John Rowe and Sir William Turville?
Hi. Familysearch sent me some hints saying that I am related to lady Jane Stanley b. Wales 1463 d. Wales 1525. She is important to me because she was apparently 'Princess of Manx', and my DNA shows that I have some Manx connections but until now, have been unable to find out who.
So, starting from myself, I can trace through to John Rowe b 1504 but FamilySearch says his father was Sir William Turville?? Turville leads me to Lady Jane Stanley but I cannot work out why John Rowes surname is Rowe and not Turville. Can someone please shed some light on this?\
Trevor Ellis GW6V-JHZ
John Rowe L7JP-43V
Sir William Turville L7JP-QCG
Lady Jane Stanley LH6C-X56
There is a slight trap as there are three John Rowe's in the line. Also, I have an Ancestry Account but cannot match the trees. I have found that some of my ancestors had more than one wife but the link between John Rowe and Sir William Turville is causing me some issues. All help is appreciated.
Warm regards
Trevor Ellis
Comments
-
"FamilySearch says" - do you mean that John Rowe's father is listed as Sir William Turville in the FamilySearch Family Tree? If so, then check the sources attached. Verify or refute for yourself.
The FamilySearch Family Tree is a work of all the contributors - and anyone can edit and anyone could have made an error.
0 -
John Rowe L7JP-43V had his name changed from George Turville by you on 4 Feb without giving any justification for the change.
0 -
Can I suggest that you follow @Áine Ní Donnghaile 's advice and back up until you find someone with sources that can be verified? if you don't, you are going to waste your own time and probably cause yourself massive grief and frustration.
There are all sorts of red flags on the data that you mention and the items that they link to.
- I've never heard of the term "Princess of Manx" - it doesn't even make grammatical sense, it's rather like describing someone as "Prince of Welsh". So I'd be very wary...
- There is a Jane Stanley (1472-1525) who married John George Warburton in 1489. I have no intention of dignifying that data with a URL because the marriage allegedly took place at "Holt Castle, Flint Wiltshire Weever, Arley Chester, Cheshire, England". Holt Castle is/was a genuine castle in Flintshire but what Wiltshire, Weever, Arley, Chester and England have to do with it, I can't imagine. Just a dustbin of data, I fear.
- Sir William Turville of Normanton (L7JP-QCG) marries two women called Helen Ferrers in FS FamilyTree. One in Leicestershire in about 1500, the other the next year in Cheshire. Highly unlikely. The first marriage has children surnamed Turville and Tarbell (which might almost be name variants), while the second has children surnamed Turvill and Rowe - as you point out.
- Can I explain the Rowe? It appears from the ChangeLog that it was you who changed the name of George Turvill L7JP-43V to John Rowe - so where did you get that Rowe name from? I assume that you had a good reason but were you being misled by something odd?
Seriously, medieval genealogy is hard. Some of the best sources are from Herald's Visitations where people describe their ancestry. Some of the worst sources are from Herald's Visitations where people describe their ancestry - because a better ancestry will always go down well. And that's not counting the Victorian forgeries of Herald's Visitations.
I won't say that Medieval Genealogy is a mug's game because clearly some people do excellent work in it - but it's not something that you can pick up in a few queries to a general forum like this. As an aside, quite the most unpleasant genealogical message board I ever looked at was one for Medieval Genealogy, where people with very different views on someone's ancestry were yelling at each other.
2 -
@Adrian Bruce1 I would like to agree wholeheartedly with your comments. Unfortunately, that option is still broken.
0 -
You have shown that moderators are still able to Like / Agree, etc. with the contents of posts made by others, so please confirm that problem with the inability of ordinary members to be able to do this has been escalated. I'm seeing some excellent responses to queries in "my groups", but sadly still can't show my appreciation for these remarks.
0 -
Yes. That is the case.
0 -
Thank you for confirming that, Maile.
0 -
It appears reactions have been turned back on.
2 -
Yes, we can react, but we can't tell who has reacted or even if WE have already reacted because the names are now missing.
2
