Good morning Chris,
Your "as submitted" point is of course, taken. I can not speak about other
on line research sources, only Ancestry but in their public members
trees search section, there are quite a number of Lascalles/Catley trees
where your Demon entry is used as a citation to infer that the couple
married. Most give the year as 1780 although one one or two, when I last
looked, had for some unaccountable reason, chosen 1865 I think. To add
further to the absurd, one author had even decided that she
married him twice, both in 1765 and 1780!
I must point out that in most cases, any Demon citation is also followed
by the additional citation "Ancestry Family Trees" which in my experience
often means no more than :- "I have copied someone else's work and probably
did not bother to check the validity anyway".
An illustration as to how silly tree renditions can become, is to explain
how I found some 18 months ago now, that an Australian researcher had
submitted his Ann Catley tree where it was obvious that having discovered
some two archive sources quote Ann's father as Robert Catley, then set off
in search of him and alighted on Robert and his spouse Elizabeth Walker and
their children Jane and Mary to which he happily added Ann as another
daughter. What he failed to note was that the year of Robert and
Elizabeth's wedding and the birth years of both both "siblings" (which he
had
actually indicated) were some 100 years BEFORE Ann's birth !
There is only one combination set that I know of for parents
Robert & Elizabeth Catley married 1641 plus daughters Jane b 1643 and Mary
b 1649 and these just happen to be MY DIRECT ancestors up in Yorkshire!
Maybe I was a bit caustic in my message to him pointing out his errors because
he complained a bit before grudgingly admitting that his dates did perhaps make
him look a bit silly and some three weeks later, removed reference to Ann's
"parents and siblings" but alas, the damage was done already, with many new
Ann Catley trees being posted all sporting proudly that Ann's parents were
Robert and Elizabeth who married in 1641. All of course had the Ancestry Family
Tree citation!
It beggars belief that any researcher can be so slapdash as to
use "Ancestry Family Trees" as a citation without checking the "facts"
that they
are copying?! I have had a running battle with over 15 different authors who
have copied this silliness in the last 12 months, as fast as I got one person
to retract thir errors, another would step into the breach.
The latest info on this fiasco is that there is one tree rendition left with
all these errors contained within its content. The owner has not logged in in
over 12 months which I suppose means that he has not renewed his membership and
is thus blissfully unaware through being uncontactable, of the copy errors his
work is causing.
Regards
Tim
On Sat, 10 Oct 2015 18:02:04 +0100
Chris Newall via <catley(a)rootsweb.com> wrote:
Hi Tim,
The Catley database entry is, as always, an 'as submitted' record and
not necessarily accurate. I would be interested in the source of the
claim by the 'some other Lascalles tree researchers' claim that she
married in 1780. They should back up their claim by quoting their
source. Could it be the following statement from my [temporally defunct]
Anne Catley website page?
"Whilst in Dublin she had met Francis Lascelles, then a dragoon. By 1780
he had become a Major-General and they were living in a handsome house
at Ealing bought by Anne out of her own fortune."
By the way, my website and the on-line Catley database are currently
unavailable as my ISP no longer supports web hosting. I hope to have the
website back on line under a new domain name in due course.
Best wishes
Chris
On 08/10/2015 14:17, Tim Cattley via wrote:
> Chris,
> It may have escaped your attention but I notice in your Catley database for 1745,
you have an entry by martinD asserting that
she did (eventually) marry Francis Lascalles and the IGI is quoted as
the source. A quick glance down the IGI entry's does not
reveal this claimed event which some other Lascalles tree researchers
quote as 1780.
> TimC--
Chris Newall
Ealing W5
-------------------------------
To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to CATLEY-request(a)rootsweb.com with
the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the
message
--
Tim Cattley <t.cattley(a)mypostoffice.co.uk>