Adam as a child in this family. [9 August 2013]
Does anyone have any reasonable sources for putting Adam (b. 1310) as a child in this family? A quick Googling only shows unsourced trees, not much better than the Ancestral file given as a "source" on Adam's page. Other unsourced pages place with him a different Adam Banastre as father. The problem with putting him with this family is that Katherine, his supposed sister here, is described as a coheir of her father by the Victoria County History, which would seem to be a problem if Adam (b. 1310) left a son who had children, as given here. My (admittedly limited) understanding is that a daughter would not be a coheir if the father left a male line of descent.--Werebear 12:20, 9 August 2013 (EDT)
- Were such to happen in that era - it would not have gone without notice. --jrm03063 12:53, 9 August 2013 (EDT)
- What I've found working "out here" - is that one piece of utter crap tends to be connected to others - and I don't want to see us just cut loose bad stuff that will float around in an unconnected state for the rest of time. So when I get annoyed enough to actually do something about unsupported content like this - I'll try to find the "extent" of the material - and get rid of the entire section. When the problem is complex and/or unclear - I'll mark the pages with my delete template as I've just done. I'm sure it's a bit like cancer surgery... --jrm03063 13:19, 9 August 2013 (EDT)
- Thanks. I appreciate your work.--Werebear 00:28, 11 August 2013 (EDT)
- I should add that there could have been an illegitimate male line of descent, but that is not what was indicated.--Werebear 15:04, 11 August 2013 (EDT)
- Sure - when I delete things like this I'm not asserting that the people or line didn't or couldn't exist. Rather, that there isn't anything there that couldn't be re-done easily - and much better - if an actual source was part of the content.
- Cool. I think this kind of clean-up is really valuable.--Werebear 22:40, 11 August 2013 (EDT)
|
