Question

Can Genealogics.org be placed on the approved Sources for Pre-1500 profiles?

Below is a note from the Genealogist General who approved my Life Membership in the Order of the Crown of Charlemagne in August 2019. I was approved off a new found & proven Royal Gateway Ancestor, Juan Montes Vigil. He was the first Spanish Royal Gateway Ancestor accepted for membership into North American Lineage Societies in 2019.

I will post the line below the web site link. Since 2019 I have used this line for Membership into other organizations as The Military Order of The Crusades, Descendants of Templar Knights, Order of Three Crusades 1096-1192 and the The Order of the Merovingian Dynasty. All the above hold the highest standards of Genealogy for Membership.

 *Note on Ancestry from Genealogist General of the Order of the Crown of Charlemagne Nathan W. Murphy, AG, FASG.

 "Recommended royal genealogy website : Genealogics.org https://genealogics.org/index.php

This database, created by the late Leo van de Pas of Australia, is one of the most reliable royal genealogy databases available online. Ian Fettes of Australia and my colleague Leslie Mahler, FASG, of the United States are continuing his project.

Leslie Mahler has worked with noted royalty specialists Douglas Richardson and Gary Boyd Roberts to establish several new royal descents that they have published in their books.

Simply search for a name like Charlemagne or Neville to see pedigrees and descendancy charts. This database isn't flawless, but it can lead you to many sources that will help you prepare your OCC applications.

--Nathan W. Murphy, AG, FASG, Genealogist General Order of the Crown of Charlemagne"

Lineage of Capitán Francisco Montes Vigil (1665)

https://genealogics.org/pedigree.php?personID=I00760108&tree=LEO&fbclid=IwAR1LqCZlcp4HuLoG2PjWTxDEp7SQlP8QcXW6OO40nRWHjFPVPcA8NrZ-nc4

Answer 1

The Genealogics website is currently listed in the Pre-1500 Resources Page under the heading 'Quality Websites - Use with Caution'

Although I have the greatest respect for the late Leo van de Pas, and those people continuing to add to and edit the website, given it's reliance on secondary sources, I don't see any reason to give it any greater emphasis as a pre-1500 source. Particularly as we would like to aim to use primary sources where possible for these profiles.

Comments

Leo always admitted and called himself a "gather" and not a "hunter" by which he meant that he created his database from many secondary sources, but did not actually do any real original research.  This, of course, allowed errors to slip into his database. Genealogics had the advantage, however, of Leo continuously accepting suggestions and consciously making corrections. He also was very active on soc.genealogy.medieval and so he had many very good medieval genealogists helping to make improvements.

Still, Genealogics is the personal website of a single individual, based primarily on secondary sources. The "Quality Website - Use with Caution" designation I feel is the correct way to describe and to use it.

---

Slightly off topic but when I clicked on the hyperlink soc.genealogy.medieval as written it is a thread that I don't think I am allowed to write about on here. I was just trying to bookmark another useful site... if you have a moment to explain where to navigate that site or the intended name for the site it- it would mean a lot for someone (me) working toward their pre-1500 certification.

Cheers! Becky Elizabeth

( It may take a moment to respond as I am going to quickly clear my cache, device check my phone and restart it just in case I did click on the incorrect place)

---

I see that soc.genealogy.medieval is currently receiving spam from advertisers of adult sites.  It is very unfortunate.  They will do the same to 1000s of random discussion groups.  As I understand it, SGM is an unmoderated forum linked to a usenet newsgroup in the background.  What this means is there is no one to remove the offensive posts or ban posters.  I am sure Google Groups could do it, but they choose not to. It is unfortunate, because the archives of SGM has 25 years of great content from some of the world's best medieval genealogists. This spam will only cause people to shy away from an otherwise fantastic resource.  You have 2 options: 1. Just ignore it.  2. You can click on the link, in the upper right corner click the 3 dots and report the message as spam. This will block the message from appearing to you.

---

Yes it is in fact a usenet group, a remnant of the older times of the internet. Google is just a typical modern way to see it.

---

Thanks You!

  I should've looked around but I am currently using my phone for all internet activity and with the smaller screen and lack of super tight security I usually click away when I see anything like that as I get enough SPAM and none of it ever makes since as to why they chose me- short answer: I will go back to the site and report a few, but more importantly, search for the content.

  Again, I really appreciate you taking the time to reply and explain by seeing it how I did...

   Cheers!

       Becky Elizabeth

       WikiTree ID: Simmons-11603

Answer 2

I notice it is already listed at https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Space:Pre-1500_Resource_Page I am not sure if it is the best category, but at least it can be used. (But I don't think that that list is meant to be comprehensive.)

This is a website which has been fairly closely related also to SGM discussions, and it therefore gets criticized and updated - which is important.

No genealogy website it perfect but this one may sometimes be right where some of our approved sources are wrong. MEDLANDS, which we do recommend, certainly comes in for more criticism on SGM.

Comments

In general, I feel the people at SGM are overly harsh on Medlands, and overly kind to Genealogics. The difference between the two databases is Medlands is highly sourced and uses primary sources, while Genealogics is built primarily on secondary sources not all of which are reliable.

---

You probably know this, but for others, I don't necessarily disagree with what you say. Anyway, I would say both are useful and neither are perfect.

---

"Anyway, I would say both are useful and neither are perfect."

This is certainly true.

Answer 3

I don't see why genealogics.org should be relied upon as a source, especially for pre-1500, as it's essentially just another family tree site of higher quality.  Some of the individuals and facts are sourced, some aren't.  If a valid source is cited for a person, find and use that source instead.  Nothing wrong with using it as an additional or "see also" source.

Comments

My line is Sourced there with Original period Sources. It is recommended by a fellow of FASG.

---

I did see that, but that much detail and citations to primary/original sources aren't that common on Genealogics.  

Your question also states that the database isn't flawless but can lead to many sources, which to me implies that it shouldn't be used as a sole source.

---

During the Edward III descents project we used it as a cross check for example. In the perfect world we'd avoid using any secondary source without another to compare to. Even better is of course to have all the primary sources laid out on the table. Of course that's not always practical but bit by bit we can work towards this ideal.

Answer 4

I was not familiar with this website, so I went and looked up several of my ancestors who "might" have been gateway ancestors, but have never been proven. Included are William Strother and Robert Dudley, both of Virginia. The proof the owner claimed for Robert Dudley was one of the volumes of the Marquis de Ruvigny, but I know for a fact that is not so. I bought the volume myself  years ago, but was disgusted to learn that, although claiming the complete Dudley lines, the tree stopped at least two generations before reaching the Dudleys of Virginia. I vividly remember penciling in where I thought the line might connect to the one in the book, but that by no means proves anything. I ended up giving the book away for charity. The story regarding William Strother is a rat's nest. I understand that no website is perfect by any means, and no one has a monopoly on absolute truth. But just these two lines should have been obvious… The Strother family society did yDNA studies years ago which disproved a connection to the Strother family in England. It turned out that the American Strother family was closer to the Anstruther family, but this was publicized years ago. I'm sure the website has quite a lot of good information but as with all websites, caveat emptor.