On 03-Jun-21 8:41 PM, Vance Mead wrote:
> Visitations were made by the Heralds to see who was entitled to a Coat of Arms. They could be accurate when it involved the memory of the people involved, but going back a few generations people's memory could be hazy or even fraudulent.
>
> Burke would probably have started with Visitations, supplemented by wills and feudal records (Inquisitions Post Mortem and Feudal surveys).
In the case of Burke, "probably" is the most telling word. The fact that
we don't know his source/s for most of the information he states is a
problem even when that information may turn out to be correct.
There are in broad terms three ways that information is expressed in the
genealogical literature:
1. With precise and verifiable citation of specific source/s, or (as
frequently forced by publishers, but sometimes an exercise in
arse-covering) with imprecise citation of non-specific source/s that can
be verified only with unwarranted trouble on the reader's part
2. With less precise reference to earlier (primary or secondary)
authority that may or may not be verifiable
3. As a flat statement without any backing that can be checked.
Burke's method was usually #3, even if he may have been able to provide
more details in some instances, as he had profit in view and worried
about printing costs and space. Also his intended readership was fairly
uncritical, largely concerned with status and relationships more recent
than medieval connections, since hardly any Victorian snob chose a
marriage partner or approved a potential in-law on the basis of remote
blue-blood ancestry if this had not been sustained across centuries.
Many of Burke's contemporaries who were more conscientious antiquarians
indulged themselves in #2, vaguely asserting that such-and-such died on
a stated date or in a particular year as recorded in monastic obituaries
or annals, or that A married B according to a contract between their
fathers X and Y. These writers often knew that some of their readers
could and a few would find out the source/s for themselves, and so their
reputations might be at stake if their details were wrong (although this
didn't stop some of them from inventing or even forging medieval
documents). Again, the information may turn out to be true but should
remain suspect until it does.
The most useful type of secondary literature follows the convention in
the first part of #1. But even then, it is sometimes appalling how
poorly the writer has understood or analysed information in the primary
source/s adduced.
Best of all is the approach shown by Vance, seeking out primary sources
directly and working out for oneself what can be securely drawn from these.
This newsgroup can be helpful, and in acumen you are already far ahead
of the average genealogy dabbler by coming here and asking sensible
questions.
Peter Stewart