« Reply #7 on: Sunday 20 May 18 16:01 BST (UK) »
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.
(KENT) Lingwell, Rayment (BUCKS) Read, Hutchins (SRY) Costin, Westbrook (DOR) Gibbs, Goreing (DUR) Green (ESX) Rudland, Malden, Rouse, Boosey (FIFE) Foulis, Russell (NFK) Johnson, Farthing, Purdy, Barsham (GLOS) Collett, Morris, Freebury, May, Kirkman (HERTS) Winchester, Linford (NORTHANTS) Bird, Brimley, Chater, Wilford, Read, Chapman, Jeys, Marston, Lumley (WILTS) Arden, Whatley, Batson, Gleed, Greenhill (SOM) Coombs, Watkins (RUT) Stafford (BERKS) Sansom, Angel, Young, Stratton, Weeks, Day