What can I trust in William Knight's profile?

Question

I've traced one branch of my ancestry back to William Knight (link below) through his son Philip. I see some anomalies.

* William's profile links to sons William and Philip, yet the will quoted in the biography lists sons William and Nicholas.

* There is no source for the will. There is no direct source for the profile, only "see also."

* On the change page under 15 Aug 2016 is an entry that Philip was removed as a child of William. If so, why is the link to Philip still in William's profile?

* To learn more about Philip and William I used Family Search and found nothing on either (I know this doesn't discredit anything in William's profile).

What can I trust in William's profile?

This is of interest partly because through William I traced my ancestry to King John, William the Conqueror, and Charlemagne. Perhaps those are ancestors I can't rightly claim.

Comments

Interestingly Philip and his son John seem to have died together.

---

It's also odd that when William Knight of Romsey, husbandman, wrote his deathbed will in 1569, he named as executors two sons, of which the elder was under a year old and the other presumably not yet born.

---

The will quoted on Williams profile and that of his parent and ?gparent   seem to exist and can be obtained from Hampshire County Record Office. http://calm.hants.gov.uk/default.aspx

John Knight 11 (Knight -187)

Bio says died Romsey,  9 September  1549 but in location field Surrey. This would seem to be incorrect.

 A John knight died end of 1549. He was a guardian of Romsey Abbey . He  left 6s 8d  for parish church of Romsey (ie the Abbey) . Overseer  of the will a John Ham who was also a guardian

P 270 Records of Romsey Abbey https://archive.org/stream/recordsromseyab00livegoog#page/n368/mode/2up/search/Knyght

This will at the Hampshire Records Office could be his.

Title  Will and inventory of John Knight (Knyght) of Romsey, Hampshire Date        1550

John Knight (111) Knight-186 died in 1560 will quoted on profile

Probable will reference (HRO)Alt Ref No        1560U/073

Title    Will of John Knight (Knyght) of Cupernham, Romsey, Hampshire Date 1560

William Knight ( Knight-193 ) died will prob 1569

Probable will reference (HRO) Alt Ref No   1569A/40

Title Will and inventory of William Knight of Romsey, Hampshire, husbandman Date   1569

There are many other Knight  wills in the archive including perhaps, the will of  Elizabeth, William's widow ( Will and inventory of Elizabeth Knight of Romsey, Hampshire, widow 1570)

Answer 1

You should add  these  tags ; g2g,profiles, England,united_kingdom and research.
Then it will get views XD

Comments

And PGM, since this is all about John Knight of Watertown and Charlestown, allegedly a Watertown proprietor in 1636.

Answer 2

Good to be skeptical. A quick peruse tells me there is definitely something amiss. It will take some digging, but I'm looking

Comments

Paul, Which of the two descendant profiles are you interested in William or Philip?

Philip, sure as ..., doesn't belong. I am taking steps to fix that mess.

---

I trace my ancestry back to Philip. The question I have is can I reasonably trace ancestry on to William (and King John, William the Conqueror, and Charlemagne).

---

I don't think so - Not through the line currently on Wikitree. The William (d.1569) you cited certainly isn't his father. The Philip (1569-1674), I suspect he doesn't exist or certainly not in the form he's in. I think someone stretched/added a generation to make him fit William. I'm going to ask another question in G2G.

---

Here's the new G2G ? https://www.wikitree.com/g2g/511573/philip-knight-of-topsfield-are-his-parents-known

---

Being rather new to genealogy, especially verifying sources, I'd like to see if I have your reasoning right.

You feel Philip isn't the son of William because (1) William's will doesn't mention him and (2) wife Elizabeth's will doesn't mention him either.

You feel Philip (b. 1569) doesn't exist because (1) he lived to 105, (2) he died at the same time as his son John, (3) his wife Margery has the same name as his son Philip (b. 1614).

Did I get all that right?

So I had better stop at John.

---

Yes that's the gist of it. There are other reasons, mostly involved with lack of provable records and evidence.  Philip (b. 1614) looks to be good. There are records for him and his son Philip (b. c 1646). I haven't looked at John d. 1674, but ye for the moment I would stop at him. From what his profile says there seems to be new information on him, but the website is not very forthcoming with the who and why (at least that I found)