Reliability--The Visitations by John Lambrick Vivian

Question

Hi everyone,

I was wondering if anyone had experience with the publications of John Lambrick Vivian and the reliability of his published material. Here is the wikipedia link that talks a little about it:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Lambrick_Vivian#Visitations_of_Cornwall

Just looking for any insight/opinions. Thanks!

Answer 1

I find Vivian to be generally unreliable.  Especially his later edition which expands on the families with every bit of information he could find, and is filled with bad guesses.  I am not sure I have ever seen one of his expanded pedigrees which was 100% correct.  I liken it to a modern ancestry.com tree - probably 95% correct but it is that 5% error rate that will throw you off.  

I use Vivian as a guide, but try to confirm every generation with other sources.

Comments

Thanks Joe! That's about what I was expecting, but I don't have any experience with it as a source. I'll continue using it to source unsourced profiles as support for why they might be connected, but I'll avoid adding any new individuals.

---

With any Visitation you have to be a bit dubious about the earlier generations in any family, but Vivian does try to use primary sources such as parish records and wills to confirm details about the genealogies at least in the Cornwall Visitations I have used.

I agree that trying to confirm everything is a good idea.

---

Thanks John!

Answer 2

I don’t mean to disparage Vivian too much.  In many ways, he forms a basis of Devon and Cornwall genealogy.  I definitely use him as a source and I actually would, in general, feel OK about adding wikitree profiles from his works.

However, just know that his work is much more than just a Visitation.  He used every conceivable source he could find to build these pedigrees – from good ones like wills, feet of fines etc., too bad ones like 17^th century secondary sources and family tradition.   So, if you come across something that doesn’t look quite right or conflicts with other sources, just know that Vivian does not represent gospel. 

This is true in general for the printed Visitations.  If you bother to read the introductions to these books, or even just the titles, you will realize just how much has been added on to the actual Visitation statement.  Some closely follow the individual’s statement as to their family history, while others felt free to expand on them.  Vivian, by far, of the printed Visitations, went beyond the actual Visitation.  And so,  just  due to the number of additions is bound to have more errors.

PS:  I maintain a list of the Visitations and other medieval sources I commonly use.  This includes the Visitations by county and by Harleian Society Visitation Series number.  I haven’t looked to update it in a while, so if anyone knows of other internet copies or can fill in missing volumes, I would like to hear from you.

PSS:  I really just wanted to add a reply to John Atkinson rather than a new answer.  However, when I hit that link I did not get any of the tools to imbed links, bold, italicize, control font, etc.  Is that the way it is supposed to work? or did my computer glitch?

Comments

It's a glitch that happens sometimes.  Usually goes away in my experience.

I think what you're seeing is an intermediate stage that should go away straight away, but sometimes the next step is slow or stops altogether.

Answer 3

And the manuscripts themselves aren't above suspicion.  Informants were sometimes forgetful.  Sometimes they turned up with a parchment scroll that they'd just had faked, and the herald copied it all down, even though he recognized the handwriting.

Sometimes they kept their original record and filed a copy - sometimes not a very good copy.

Sometimes the official records got gerrymandered later.  I have a couple of nice lines "documented" in Vis Notts Derbys, in the manuscript, not added by the book editor.  Not family evidence though - they were officially added later to provide the new 1st Baron Clifton with ancestry he didn't have.

In any case, the books are mostly based on copies that escaped from captivity, and the copies have their own history.  Sometimes they passed through several hands and had a lot of dubious additions made.

For Cornwall 1620, Vivian seems to have had the original record, signed by the informants, and transcribed as-is in his first book (1874).  But he does warn in the preface about believing some of it.

Answer 4

I agree with the consensus that Vivian's Visitations are to be used as a guide. He has embellished several pedigrees that I have looked at, especially the Vivian entries. It appears that his (and my) ancestor, Roger Vivian of Camborne was not in fact the son of Hannibal Vivian of Trelowarren as he has stated, but rather Roger was the son of John and Elinor Vivian of Camborne (Cornwall Record Office. Ref. no. PD/7/5).

I'm not sure if he has made a bad assumption, or like a lot of 19th century genealogists looked for the famous ancestry.