The D'Arcy Archive
Who built this, and what it is willing to say

About

An evidence-first archive of the D'Arcys of Brisbane, kept to the same method as five sibling archives — and the rules it will not break to make a better story.

This archive exists because a family had a tree that reached the kings of Denmark and nobody had ever asked it a hard question. It is one of six, kept to the same method and by the same hand. The other five →

What it is willing to say, and what it is not

  • A family tree is not a source. It is a set of assertions. Of 639 entries in the register, 166 rest on a document; the rest rest on somebody's tree, and every page says which is which. The register →
  • A null result is a result. Every source read and found empty is published, so the next person does not repeat the search. What has been read →
  • Errors stay on the page where they were made. 13 so far, each with what caused it. Corrections are never made silently. The errors →
  • Living people are not published at all. Not hidden, not gated — absent from the build. The rule withholds 2,034 people across the tree, including their names wherever they would appear as somebody's spouse, parent or child. How the rule works →
  • A better story is not a reason. Two aristocratic descents have been taken off this family — one unevidenced, one disproved — and both are still set out in full rather than deleted. Both grafts →

What it holds

people published473 of a tree that also holds 2,034 living people, none of them here
named in records118 including 90 who are not relatives at all
register entries639 166 from a document, 473 from the tree
sources read77 34 yields, 28 nulls, 15 unreachable
errors corrected in public13 plus 6 inherited from the tree
generations it will defend≈7 not the twelve the tree claims
Audited 13 September 2026

This archive had drifted to the wrong side of the world

It exists to test a British ancestry: a Gloucestershire yeoman, a Staffordshire weaver, a Royal Engineer at Chatham. Of the 166 records it now holds, 95 come from Australian sources and 70 from British ones.

Where the evidence comes fromRecordsShare
Australian — Queensland registration, QSA, NAA, AWM, Trove, the Blue Books 9557%
British — FreeREG, FreeBMD, the census, TNA, the London Gazette 7042%
There is a good reason and it is not a good enough reason. Australian records are open: Queensland's death index names parents and is free, its archives publish scans, its immigration lists are open data. British records are scattered, half-transcribed and — three times in one day — behind a bot check. The path of least resistance runs east, and this archive followed it.

The result is that the best-evidenced part of a British family history is its emigration. That is worth knowing, and worth correcting. Every source, and which country it is in →

How it is built

A MyHeritage GEDCOM export is parsed in Python, living people are removed by a graph-wide rule rather than a flag, and the result is rendered as a static site with Astro and published to GitHub Pages. Nothing is generated at request time and there is no database — everything you can read here is in the repository, including the tools that built it.

The repository ↗ · Method → · Sources → · What changed →

Corrections

A correction is the most valuable thing anyone can send this archive. If something here is wrong — a date, a place, a join, a person who should not be published — say so, and it will be changed, and the change will be recorded on what changed rather than quietly applied.