Heir Male of the Whitneys of Whitney?
Notice the family of George Whitney of Icomb, Gloucestershire. His wife Julyan ----- was named in his nephew's will, and also his son George, Jr. (b. say 1555). The latter m. ----- Savage of Worcestershire, according to the pedigrees in Melville. Now notice Archive:Parish Register, Church Iccombe, Gloucestershire, England. There is a George Whitney (b. say 1585) with a daughter Julian. Now this can hardly be George, Jr., but it could well be a putative son, call him George, 3rd. Surely with that daughter's name, he is somehow descended from George, Sr.!
If that connection can be made, then George, 3rd, is the heir male of the Whitneys of Whitney, since the lines of all his brothers seem to have daughtered-out. Furthermore, George, 3rd, had sons, including a George, 4th, bapt. 1618.
If these sons' lines could be followed further, one might be able to trace at least one of them to the present, and get a DNA profile of the Whitneys of Whitney!! Perhaps we should broaden our search from Herefordshire to Gloucestershire.
Robert Whitney of Castleton
If you reread my thesis, you'll see that some of the argument is based on the order of people listed in James Whitney's will as heirs. Thomas Whitney of Castleton and his brother Richard Whitney are in the position of second cousins. That implies that their Whitney ancestor had to be a son of James and Blanche (Milbourne) Whitney, not a brother of James, which would make them third cousins. Admittedly this is fairly thin, but it all hangs together, with no evidence to the contrary.
What you say has merit. Your solution is viable. I guess I was just using Occam's Razor: the simplest explanation is most likely to be the correct one.
It is well-known that the earlier the generation of a visitation pedigree, the more unreliable it is, and the curve is quite steep. Thus we can place very little reliability in what the pedigrees say about the great-great-grandfather of the claimant John Whitney of London (b. 1638), the former being the grandfather of our Thomas Whitney of Westminster. Only when the pedigrees can be supported by viable chronology and contemporary primary sources can they be trusted. For the early generations of the main line, there is such support, based on the descent of the lordship of Whitney. For the cadet lines, there is no such support.
I guess my point is that there is no reason to let the conflicting statements as to Thomas's grandfather deter us from accepting my thesis, as opposed to the solution you propose. We should be very interested in when the ownership of Castleton in Clifford Parish passed out of the ownership of the main line Whitneys. That would give us some indication of what time frame the line of Robert Whitney of Castleton split off that line.
In some cases, we encounter someone whose birth and death dates are completely unknown, but who appears in a dated record. In such cases, is there any need to have a family group record page?
If we do decide to create such a family group record page, the issue of a name for it arises. Librarians often use the idea of saying things like "Geoffrey Whitney, fl. 1552," where fl. is an abbreviation for "flourished". What do you think of using names like "Family:Whitney, Geoffrey (fl1552)", or "Family:Whitney, Geoffrey (fl.1552)", or "Family:Whitney, Geoffrey (~1552)", to handle such cases? Or should we just use "Family:Whitney, Geoffrey (?-a1552)"?
The test worked. I'll start posting the draft.
Let's discuss the article in its own comments page, not in our User talk pages.
In default of any other obvious place, you could link to it from the Miscellaneous page. The only other possibility I see is Biographies, but I don't really like it.
If we get other data of the same type, like directories of physicians, or clergymen, etc., we could create a category of Professions, or some such name. Then we could link this in, since almost all graduates became clergymen or barristers.
How to Make Plaintext Small?
I want to make the pedigree chart at the end of Archive:Whitney's Choice of Emblemes in a smaller font. It is inside a p tag making it plaintext. I don't want to put font tags at the beginning and end of every line. How can I do that effectively?
I also notice that some of the font tags I have used in footnotes aren't making the text smaller, either. I guess I don't understand changing sizes of text in the wiki paradigm.
How to Make Plaintext Small, Again
This didn't work as desired. See the pedigree at the bottom of the page. I guess either I need more help, or I need you to edit the page until it works. Replacing div id="Lineages" with p id="Plaintext" (and /div with /p) makes the table look right, but not smaller.
Footnotes Smaller, Too?
You'll see on the same web page, at the bottom of each of the transcribed pages lxxxii, lxxxv, and lxxxvii, appears a footnote, begun with an asterisk. Please explain why putting "font size=2" tags didn't work, and tell me what will work to make the footnotes appear in a smaller text than the rest.
