Talk:Katherine Banks (1627-1686)

Much of the information on this page about Katherine Banks is incorrect. It is based on this article packed with doubtful information:  http://www.courier-herald.com/bookmark/5022758/blog+entry-KATHERINE+BANKS. The only true and widely documented facts of which I'm aware are the following:

- Katherine's birth name and year of death (Her father is identified by the College of Arms in London as "_____ Banks of Canterbury, Kent"--confirming Canterbury as his home, but not necessarily his daughter's birthplace.  While suspected, it is not confirmed that he was Christopher Banks.)

- the names and years of death for her two husbands, Joseph Royall and Henry Isham

- the names (but not the birth years) of most of her children, except Phoebe Isham, for whom there is no conclusive evidence of parentage

- the descent from Katherine of Thomas Jefferson, John Marshall, and Edith Wilson

Almost certainly _untrue_ claims in the newspaper article that are repeated in this Familypedia article include:

- claims that Katherine was an ancestor of presidents John F. Kennedy and Jimmy Carter; authors William Faulkner, Willa Cather, Robert Penn Warren, Ray Badbury; and Booker T. Washington (ALL of Kennedy's ancestors, for instance, were from Ireland, most if not all as recently as the mid to late 19th century.  How he could have been descended from an Englishwoman in Colonial Virginia is unimaginable.  It requires one to believe that Kennedy had English ancestors who went to Virginia, then at some point relocated to Ireland before returning to America.  If it needs saying, there isn't a shred of evidence of such ancestral manoeuvers.)

- the claim that "it has been said that Katherine ... was the wealthiest woman in America" (who, one might wonder, would have been keeping tabs on the richest Americans in the 1600s!)

- the story of Katherine's luxurious English coach

- the story of Katherine being a much-courted mandolin-player

One fascinating claim that may be true is that Katherine and Joseph Royall may have been cousins; but, of this claim too, there is as yet no generally accepted evidence.

The COURIER HERALD article is a case study in the problem of amateur genealogical documentation. Many claims are bandied about. Not a shred of evidence is presented for any of them. Some happen to be true and are easily documented by multiple sources via a simple Google search. Other claims--like the laundry list of unlikely descendants repeated above--tax the imagination ... or at least leave one wondering why, when, and by whom such a claim was originated.

So please, folks ... please do not accept one hyperbolic newspaper article that gives no citations whatsoever as serious evidence of anything. Consult primary documents and/or _authoritative_ secondary ones to confirm claims such as the ones made in this article before taking them seriously.

And, if you happen to be someone who has evidence to support any of the doubtful claims noted above, please share that evidence via Familypedia.wikia.com, Ancestry.com, and FamilySearch.org. If you're inclined to share documentation, I'd be delighted to hear from you personally at keithlance(at)comcast(dot)net.

One of the most regrettable practices in amateur genealogy is inadequate or non-existent documentation. It's difficult to decide which is a greater disservice to others:  having documentation and withholding it, or cavalierly repeating any entertaining claim without having any evidence of its accuracy.

 Read more:The Courier Herald - KATHERINE BANKS