Talk:Francis Pigott Stainsby Conant

Remote genealogy

How does it not violate WP:NOTGENEALOGY to mentions a supposed ancestry 800 years before? It tells you precisely nothing that illuminates the subject of the article. (And I will add that John Burke is not reliable for this information - he simply recapitulated the claims of the families, and J. H. Round showed how these traditions were mostly fantasy.) Agricolae (talk) 14:47, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Let me add that the (miscited) source does not claim that the family descends from this Picot. Rather, it says there is an old pedigree that claims that some Pigots so descend, and it does not say that this Picot took part in the Norman Conquest. Given how credulous Burke is, is speaks volumes that even he is not willing to express it as truth, but rather, 'just what some old pedigree says'. However, he goes on to talk about 'The other family of the Pigots" that have a completely different origin, descending from a Pigot de Say (who is not the same as Pigot of Bourne). It is from this other Pigot family that Burke derives the family he is describing. No, this is not even verifiable, let alone reliable. Agricolae (talk) 15:53, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

The ODNB entry for Picot doesn't mention any service at Hastings, nor does Keats-Rohan in Domesday Descendants. Our article on Companions of William the Conqueror also lacks an entry for Picot of Cambridge. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:08, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

I'll also note the lack of an entry for Picot/Pigot/Pigott in Loyd's Origins of Some Anglo-Norman Families. The actual "Companions of the Conqueror" are reasonably securely settled - our article on them is actually reasonably well sourced. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:10, 25 July 2017 (UTC)