Talk:Adam de Port (d. c. 1133)

Parentage

Sanders and Keats-Rohan do not call him the nephew of either Hugh or Hubert - they disagree but both say he was a son of their preferred parent. You cannot change sourced information to say something that the source does not support. You've been warned about this in the past... please cease. Ealdgyth (talk) 20:23, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

You have reversed Sanders English Baronies p. 57 which is a reliable source, regardless of what you said, they are valid sources and no one source is deemed right by anyone here Pipera (talk) 23:59, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

You have reversed The genealogist by Selby, Walford Dakin, 1845-1889; Harwood, H. W. Forsyth; Murray, Keith W Publication date 1900 https://archive.org/details/genealogist1619selb/page/n36/mode/1up?q=Hubert which is a reliable source for this person, regardless of whom originated this article others have a right to come into the article under open source and add what they have to say to the article.

https://www.google.com.au/books/edition/Domesday_People_Domesday_book/uiUScMEkEGoC?hl=en&gbpv=1

Hubert De Port Norman, from Port-en-Bessin, Calvados, cant. Ryes (Loyd, 79), likely to have been a brother or other close relative of Hugh de Port, a Domesday tenant-in-chief. Hubert's Domesday holdings were modest. If, as is likely, Adam I de Port (d.1130/3) was his son, then they were later augumented by lands acquired by Adam in Wiltshire, Dorset and Herefordshire during the reign of Henry I. Ancestor of the Ports of Mapledurwell and Kington (Sanders, 57; Comp. Peer. xi, 316-26). Round distinguished between Port of Basing and their undoubted collaterals Port

Do you want to respond to this.

Information

First - "Hubert de Port [4] [5] [6] Mapledurwell as stated in K. S. B. Keats-Rohan (1999) that there is a relationship between himself and Hugh de Port, this has yet to be identified, they appear in the Domesday Book and recorded as having lands in Hampshire England. They continue to ascertain that he maybe the father of Adam de Port." this is indeed ungrammatical and does not come close to matching the Manual of Style. The first sentence is about Hubert de Port and Hugh de Port and it is unclear who the "they" is in the last phrase. The second sentence, again ... who is the "they" referred to - Hugh or Hubert or Keats-Rohan? There are verbs missing and other issues also with this paragraph.

None of the sources support the statement in the article that there was a relationship between Hubert de Port and Hugh de Port. Nor do any of them mention Keats-Rohan. Only this source (which is from 1911 and is part of the Victoria County History) mentions Adam de Port, but it does not mention any relationship (certain or conjectured) between Adam and Hubert. The other two sources Open Domesday for Hubert of Port and Open Domesday for Mapledurwell do not mention Adam or Keats-Rohan at all.

And sources go AFTER the information they support, so the three sources given here technically only support the "Hubert de Port" part (which is contradicted by the Open Domesday one using Hubert OF Port)

Second - "This lineage of the de Port family end with Adam de Port (d 1174) see [13], the lands passing to Alan Basset, then to Hugh Despenser the Elder and Hugh Despenser the Younger.The lands were traced to Thomas Despenser, 1st Earl of Gloucester, the land was later in the possession of George Nevill, 4th Baron Bergavenny who then granted the land to William Frost of Avington." This also has problems - (punctuation goes before references, spaces between sentences, etc) and is utterly unrelated to the subject of this article - Adam de Port, who died around 1133. It is again sourced to this source, which is Maria Miller? Who are they, and why are they a reliable source? It also doesn't actually support the information given (we'll leave aside the issue that the source is again, not actually where it needs to be at the end of the information it's supposedly supporting). The source actually says that in 1172 Adam de Port forfeited his possessions - without mentioning a death date or stating that the de Port lineage ended with him. Nor is Thomas Despenser named as 1st Earl of Gloucester. Nor is George Nevill mentioned at all.

But this leaves aside the issue that none of this information is due in an article about Adam de Port who died around 1133.

