This Discussion is intended as a Log of the Data elided/ deleted at the stage of resolving Data Conflicts on this profile.
I have already resolved the Data Conflict, and am simply making sure that all the managers involved in that merge, know what data of theirs was removed.
I am doing this as a courtesy, against the possibility that the profile’s managers may want to be alerted to the opportunity to engage with the data choices. (Sending a private message means there is no record for any future managers of the profile - of which we hope there will be many.)
It is not a query, and it does not require a comment, unless you disagree with the way the Data Conflict was resolved, or you want to add useful info about the data at stake – that you think others can benefit from when resolving Data Conflicts on that profile in the future.
Further info and FAQ can be found here: http://www.geni.com/discussions/115121?msg=832711
Forename Richard I OR Richard Ohne Furcht Von Frankreich I OR Duke Richard I Fearless
Birth Location Fécamp, Seine-Maritime, Haute-Normandie, France OR Normandy, Kerlouan, Bretagne, France
Death Location Fécamp, Seine-Maritime, Haute-Normandie, France OR Normandy, Plouigneau, Brittany, France
Sorry to be in one of my more pedantic moods.
But if Guischard I (surely a man's name) and Emma Warren existed and had children by Richard I it was surely as partners ("concubines") rather than wives. I see both profiles are managed only by one person, which I find extraordinary if they are historical fact 1,100 years ago. If you look at Emma Warren's tree it goes nowhere. If you look at Guischard I's tree it does go somewhere (to the Sackvilles) and after two or three generations you find that the profiles are managed by lots of people (including Justin Swanstrom) so at that point the tree becomes historical reality; before that point it looks like imaginative construction. (Sorry if I offend the manager of the profile).
If the managers of these two alleged people can produce sources, even dubious ones, for their existence, then I'd keep them as possible concubines.
Don't apologize for being pedantic, Mark. Our secret agenda here is to lure you deeper and deeper into these medieval profiles ;)
I looked at Guischard and Emma when I was doing some of the preliminary merging in this area. Decided they need more research. My guess is that they belong somewhere else on the tree. This probably represents someone's attempt to construct a genealogy without access to good sources.
Mark, you are right for Guischard being a male's name. But add and E at the end and it becomes a female's name (in French). Anyway I don't think there used to be sch at that time. It would most probably have been Guiscarde. CH is a later form like the transformation from castel (castle in English) to modern French château.
Justin,
Dammit, your secret agenda seems to be working.
But the big gap (in England) seems to me to be between the 1530s and the 1700s, when records were supposed to be kept but obviously weren't in a lot of places.
And as for the earlier comment on the "Dark Ages" we have some copies of Anglo-Saxon wills (including wills by women, who legally didn't hold property in their own right between 1066 and the mid-nineteenth century). The horrible old William the Conqueror and the horrible old Henry VIII have drastically reduced genealogical possibilities.
Is anyone doing serious work on the Balkans (where I currently live)/
I doubt that Geni.com can trace the ancestry of dormice (or, for example, fruit-flies) unless we have a completely manic and extremely busy curator, who would die on the job very quickly.
But I do wonder whether they might not find a marketplace for the pedigrees of horses, dogs, and cats; if the betting shops haven't beaten them to it