The Younger Wife". The birth of Sir John Perrott 1528 at age 17 for young Mary would have only taken 5 min. of the kings time, and the behavior certainly fits. I won't speak to the opportunity because I don't know them.

Sorry Knight Bachelor 1513...not night etc.

It hardly matters, does it? There were probably old folks gossiping about every woman who got within 50 miles of the king ;)

If I had to make a bet, it would be that on the day of Henry VIII's funeral there were as many old women in England who claimed to have bedded him as there are people alive today who claim to have been at Woodstock.

Well Justin, the "antiquarians" who went riffling through old charters and such, sometimes provided more information than even they realized.

When, for instance, you find three or four generations of Charletons (or Cherletons) signing charters in the Shrewsbury, Shropshire area a century or two before they supposedly spun off the Cauntelos, that's a pretty strong indication that somebody forged a link that didn't really exist.

Ha!!! That's One place I could have gone but didn't. I was in Lakehurst NJ going to school the summer of 1969, Newly married and I heard about the festival. True to form, nose to the grindstone I stayed in NJ and missed the rain, the mud , and the music. That's just my luck. LOL