Talk:Ralph Lane

Untitled
Vandalised three times in two days.

Early life and education - Fake Genealogy?
The reason behind the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography stating that the explorer Ralph Lane was of unknown parentage is that no one has discovered an original source linking him to any of the many many different British Lane families. At the time he lived, there would have been more than one person called Ralph Lane, and it is very easy to get them confused.

There was a Ralph Lane who was the son of Ralph Lane of Horton and Hogshaw (descended from the Lane of Orlingbury family) and Maud Parr (cousin of Catherine Parr), however, no-one has found an original record that links him to the explorer. There are numerous genealogists who quote this link but none have ever provided reliable evidence and it is possibly false or even deliberately fake information.

As Wikipedia strives to be a source of fact, not fiction, only statements that are supported by reliable original references should be included in this topic. Genealogy and other websites of dubious quality cannot be trusted; please refer to Wikipedia's guides to reliable references.

I will clean up the statements that are unsupported by original references. Please do not add them again unless you can provide original sources, and not websites and the like.

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wickerlane (talk • contribs) 15:53, 24 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I completely agree. However, several sources do state that he was a son of Maud Parr and Ralph Lane. So I'm a tad confused myself.


 * History of Parliament: Ralph Lane
 * House of Commons: Lane, Ralph
 * The DNB states, "may probably be identified with Ralph, the second son of Sir Ralph Lane (d.1541) of Horton, Northamptonshire, by Maud daughter and coheiress of William lord Parr of Horton and cousin of Catherine Parr, Henry VIII's last queen. (Collins 1768 iii 164) His seal bore the arms of Lane of Horton (Cal State Papers Ireland 15 March 1598-9), and the arms assigned him by Burke quarter these with those of Maud Parr (General Armoury). In his correspondence, he speaks of nephews William and Robert Lane (Cal State Papers Ireland 26 Dec 1592, 7 June 1595), of a kinsman John Durrant (ib) and is associated with a Mr Feilding (ib 23 June 1593), all of whom appear in the Lane pedigree (Blore Hist. and Antig. of Rutlandshire p 169). William Feilding married Dorothy, a daughter of Sir Ralph Lane of Horton, and John Durrant was the husband of Catherine, her first cousin." (DNB: Lane, Sir Ralph (d.1603))
 * Is the genealogy being based solely on the DNB entry? It was written in 1909. The House of Commons was written in 1982, and the History of Parliament is an online entry taken from The History of Parliament: the House of Commons 1509-1558, ed. S.T. Bindoff, 1982. -- Lady Meg (talk) 21:33, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

You are, surely, being over-fastidious. A History of Parliament researcher writing in 1982 will certainly have been aware of the 1909 DNB entry which was unsure of his parentage, and will not have staked his (or her) reputation on misidentifying the Member of Parliament. Moreover, if the article refers to his Parliamentary position and positions in Ireland, and his will refers to other people in the Lane pedigree, you should either disentangle him from the Member of Parliament or accept that there is a primary source (the will). The simple fact is that you are not going to find a "primary source" that proves his parentage. If the HOP biography is to be accepted, he was a second son; he did not marry; there were no baptismal records; any heraldic visitation would have been signed by the eldest son and could only "prove" the identity of the second son by identifying his wife.

The HOP biography refers to letters to Burghley and Cecil which seem to date from the 1560s. Here are primary sources, although not necessarily relating to his parentage.

I accept that a lot of genealogy on Wikipedia is mistaken. But it is not written in stone; it is amendable. The overwhelming evidence (at present) is that his parentage as given in the HOP entry is probably correct.

Markd999 (talk) 21:50, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Here is another source, for the MP's nephew:

http://www.historyofparliamentonline.org/volume/1558-1603/member/lane-william-ii-1553-1618

from which we find that the MP was in custody of lands belonging to the Copleys, relations of the Lanes of Horton and Orlingbury.

Either all references in this article which relate to the MP should be excised (such as his will); or (at least) the article should accept the probability that the Governor is the same as the MP. There are plenty of people on Wikipedia for whom no primary sources exist but who are accepted by all historians as having existed, and whose family relationships are known from secondary sources later on. A secondary source from History of Parliament in 1982 carries more weight than a secondary source in DNB in 1909 (and you are violating your own stated policy by quoting that secondary source). The Governor must have had some military experience and have been close enough to the court to be appointed. Is there another candidate?

Markd999 (talk) 16:53, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

You are also misreading Wikipedia guidelines. Articles should not be based on original research. This article is not. By asking for a primary source for his parentage, and each step of his career, to identify the Knight, the MP, and the Governor, you are asking for original research to be done, when it has already been done. 79.126.234.249 (talk) 00:02, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Ralph Lane
This website http://ncpedia.org/biography/governors/lane, "an online encyclopedia for the state of North Carolina" purports as a fact that Ralph Lane, explorer was the son of Sir Ralph Lane and Maud Parr. More perpetuation of incorrect genealogy. STWright99 (talk) 14:29, 11 June 2013 (UTC)