Exact link to the Pochins of Barkby Hall

[MacGrigor]

Hello,

My research on my Pochin line seems to have reached an end but I'm not sure where to go from here. My last confirmed ancestor is George Pochin, christened in 1743, in Gilmorton. His parents were Richard and Jane. There is a 1739 marriage in Leicester for Richard and Jane, and it says they're both of Gilmorton. This is where my research ends.

My George did marry in Wigston in 1786, with one of his brothers acting as a witness. His son George was also born in Wigston. As was his daughter Caroline. Etc etc it all links up to my patrilineal line eventually, and my Grandad was born in Wigston in 1928. There is a Richard Pochins christened in Wigston in 1714, so could this be the Richard Pochin that's father of George? And does this line eventually link with the Pochin family of Barkby Hall, or is mine just an unrelated branch?

I'd appreciate any help,

Adam

[BumbleB]

Have you seen this?

http://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/details/c/F19816

[MacGrigor]

No, I haven't! There's a lot of stuff in there!

[dcbnwh]

There is a tree - http://www.stirnet.com/genie/data/british/pp/pochin1.php - which links the families of Wigston and Gilmorton to those of Barkby.

I have attached a truncated version.

David

[MacGrigor]

I have viewed this before, but I don't know if it's reliable. Do you think it's authentic?

[dcbnwh]

Difficult to be certain without knowing how the tree was compiled. There are baptisms for Thomas and John, the sons of George and Elizabeth, in Barkby and I found another link on https://en.geneanet.org/ - extract attached. Needs a subscription for the whole record.

David

[MacGrigor]

Thanks.

[smudwhisk]

The Stirnet website is (or definitely used to be) based on various published pedigrees and the Harleian Society Visitation publications so needs to be taken with the caveat that not all are correct depending on the original information used.  In the case of the published visitations some poetic licence has been taken over connecting separate visitations from different years, some are correctly linked, others are not.  I know of at least two published pedigrees where the further research from original documents we've done on the particular families has shown that the published pedigree isn't correct.   One of these pedigrees has been used on Stirnet.  I don't have a subscription to the site but previously when I flagged up another error with the evidence to the guy that runs the site, he said he'd amend it but never has. 

Like all secondary sources, such as transcripts of parish registers, they should be taken as a guide and the originals checked or further sources found before relying on them.  Its a good site for this as it does pool a lot of different secondary source information on specific families.

[MacGrigor]

Yes, it's always good to maintain a healthy skepticism. Thanks.