Finished profile for Katherine de Mortimer.

Question

Hello all!

After a good couple of weeks, I think that I've finally finished the profile for Katherine de Mortimer, daughter of Roger de Mortimer (who, along with Queen Isabella, deposed King Edward II) and wife of Thomas de Beauchamp, 11th Earl of Warwick.

This truly has been a bit of a pet project for me; as the team leader for Warwickshire within the England Project, I came across Katherine's profile while going through profiles with location fields in Warwickshire in order to improve them, and what a ride Katherine's taken me on!

If someone could take a look at the profile and check to make sure everything looks okay, it would be greatly appreciated! I want to make sure that I've done Katherine justice before I move on to my next project.

Comments

Thank you for the work on her profile 

---

Hi Amy, really great job on Katherine (de Beauchamp) Mortimer's profile. Nicely written and great photos. Turns out that she's a 1st cousin 18X removed!

---

This descendant appreciates your hard work and believes the biography is very well written and formatted.

---

Beautiful job, Thank You.

Answer 1

It's very good Amy, but as usual I just have a couple of suggestions.

I don't think she would have been co-heiress of her parents?  There were a number of sons, and some of them had children, but I don't have access to Richardson and maybe he has something different?

I'm wondering if somewhere there needs to be an explanation as to why we know her marriage had to be after 22 Feb 1325, namely that on that date, Thomas de Beauchamp had a dispensation to marry someone else.  I think I provided a link to that information in a previous query on Katherine?

Comments

I'm sure I remember reading somewhere during my research that she (and, I vaguely recall, another of her sisters) was a co-heiress. I'll see if I can find where I got that information from.

I'll go ahead and add that in now! I must have forgotten, yikes.

---

Thanks Amy

The eldest son died before his father leaving two daughters, maybe it was them you had read about being co-heiresses?

---

The "co-heiress" statement was in a sentence that cited Richardson's Royal Ancestry (Volume IV, pp 170-172). I checked Richardson & deleted "co-heiress" as he does not say that she is.

Answer 2

BEAUTIFUL! Thanks so much! You did indeed do her justice!

Let me know when you're ready for a Magna Carta Project member to review her Magna Carta trail from son William to the Bigods.

Cheers, Liz

P.S. I'll pull out Volume IV of Richardson's RA later today & add information under the Magna Carta Project section for info from that (I noticed the citation for Royal Ancestry got truncated, and it's only the one now, which is fine,but it seems to include birth location, which I don't think it does).

Comments

I added details to the Magna Carta Project section. Volume IV of Richardson's Royal Ancestry is for her entry under her parents (pp 170-173 MORTIMER #10., 10.v.). Details, to include her 15 children with Thomas de Beauchamp, are in Volume I of Royal Ancestry (her husband's entry, pp 293-296 BEAUCHAMP #11).

---

Thank you, Liz! I'm perfectly happy for the trail to be reviewed whenever someone wants to :)

---

Just took a quick look. The connecting profiles aren't developed enough to post the trail to Base Camp as "ready for review". Let me know if you'd be interested in joining the project & getting the trail ready for review. Cheers, Liz

Answer 3

Very well done, Amy! 15 kids. Amazing she survived in that time period. Gotta hand it to her.

Answer 4

Please forgive an ''aspiring'' pre-1500 badge holder, but I continue to dislike the 'biography' style as opposed to the 'genealogy' style that is being promoted in project led profiles. 

As a lover of history...its great. As a researcher...not so much. Maybe it's just me.

* Source #1, unexpanded ref from Richardson

* Source #2, specific reference not provided, just a page number. Please provide full reference e.g. 1-Jan-1312, etc.  <ref>

* Source #3, citation has no expansion and suggests it's just the biography writer's opinion.

* Source #4, used to prove total number of children? Instead, shouldnt the citations for each child be good enough?

...I will stop there. 

I expected to see surnames with each given name (preserving and documenting variations used), a date, estimate or ? next to each kid for birth/death and short note about who they married, or never married,etc. I would separate known legitimate children from other kids

They dont let me make pre-1500 profiles (yet) but the page I did for Robin yesterday is a good example of all facts, zero fluff. A notable aristocrat without a single unexpanded biography ref.

Again, I am a career QA engineer, and when I get asked to review, I review. Please reach out if you find the feedback helpful, a full review would take a few hours to write up.

Pre-1500 ChangeRequest Gostwick-26 (wikitree.com)

Comments

Hi Chris,

Thank you for noticing Katherine's profile! It certainly took some time to research, given that I was a junior in high school at the time I wrote it :) Thankfully, though, as I am now studying a dual BA/LLB, I've gotten research down to a fine art!

In regards to the source citations, each one was written in accordance to WikiTree guidelines, and in regards to the Richardson citations, following the format set out by the Magna Carta Project.

I appreciate that you may favour a genealogical style of profile rather than a biographical one, but I worked hard to include elements of both genealogy (her parents, her spouse, and her children) as well as contextual elements of her life. Not as "fluff", but because I believe that context is important when we consider historical profiles (notable or otherwise) when we are attempting to learn about their life. For example, I consider Roger's ever-changing role in English society as important to Katherine's life and the circumstances which led to her marriage, because the marriage dispensation was granted in direct relation to a dispute over land between the two.

I do not expect that we'll agree on one side or the other on this, though I fully respect and understand your point of view! The only comment I have left is that, whether a biography aligns with your preferences or not, I hope that if/when you receive your Pre-1500 Certification that you don't intend to make such drastic changes to a fully-fleshed biography like the one on Katherine. After all, differences in opinion aside, this biography for example is fully written with detail and backed-up by sources, and I would feel incredibly disrespected if you then went and changed something which I put a lot of hard work into :)

Regards,

Amelia

---

Lovely reply Amelia! Plenty of room on Wikitree for a difference in style and opinion. I would never change someone else's format unless the profile were truly incorrect or abandoned. On the flip side, feedback was requested.

I am a big fan of contextual elements. My 'research' sections can easily become twice as big as the rest of the profile. Nothing wrong with fluff, when it adds value.

I probably WILL argue with you about writing citations to guidelines...as a tester, I can point to places where cited wikitree guidelines conflict with each other, and where the 'evidence cited' isnt consistently followed. IMHO, every citation should stand completely alone from the text its attached to, including the facts and dates of the citation, not just the publication.

Sorry my feedback wasnt helpful to you! Also sorry your profile wasnt helpful to my research (I am related to the Maud/Roger connection) ! ;)  All the best. Chris

---

Chris, I looked at your Gostwick work. While the information is clear and sourced, I truly hope you don't leave the 'kids all baptized...' 'Kids' is not an appropriate term in any genealogical write up, unless you are talking about goats. Generally, the terms children or issue would be used. Thank you.

Answer 5

Hi Amy, very nicely done. I like the style. It includes a genealogical approach with additional background, 'life' information. Thank you!