PROBY, Mrs Claud (Patricia Amelia née PEARCE) 1925-1999

[Tim]

This responds to her inclusion in the Centenarians Part 5 list for 2026.

According to the following WikiTree entry, Patricia Amelia PROBY née PEARCE was born in 1925 and died in 1999. However, it does not give a precise date of birth or death, or cite a source for either; further research would be needed to confirm this. 

https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Pearce-4202 

She was the daughter of Lieutenant-Commander Vyvyan Whitmore PEARCE RN of Cape Town. She m 12 Sep 1942 Captain Claud 1917-87 s of Major Sir Richard George PROBY (formerly HAMILTON) 1st Bt MC JP DL 1886-1979 (2x gt gs in the male line of 1st MARQUESS OF ABERCORN 1756-1818) by his first 1911 m to Betty Monica 1889-1967 dau of Alexander Henry Hallam MURRAY b 1854 (reg Q2 St George Hanover Square) d c 1934 (reg Q1 Elham). They had 1 son and 3 daughters. The eldest daughter, Caroline Fiona PROBY b 1943, m 1st (as his 1st w) 1969 (diss 1988) 6th VISCOUNT HAMPDEN 1937-2008. They had 2 sons (including the present 7th VISCOUNT HAMPDEN b 1970) and 1 daughter.

Tim

[Henry W]

I found the wikitree a day or so ago, but am struggling overall with this.  There is no GRO death for this lady in those years, meaning if it is correct, she did not die in England & Wales.

I also found an Electoral Roll record for Patricia A PROBY at an CO10 (Sudbury, Essex) address up to 2017.  A check in Ancestry confirms that lady born in the range 1921-1923, so this is consistent with the information that Colin provided in the Centenarians thread and is likely to be a correct identification.  No death identified in the GRO from 2016 to 2023.

I am inclined to think that the wikitree is not correct.

[Tim]

Thank you for your additional research and your feedback on this post, Henry (if I may). It seems I may have been barking up the wrong tree (or, in this case, the wrong Wikitree!) Please accept my apologies.

Please could I ask what this group's usual practice is around threads based on sources that prove to be incorrect or misleading? Do we delete them to avoid confusion or leave them up so others are not tripped up by the same sources?

Tim

[Richard R]

There are no rules around whether to delete or not. Personally, I would not delete as it contains useful information and the thread makes it clear that there's more work to do to verify the information.

Regular readers of my posts will know I place in [square brackets] any information I think requires further work to confirm. I find it useful to post anyway as other posters often reply with useful additions & corrections or challenges, which is what has happened in this case.

[S. S.]

Sometimes a wild goose chase of incorrect information gives you more clarity than simply starting anew. It is useful to have info, even when incorrect, since others can add on to it. 

S.S.

[Tim]

Thank you both for this very helpful advice. I will leave this post up for the reasons you suggest.

Tim