That horrible old bore, Gladstone, once said with one of his typical earnestly believed half-truths that nothing good could be expected from a Spencer or a Churchill - advice which it is now too late for the Royal Family to take.
The history of parliament bio for Sir Winston Churchill, MP (1620-1680) states as absolute fact that he made up the distinguished ancestry from his grandfather back which now appears on Geni: it (or most of it) is fiction.
What to do about this? We accept obviously mythological lines of descent dating from the early medieval period, as an amusement, so Jupiter/Zeus etc appear on Geni. But fiction dating from the seventeenth century should surely be a different matter. Many families have their myths. Mine accounted for their inability to trace their ancestry further than about 1700 with a story that the earliest traceable Dickinson was a foundling left from a coach, which would be fine except that the roads in the area were too bad to take a coach. Should I therefore just invent a noble descent?
Mark
For those who want to see the article Mark mentions:
http://www.historyofparliamentonline.org/volume/1660-1690/member/ch...
"Churchill constructed for himself an impressive pedigree, but he was in fact the grandson of a Dorset copyholder. His father studied law at the Middle Temple, and became deputy registrar of Chancery, in which capacity he acted as jackal, and later Judas, to Bacon."
I take it he fooled Burke etc? He won't fool us! Let the corrections begin ...
Tagging Jason Scott Wills
Copyhold will, incidentally, be one of the instruments for the next generation of genealogists. For those not familiar with it, it was a form of leasing land for up to five inheritances. A glorious gamble. You could pay your money for the copyhold, plague could carry you and your four offspring off in a year, and everything would be gone. Or your son could live for a hundred years, hand the land down to a grandson, etc.
The point is that the freeholders had to keep records of the copyholders so they could get their land back eventually. Same thing with the tontine, another bizarre form of property (the Iron Bridge at Inronbridge, Shropshire, was a tontine). Everyone who contributed had an equal share. The last one of them who was living owned the whole thing. Again, the system had to track who had died, and when.
Mark
I take it that he hunted down Bacon's enemies, and then betrayed him. But which Bacon? I was never interested in the blasted Tudors until Geni, but some of them seem quite interisting.
Impossible to know when some of the records for lesser-class people become available. For my family, the manorial court records are still suppposedly under cataloguing, and so not publicly avaiable, let alone online.