This also, Refers to the Topic Thomas Whitney etc.
Theresa,
I see that you recently posted on Family Talk:Whitney, Robert (s1525-1567) and on Family Talk:Whitney, John (1592-1673). You should realize that your messages will probably not be seen by many there. Such questions are better sent by e-mail to the Whitney Research Group mailing list. The address is <whitney@rootsweb.com>. There they would be seen by all who subscribe, which is a much larger audience. Instead of making the users find your message, and pull it from that page, you would be pushing it out to all of them, so it appears in their e-mail in-boxes.
In response to the former Talk page, I have several things to say.
First of all, Thomas Whitney of Westminster, gent., was never knighted, and so to call him "Sir Thomas" is incorrect.
Secondly, Sir Robert Whitney's second wife was probably past menopause when they were married, hence no children from that union.
Thirdly, we don't know if the family as given is complete. The records simply don't exist to prove or disprove that. We can be quite certain, however, that all the legitimate children who lived to maturity are in that list, because of the visitation pedigrees. The information in them was used to identify people who were entitled to bear the Whitney coat of arms (with or without differences), and so needed to be complete enough for that purpose. They may also have been used for other purposes of inheritance, and hence accuracy was important. Furthermore, they were compiled during the life of his children, so the information would have been gotten from those who knew the facts.
Fourthly, no progress has been made with regard to the parentage of Thomas Whitney of Westminster. It seems probable that he was somehow related to the Whitneys of Whitney, Herefordshire, but the connection, if any, still eludes us, and may never be known.
Fifthly, the general associations of various families with each other is very weak evidence of any relationships. Specific, verifiable proof is what is needed.
I recommend that you delete what you wrote on that page, or, if you prefer, give me permission to, and I'll do so myself.
In response to the latter Talk page, I have entered my comments at the beginning of that page. The website tudorplace.com shouldn't be trusted, since it doesn't give any sources for its information. Treat it as clue material, to be independently verified from documented and reliable information.
Once again, I recommend that you delete what you wrote on that page, or, if you prefer, give me permission to, and I'll do so myself.
- Robert Ward - Talk to me 03:27, 29 March 2013 (CDT)