Footnotes Smaller, Too, Again
When I used font size=2 on the title page, it worked fine. Why did it work there and not in the footnotes?
Footnotes Smaller, Yet Again
Using "font size=-1" didn't work, either. The only thing I found that worked was "font size=1", so I used that.
Problem with File
There is a problem with the file Image:Will of Robert Whitney, 1541.jpg. I can include it in a web page using the usual construct [[Image:Will of Robert Whitney, 1541.jpg]]. I can also use [[Image:Will of Robert Whitney, 1541.jpg|thumb|400px]]. I can't use [[Image:Will of Robert Whitney, 1541.jpg|thumb|500px]]. When I use either version that works, and click on the image (which is a link, too), I get a totally blank screen. I can't delete the file, nor does reloading it seem to help.
Can you straighten out this mess? If not, can you delete the file and let me upload a new version, thus hopefully rectifying the situation?
Can One Post a .pdf File?
I've been thinking about how to post the index to the Whitney and Clifford Manor documents. They came to us from Adrian as a large .pdf file. I don't want to print it out and do OCR on the pages. I'd rather just post it directly, but I don't know if that could work, or how to do it if it could. Any ideas?
Perhaps a better temporary measure would be to post it on the OLD website, and make a link to it from the new one. Asking for a volunteer sounds good!
It seems to me to be just as much work to use this template as to draw the tree using ASCII characters, but the results are much prettier. I read some of the comments, and I agree that marriages should be designated with a double solid line, not a single dashed line. That means that more tiles would have to be designed and labeled by some single characters.
My net reaction is that this isn't worth the trouble, but I am not adamant about that view.
Two Chronology Issues
1. You wrote, " ... this would mean that his eldest son Robert was still living in 1645, but we have him listed as having died before 1638. Do you know why we have him listed thus?" Yes. It comes from the matriculation records of his younger brothers. If Constantine was second son in 1638, then Thomas, the eventual heir, must have been the first son, so all older sons must have died before that date, including Robert. There seems to have been a clerical error, either in the index, or, more likely, in the original document, and it should have said Thomas Whitney, esq., son and heir.
2. You wrote, "If the Eustace Whitney who married Elizabeth Freville in 1301 was actually Eustace de Whitney (c1287-c1352), then he had to have been born before our estimated date of 1287. Either we have this Eustace's birthyear too late, or this marriage was a second marriage for his father Eustace." The birth dates we have for the early generations are rough estimates and extrapolations from the ages of later generations. That means that they are likely to be off by a certain amount. My guess is that Eustace was born somewhat earlier, perhaps 1275-1280, and his father accordingly earlier. That also means that his son Robert probably was born before 1318, perhaps 1302-1307, and later generations might be accordingly somewhat older (possibly enough older to include an extra generation we don't show).
On the "Recent Changes" page, in the toolbox on the lower left-hand side of the page, are two links, one labeled "rss" and the other labeled "atom". Neither is valid, although I can't say I understand the error message. (Neither do I have any idea what their purpose might be, but that probably doesn't matter.) Please either fix them or remove the links.
Llores vs Llorde
Looking more closely at the name, I think it actually must be Elinor Lloyde. I have changed the page to reflect that.
Projects versus Conversion
I see we have the WRG:Website Conversion Project page and a WRG Projects page. I am reorganizing these to reflect the division between converting the old website data to the new one (such as importing the existing Phoenix pages), and organizing the data on the new one (such as adding links between Pierce and the family groups coming from it). I also added a link to the latter on the Main page.
I see that we have two pages that maybe would benefit from consolidation: Whitney and Clifford Manuscripts and Archive:Whitney and Clifford Manuscript Index. The consolidated page, perhaps named Archive:Whitney and Clifford Manorial Records Index should have breadcrumbs at the top, leading back to Archives and what else? Should we create a page for Whitney-on-Wye/Whitney Parish/Whitney Manor? Or would this be an appropriate use of the Category: page? Likewise for Clifford (Village)/Clifford Parish/Clifford Manor?
What do you think of adding "sideways" links to the Family: pages, leading from each page to the next most senior in genealogical order? That way, one could step through a generation without having to go up the line to ancestors and then back down. This occurred to me because of my list of John Whitney Descendants by Generation, which serves almost the same purpose.