I've once more removed it. Please do not restore this information and please learn how to use reliable sources properly and format and write things properly for an encyclopedia. Ealdgyth (talk) 13:48, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

I have a Masters of Education I know how to write. Pipera (talk) 19:00, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Further I am related to the people you have removed, and they it within my family tree and I know what I am talking about. Pipera (talk) 19:02, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

This line goes nowhere and there are no descendants to speak of for this lineage, whereas I am from Hugh de Port, from both of his children Emma and Henry de Port, and I know these families as I have been studying them for well over 15 years. The line converges into two sisters Alice married into the St John line and Eleanor her sister who is also my ancestor as well. Pipera (talk) 19:14, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Being related to someone does not automatically make you an expert on them nor make your edits properly sourced and written in wikipedia terms. Wikipedia is not a genealogical website - we do not present this sort of information. WikiTree may be where you want to contribute, if that is your interest. Ealdgyth (talk) 19:16, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

I would never reference as an academic any source that is not reliable, I would think that if a site that was written by an author and not academically challenged is a valid source.

Further, being a direct descendant of someone does make an academic argument more substantial, and more credible for this site. Wikipedia is a source of genealogical sources, and what I have presented is academic correct.

I do not need WikiTree to back anything I have stated here.

You state that this is a not a genealogical website, I ascertain you are incorrect and need to rethink that hypothesis, when it is a source of genealogical source of data for all concerned. Pipera (talk) 00:59, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

This lineage of the de Port family end with Adam de Port (d 1174) see [13], the lands passing to Alan Basset, then to Hugh Despenser the Elder and Hugh Despenser the Younger.The lands were traced to Thomas Despenser, 1st Earl of Gloucester, the land was later in the possession of George Nevill, 4th Baron Bergavenny who then granted the land to William Frost of Avington.

Being related to the above I strongly disagree, and this is traceable here at Wikipedia and the links stated this in correct chronological order, having traced these generations for over 15 years and have a fair bit of knowledge in a all families concerned. Pipera (talk) 01:03, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

TS - Records created or inherited by the Treasury Solicitor and HM Procurator General's Department

Division within TS - General and miscellaneous records of the Treasury Solicitor and HM Procurator General

Browse records of other archives | The National Archives https://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/browse/r/h/C14084

TS 161795-1969Treasury Solicitor, HM Procurator General and Law Officers' Department: Peerage Cases: Petitions and Papers

Papers (otherwise in LO) concerned with claims to peerages titles and their privileges, mainly heard by the House of Lords Committee for Privileges, which had accrued in the Law Officers' Department and the Treasury Solicitor's Office.

The records include petitions, pedigrees, proofs of claims (e.g. certified copies of public records, etc), briefs for the law officers, correspondence, notes and observations, minutes of evidence put before the Committee for Privileges, and copies of the committee's reports. It also includes some papers concerning claims to the offices of Lord Great Chamberlain and Deputy Lord Great Chamberlain, and some documents involving Dr J H Round as historical adviser to the Crown 1912 to 1922, and Mr Henry Cooke, a solicitor, who acted as the Treasury Solicitor's agent.

Care to respond to Dr J H Round and the removal of his pedigree chart from this site. Dr J H Round as historical adviser to the Crown 1912 to 1922. Pipera (talk) 09:12, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

I have no idea what the above is supposed to be arguing. Nothing is sourced to Round. Nor was any chart by Round removed from this article that I can see. Ealdgyth (talk) 13:31, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Edits on 9 Dec 2024

"Adam was the son of either Hugh de Port Lord of Basing [2] [3] or Hubert de Port Lord of Mapledurwell [4] [5] [6] states that they are presumably a brother of other kinsman of Hugh de Port Lord of Basing. See the Basset Descent and the Despencer Descent Onward regarding land ownership of Mapledurwell. [7]"

