Profile Changes

Question

I'm trying to make sense of the major chages made recently to this proifle, insofar as parentage and the removal of Margaret (Hall) Bacon and other relationships. The cited sources point to more than just Baldwin. Is the editor saying that all of the sources are invalid?. I feel if someone is relying on facts to make significant changes to a profile that they should be citing where the information is coming from, otherwise its speculation and subjective. Lastly, providing a source would make it a lot easier for others to follow the rationale of the changes made instead of scratching their head and trying to figure it out, its like missing the last piece of the jigsaw puzzle. I would like the sources to be brought forward that discredits Baldwins Research as mentioned by the profile editor, and the parentage resestablished if same cannot be provided. Is this approoriate to ask ?

This is a very credible source and I feel its sufficient enough of a source:

https://archive.org/details/baconalliedfamil00baco/page/80/mode/2up

Comments

Matthew, Thomas' profile as it originally existed was based on speculation. There were no BMD records, wills, or land records to support the connection of his parents (John and Agnes) or several previously attached children. The profiles that were detached were detailed in the research notes. If evidence is found that any of the disconnected children were actually Thomas and Joan's, they can easily be reconnected.

Pre-1500 profiles on WikiTree are very often connected to the wrong ancestors. IMO, it's much better to disconnect false lineages than to perpetuate incorrect genealogy.

Thank you to Nic, Helen and Vance for your research and finding evidence that Thomas was the son of William. I've added new profiles for William and his wife Isabella. Apologies for my delay in responding ... I've been offline for the last 10+ days.

Please feel free to edit these profiles as needed. I will look into them further eventually.

---

Thank you Tracy. So, just so Im clear on Anjous involvement in the Bacon Fraudulent Lineages,  Baldwins 1915 publication and the Burkes Landed Gentry and Kimbers Barotenage are all credible sources as it pertains to the Bacon Family, or just the information relating to [[Thomas Bacon - Bacon 390]]?

Answer 1

In looking over this profile, it appears that the 1915 Bacon Genealogy by Baldwin has been questioned.  I would get my hands on the 1936 Bartlett article that is cited. If you don't have a membership to NEHGS/AmericanAncestors.org, perhaps you could ask someone who does to send you a copy of the article.

But I do see a clue in the 1915 genealogy itself: there is reference to research done by "Anjou". Gustave Anjou produced a large number of "genealogies" that included a mix of fact and complete fiction. You can read more about him at wikipedia:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gustave_Anjou

So if Anjou had anything to do with the creation of the pedigree that was inserted into the 1915 work, then, yes, the claims in the book should be questioned and independently verified. I would wager that the 1936 Bartlett article describes an attempt to do just that and was unable to find any independent evidence that the 1915 claims were true.

Comments

The will Thomas's father (see Nic's find in his reply) shows his father to be William and  not John married to Agnes d of Thomas Cockfield (the couple mentioned  in Kimber's Baronetage )

It's the will of a husbandman not that of the  son of gentry.

 It looks to be typical Anjou,  when paid  to research the medieval  English ancestry of this family,  he inserted a real person into a known lineage.  (according  to one  paper,  there is no evidence that Anjoy  even  left the US to visit England during the period of his 'researches' http://Gustave Anjou - Forger of American Genealogies https://digitalcommons.augustana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2425&context=swensonsag)  

The Jean Dean Bacon book cited above is mentioned in a post on the  Anjou frauds  here https://www.genealogy.com/forum/general/topics/gen/37674/

---

Since Gustave Anjou touched this person's data, it means that every single fact associated with him requires extra scrutiny and documentation, because of the suspicion of Anjou's fraud.  The profile should be categorized with an indication of Anjou's fraud.

Answer 2

Thomas was the son of William Bacon of Helmingham. The evidence for this is in William's will, which was proved in the Consistory Court of Norwich in 1492. A copy is available on on FamilySearch. The will is in Latin, but the key details are:

• Written 20 January 1491/2
• Testator described as William Bacon of Helmingham in the Diocese of Norwich
• Wife Isabelle
• Son Robert
• Son Thomas
• Executors are son Thomas Bacon and Geoffrey Style of Ashbocking
• Proved 4 April 1492 in the Consistory Court of Norwich

Comments

I agree. 

Of significance is the land at Julkeyns and Skoldings (about 3/4 of the page down on p 2 of will https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:3Q9M-CS12-H3ZN-1?i=272

This same property is mentioned in the partial transcript of Thomas's will on p 81 of the Bacon book cited above. https://archive.org/details/baconalliedfamil00baco

There is a translation of this will together with one written by John Bacon father of (a) William written in 1450, proved 1451 ( John bequeaths a messuage in Helmyngeham to William,  but he doesnt locate it. )

https://www.genealogy.com/forum/surnames/topics/bacon/3900/

---

Good find. Here he is in Common Pleas in 1483: William Bakon, of Helmyngham, husbandman
Index
http://aalt.law.uh.edu/Indices/CP40Indices/CP40no883Act.htm
Original, first entry
http://aalt.law.uh.edu/AALT3/E4/CP40no883/aCP40no883fronts/IMG_0772.htm
 

---

Check out this source which was published long before Gustave Anjou or Baldwin.

https://archive.org/details/baronetageofengl01wott/page/n33/mode/1up?q=Bacon