As you no doubt have noticed, I have been working my way through the fourth generation from John1 Whitney, cleaning up Andaleen's pages and adding place categories. I have NOT tried to source all the data. That remains a HUGE project for the future. I've now completed the grandchildren of John2 and Richard2. Next is the grandchildren of Thomas2. Two done, four to go. Then there is the fifth generation, which figures to be about four or five times more work than the fourth.
Location Categories and Pierce
Adding the categories to the transcription pages does seem silly. Should this be a policy for most or all the Extracts pages?
There is still one link not done on the Archive:Census Records page: the index of the whole U.S.A. in 1880. Of course it is just a sorted concatenation of all the state indexes, but it still needs to be done.
Congratulations on finishing the migration of the census pages!
As to the U.S.S. Constitution, I suppose we should bring it over, but I haven't been enthusiastic about doing that, since it is fairly tangential to the purpose of Whitney genealogy. There is a connection, of course, I just felt we had more important things to do. If it is the last thing left to do, then I suppose we should do it. <sigh> At least when it and the Phoenix import are done, we could say that we have finished the migration.
Actually, there is another import that has to be done: the descendant report for Ebenezer and Huldah (Mooers) Whitney of N.B.
Then there is the matter of the databases ...
I moved the adding of locality categories to WRG Projects, under Families.
Phoenix Page Name Format
We have to decide whether we are going to keep the Phoenix pages in groups of five, or split them apart into single pages as you did for the Pierce Project. Once that is decided, we need to settle on the correct format for the names. For Pierce, we used Archive:The Descendants of John Whitney, page 99, for example. For Phoenix, should we use Archive:The Whitney Family of Connecticut, page 99, for example, or [[Archive:The Whitney Family of Connecticut, pages 96-100]]? Or would some other name be appropriate, such as [[Archive:Phoenix, page 99]] and analogue? If we split the book into single pages, probably we would have to subdivide the index page into several parts, not wanting to put 2700+ links on a single page.
Article Notes and Issues
Yes, I saw the new note. I don't think we need to change anything. We've referenced the visitation pedigrees multiple times. To do so again seems gratuitous. Perhaps if David Greene wants it, I'll add such a reference, but I think it's unnecessary.
I've also considered the Issues carefully. I can't really answer any of them, so to include statements to that effect seems not a useful exercise. Again, if David Greene or his reviewers want them addressed, I'll try to do something, but not unless. Also, the article is already over-long, so adding anything to it makes that problem even worse.
All I'm waiting for is the original pedigrees from England, and I'll submit the article.
Adding placename categories to Andaleen's pages I consider a part of importing my 6-generation study from the old web site. For other pages, it's a WRG Project. That means it really fits under both topics.
The list of new users on the right-hand side of the Main Page is not working right. No new users appear for several days, even though they have, indeed, been added.
Good job with the subtitle on the main page! I like the idea and your execution of it. One suggestion: I think the page would look better with less space between it and the orange "Welcome" box below it.
Andaleen Has Volunteered Again
I see that Andaleen Whitney has volunteered to help with updating the census indexes with data from Ancestry.com. Let's start talking about what format/template/model to use.
Are you comfortable with the table format we are using, with headings Given Name, County, Township, Page, and Data? Should we put the Data on a separate census extracts page? It's obvious that this has to be done for 1850 on, but what about 1790-1840? Should we do that just for the sake of consistency? Should the link from the index to the data be Given Name, or the Page, or something else? Should we link the Given Name to a Family Group Record? We should definitely link the name on the extracts page to the FGR.
James Francis Whitney
I have a little information on James Francis Whitney. Not sure if it is true still checking. Parents may be: John Whitney m. Emily Tracy b. Ireland they married in New York around 1867. I was also told a different name so like I said still checking this out. I know that James parents moved to LaSalle because his father John was a brick layer and worked for the LaBasce Chimney Works and he relocated to LaSalle, Illinios around 1885. John Whitney help build the catholic church in LaSalle, Illinois they moved to LaSalle around 1885. This is what I have been told by older relatives that still attend the same church. I have sent information to the LaSalle Ottawa Genealogy Guild site to see if they have any records on the Whitney family. The whole town of Ottawa, Illinois is Whitney and Fribbs so that should be fun. Thanks for any research you can give me on this matter... Pam