The [3] reference Open Domesday for Basin does not mention Adam so it does not support the information preceding it. The [4] reference Open Domesday for Mapledurwell also does not mention Adam, so it does not support the information preceding it. The [6] source also does not mention Adam and, in fact, does not mention Hubert either so it does not support the information that preceeds it. The [7] source [1] states "The names of the descendants of Hubert de Port, lords of the honour of Kington, who must not be confused with the successors of Hugh de Port, lords of the honour of Basing, can be ascertained from charters to Andwell Priory now in the possession of Winchester College. At the beginning of the 12th century Adam de Port was the lord of Maplederwell and founded the priory of Andwell in the latter half of the reign of Henry I, granting to it with various priviliges 7 pounds 14s. worth of his land of Nately, which up to this time had formed part of his manor of Maplederwell. He was succeeded by his son Roger de Port, who granted to the monks the mill and the miller of Andwell, and was in his turn followed by his son Adam de Port, who in 1172 was outlawed for treason and forfeited all his possessions." None of this supports the information preceding footnote 7, which, it must be noted, makes no sense: "Hubert de Port Lord of Mapledurwell states that they are presumably a brother of other kinsman of Hugh de Port Lord of Basing." this is nonsense - Hubert is stating something? brother OF other kinsman?

Lastly, reference [13], which is utterly badly formatted does not say that Hubert was the father of Adam, merely that Adam was a descendant of Hubert. The little set of dotted lines between Hubert and Adam means a descendancy relationship that is not clear. This is borne out by the previous page where it is stated, "The obvious inference, we shall find, is that Hubert de Port, who held Mapledurwell in 1986, as his solitary English manor, was the ancestor of this line of Port." Note that this SHOULD be formatted as a journal article. Ealdgyth (talk) 14:10, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Pipera (talk)

Name: Hubert of Port https://opendomesday.org/name/hubert-of-port/ is the same person you are removing the reference to I can see no academic reason why the reversal.

Also, in regard to Hugh de Port he is represented in the doomsday book as well.

So why the reversal of a known historic fact.

There's no need to give titles for Hugh/Hubert in an article on Adam, especially when they are linked to their own articles. (And I will note that I don't see that Mapledurwell is given as a possible feudal barony in Sanders, so calling Hubert "Lord of Mapledurwell" is somewhat iffy anyway.) This article should cover Adam, and only mention others as they impact on Adam - we list the possible fathers for Adam as there is not agreement on who his father was. And you've been editing for years - can you learn to format articles properly? References go right after punctuation, there isn't spaces between refs and punctation or other refs. Please learn to actually format the references in the style of the article - not some weird copy-past from archive.org. References should give the author of the reference, the title of the work/journal article, the journal title if its a journal article, the publisher and location if its a book, and the original year of publication. Journal titles go in quotation marks, titles of books are in italics. All of this is elementary editing and it isn't other editor's job to try to puzzle out your references. Sentences end with a period. Old family histories from the 19th century are not reliable sources. Random websites are not reliable sources. Information needs to be supported by reliable sources. Ealdgyth (talk) 22:42, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Three tilde signatures should be four and at the end of the comment. User:Ealdgyth is correct here (and all over this talk page); User:Pipera should rely less on their own WP:Original synthesis and self-reported expertise, and more on basic text formatting and heeding social norms. "...I know what I'm talking about" is never a reliable source for information on English Wikipedia. Pipera, your edits on the page (and even on this talk page) border on refusal to get the point. BusterD (talk) 11:58, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Pipera (talk) It is noted that both Adam and Hugh de Port were living at Basingstoke at the time of the Domesday Book recording. It is also noted that there is at least a 12-year gap between Hugh and Adams age Hugh being the eldest, it is noted that in the record on Domesday that Hubert de Port name precedes William de Percy in the Domesday Book which I have read. William de Percy married Emma de Port the daughter of High de Port and Orenge, their son was Alan de Percy, his son was Willam de Percy, he had a daughter Agnes she married Joscelin de Louvain 4th Baron Percy son of Godfried van Leuven-Brabant hertog van Neder-Lotharingen his 1/2 sister Adelheid van Leuven Queen of England married Henry I King of England and William d'Aubigny 1st Earl of Arundel.