Talk:William Brandon (standard-bearer)

Date of birth

I've removed 1426 as his date of birth as this seems implausible (and I couldn't find anything that backed it up). His maternal grandfather Robert Wingfield was only born in 1403; [[1]] suggests his mother wasn't born until 1441 and [[2]] that his parents didn't marry until 1455 (though I don't know how reliable these are). Mrabbits 11:23, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Geneall.net as a source

I have taken a closer look at this site as a source for birtdates and such and I do not think it is trustworthy. It gives an exact date for Elizabeth Bruyn's death but at the same time it lists only one of her five children and only one of her two marriages. It also gives Charles Brandon's year of birth as 1484 as if that were certain, when in fact it is not known when he was born (could have been, 1484, 1485 or even 1486 if he was a posthumous child). For Charles's son Henry, Earl of Lincoln it also lists a wrong year of birth (that of his older brother with the same name). Many genealogy sites are known for having errors and this one seems no exception.--Feuerrabe (talk) 11:07, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Siblings and descendants

Listing descendants 500 years later of the siblings of this man is an exercise in indiscriminate genealogical trivia. After 500 years, these people have a million descendants, but any notability they may have achieved is just coincidence, and does not reflect on the subject of the article, their great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-uncle (or something like that). With this irrelevant information removed, the listing of the siblings loses any rationale for inclusion, except for his brother Thomas, who was (arguably) somewhat notable, and whose relationship bears on William's later actions. Agricolae (talk) 16:54, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi Agricolae. I think it is pointless trying to have a discussion with user LoveActresses, she/he won't answer to anyone on her/his talkpage either, where people have complained about the use of unreliable sources in other edits this user has made. I have objected to the use of the source geneall.net above and I am going to remove the death date of William Brandon's wife and other edits on the basis of that site as I believe the information is not factual. The list of the siblings however was added by me, some months ago (without the descendants though, I find that too much as well). I didn't view the siblings as unnecessary information to be honest, but maybe I got a little too excited when I found a family tree in a book about William Brandon's son Charles, who is a bit of a hobbyhorse for me.--Feuerrabe (talk) 20:55, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't have to answer. Instead, I've accepted fully or partially their arguments and edits in most cases. LoveActresses (talk) 13:24, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

I am just trying to avoid accusations of reflex reversion without explanation - LoveActresses can read it or not. As to siblings, if any of them were the least bit notable, then that is probably worth mentioning, particularly when there is no page for their father (are there any works on the Wardens of the Cinque Ports that would give him sufficient coverage to satisfy notability standards?). In this case I don't see such a notability so they end up being just names and I would rather not encourage those less scrupulous than you about having a good source to similarly add siblings (and descendants, and great grandparents, etc.) to every other page, claiming convention. As to the dates, if other discussions I have had are any indication, it seems I take reliability when it comes to such things too seriously - what does it matter: it looks better having an inaccurate date than none, I am told. You are preaching to the choir on that. Agricolae (talk) 01:21, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

I did add the siblings precisely for the reason that there is no article about the father and I don't think he is notable enough to need one to be honest. His main office was that of marshal of the King's Bench Prison which had been in the family since 1457, but as far as I can see there is no list of officeholders for that and to my knowledge and according to this list he was not Warden of the Cinque Ports. I would have preferred having the siblings mentioned in William Brandon's article simply because there is no other place for them and other than wikipedia there is barely any way for people interested in the family to find information on it, except false information elsewhere on the internet. (This site for example lists William Brandon's brothers Thomas and Robert as his sons in addition to a fictional son Richard.) I certainly don't insist on their inclusion, but I think it is information worth knowing and this article is the only place where it can be added. I think I will add William's illegitimate daughters though, their existence says a lot about him as a person. ;-)--Feuerrabe (talk) 11:14, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I was misremembering that Cinque Ports connection - that was someone else. William was also Marshall of the King's Bench, Marshall of the Marshalsea, M.P. (Shoreham, 1467/8; Surrey 1478) and J.P. of Suffolk, and Norfolk. He was the primary focus of at least one published scholarly article, G. Andrews Moriarty, "The Brandons", New England Historical and Genealogical Register, vol. 103, pp. 102-107, and also receives an entry in History of Parliament, 1439-1509, vol. 1, p. 102 (although this appears to be paraphrased from the former). One specific study and an entry in another biographical compendium is coming close, but I don't know - there are certainly articles on people with a lot less claim, but 'there are worse' is not exactly the strongest argument in favor of notability. Agricolae (talk) 18:15, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, in that case he might be noteworthy after all. I just found a footnote in Steven Gunn's book on Charles Brandon, where he remarks that there is a 'fuller treatment of Charles Bandon's grandfather, father, and uncles" in "The Life and Career of Charles Brandon, duke of Suffolk, c. 1484-1545", his Oxford University D.phil thesis, 1986, pp. 1-8. I can't take a look at that though because the next available book from where I am is in the British Library.--Feuerrabe (talk) 18:19, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, good luck with that, depending on the institution, dissertations can be almost impossible to get hold of. That being said, the Wikipedia notability rules say the individual needs significant coverage, not that all of the sources giving that coverage need to be easy to consult, so this would be another point for notability. Agricolae (talk) 02:04, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Just because you oppose geneall, that means little, specially since it's the largest project of its kind in its country, with more than a million entries. LoveActresses (talk) 09:18, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

