* Floreat

[Peter Collier]

What attribute are various FH users using to record that someone was alive at a certain time, if they do not otherwise have a date of birth or death, or a place of residence?

For example, there is a 'John of Ashe' at one end of my wife's tree. I have no dates for him, other than one document which suggests he was alive in 1360. I need something to pin this date to, to record that he was living at that time - "floreat circa 1360" you might say.

[tatewise]

If you have any idea where he resided, even if only a country, then use a Residence fact with Place set for that country, and the Narrative says In 1360 he was resident in England.

Another option is the Physical Description attribute with the value alive, and the default Narrative says He was described as alive in 1360 but you could customise that to say He was alive in 1360.

[jimlad68]

For 'logistical' reasons I give everyone at least an estimated birth date, erring on the side of later, with a note as to how I estimated the date. In most cases this might be only 5 years out, and the most extreme would be say 50 (e.g. an older man marrying a younger woman). This then puts them in a rough relative time frame and helps with things like 'excluding the living' (but when there are so few details, not much would be given away). It is probably a better estimate than FHs automatic system, although that could be a help to working out your estimate.

In your example, what was he doing in 1360 according to the document? If a particular trade you could estimate birth at 1330 and give full details of the document in another fact.

[Peter Collier]

There are no details at all really, Jim. It's a line in a genealogical text with words to the effect of "the family line can be traced back to John of Ashe in 1360" before detailing the descendants of an individual who lived in the early 19th century; just a wee 450-year gap to investigate and fill in!

[DavidNewton]

Although not an answer to your original question the phrase 'John of Ashe' suggests to me that he might be a known historical figure. A quick Google throws up a couple of possibilities: John Stretch of Ashe http://www.historyofparliamentonline.or ... -john-1418 who might be a bit late and John Drake of Ashe https://www.geni.com/people/John-of-Ash ... 8260562368 who apparently was born in 1360.

David

[Gowermick]

Peter,
Following on from Jimlads suggestion, if he was alive in 1360, for FH purposes, you can guesstimate his lifespan as 1360+\- 50 years. With a 100 year lifespan, I don't think you'd be far out.
I too use a similar system to Jimlad, so that chronological listings or time related queries have reasonable outcomes. e.g. It is pointless looking for someone in the 1841 census if they were alive in 1360.

[Peter Collier]

Although not an answer to your original question the phrase 'John of Ashe' suggests to me that he might be a known historical figure. A quick Google throws up a couple of possibilities: John Stretch of Ashe http://www.historyofparliamentonline.or ... -john-1418 who might be a bit late and John Drake of Ashe https://www.geni.com/people/John-of-Ash ... 8260562368 who apparently was born in 1360.

David

I have a fairly good idea who he is, as he is an ancestor both of my wife's grandmother, nee Drake, and also Sir Francis Drake - the one with the ship. Thanks to the famous relative I'm sure the genealogy up to the late 1500s has already been well researched, which will save me a job! For the moment, though, he is just the digital equivalent of a pencil jot in the margin.

[mjashby]

Peter,

"I have a fairly good idea who he is, as he is an ancestor both of my wife's grandmother, nee Drake, and also Sir Francis Drake - the one with the ship. Thanks to the famous relative I'm sure the genealogy up to the late 1500s has already been well researched, which will save me a job! For the moment, though, he is just the digital equivalent of a pencil jot in the margin."

There is one problem with the above statement. Sir Francis Drake married twice, but it's very well documented that he died without issue from either of those marriages, so can have no legitimate descendants.

Mervyn

[tatewise]

Mervyn, there is not necessarily a problem, as Peter's wife's grandmother can still be a descendant of John Drake of Ashe without being a descendant of Sir Francis Drake, especially as he had several brothers.
In other words John Drake of Ashe can be an ancestor of both of them, but Peter's wife's grandmother comes from a different descendant branch than Sir Francis Drake.
Alternatively, she could be descended from an illegitimate issue of Sir Francis Drake.

[Peter Collier]

Indeed, Mike and Mervyn. My wife's grandmother is a first cousin (n-times removed) of Sir Francis, as of course are my wife and our kids. The closest shared ancestor of them all is Sir Francis' father who I think - if memory serves in the absence of my notes - was called Edmund.

John [Drake] of Ashe is much further back in time. In fact, given that nearly 700 years have passed, it's quite possible that most of the people reading this are also descended from him one way or another.

[tatewise]

I performed a Google Search for Family Tree of Sir Francis Drake that produced a number of useful 'hits' and one lead eventually to https://www.geni.com/family-tree/index/ ... 7604916662 which seems quite comprehensive with his father as you say as Edmund and leading back to John (of Ashe & Exmouth) Drake, Esq. Birthdate: circa 1350.