No. Geneall is not the largest project of its kind. There are numerous such projects with more than a million entries, and none of them are reliable by Wikipedia standards. Further, Wikipedia was never intended to be a genealogical database. Agricolae (talk) 10:33, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Read better, it's the largest of its kind in its own country. Beside, it was part of a larger European project - Genea España, Genea France, Genea Britain - that was forfeited, remaining only one, which took the place of the others not iniciated. Read here: http://www.geneall.net/U/article.php?id=137 . Should they pay for being left alone? LoveActresses (talk) 11:45, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

What are you going on about? It is not a WP:Reliable source. Agricolae (talk) 12:02, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a genealogical database because is a database dedicated to all the areas of knowledge. Isn't its purpose to gather all the knowledge in the world? If so, them you're just a History eraser. I'm going on about the fact that you're a nobody diminishing a work of the magnitude and the hardship of geneall. Since I know one thing or two about the "five pillars of wisdom of wikipedia", I know you, and others, despite deserving a lawsuit and worse, shield yourselves behind that "you can't sue wikipedia or on wikipedia" thing, and that's how you keep smudging good people and their work. It might not be a "reliable source" under the chriteria of wikipedia, but on itself, in the outside world, it's a reliable source, and there is nothing you can do about it, because you and wikipedia can't dictate logic nor other people. I rest my case. LoveActresses (talk) 12:47, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Please add Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:No personal attacks to your reading list. And GeneaNet shouldn't be considered reliable source inside or out - it is a tool, not a source. Agricolae (talk) 13:17, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

That's what I was referring exactly, those two. Or are you saying that I was attacking you? I didn't attack, I was merely stating a fact, that unfortunately we can't libel anyone. You're susceptible, which is surprising when you vilely attack people who did so many and fine works. It's a tool. So? Will its information be less accurate? Is the author's work in vain? LoveActresses (talk) 13:22, 19 October 2010 (UTC) Fine, it's a bad site, nothing I can say will move you. Either I get someone else to back me up or you'll keep erasing like a looney... Don't bother, I won't insist. LoveActresses (talk) 13:47, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

This is not really the place for this discussion, but do you see the word 'personal' in front of attacks? Calling a source unreliable is not a personal attack on the compiler, nor is it vile, particularly when it is accurate. Calling an editor a nobody, or comparing then to a looney is a personal attack, even if you think it is accurate. Such behavior can lead to sanctions. Agricolae (talk) 14:11, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Source for Bruyn information

Complete Peerage covers the Bruyns because Elizabeth's g-g-g-grandfather was summoned to Parliament by Ed II, and hence by modern doctrine became Lord Brun and his heir could theoretically petition to be seated as Lords. For this reason, in trying to live up to its name the source traces them down to Elizabeth and her sister, when the any peerage created would have passed into abeyance. See [3]. As I said in my edit comment, that doesn't mean it belongs in this article, but it is appropriately referenced. Agricolae (talk) 02:41, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for clarifying that. I apparently was looking at the wrong edition and could not find any reference to any of these people on the pages given in the reference. I don't think however that so much information in this article is necessary at all, it just clutters it up. As far as his wife goes the year they married would contribute and perhaps her parents' names, but naming her first husband and his parents is completely going too far.--Feuerrabe (talk) 10:30, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

That's a call I will leave to you. Just didn't want it deleted for the wrong reason. Agricolae (talk) 14:47, 18 December 2010 (UTC)