Em segunda-feira, 4 de julho de 2016 21:48:09 UTC+1, taf escreveu: > On Monday, July 4, 2016 at 10:13:33 AM UTC-7, Paulo Canedo wrote: > > I have seen in many genealogy websites this connection Richard Mainwaring > > and his wife Dorothy Corbet were parents of Maria Mainwaring who married > > Adam Oteley and were parents of Richard Oteley who married Katherine > > MacWorth and were parents of Sarah Oteley who married Edward Owen and > > were parents of Richard Owen who married Johanna Pitt and were parents > > of the immigrant John Owen. The onomastic and geographical evidence > > support this connection but is this connection true or false. > > The 1623 Visitation of Shropshire (as published) shows, in its Mainwaring of Ightfield pedigree, that Richard and Dorothy had a daughter Mary who married Adam Oteley of Picheford. The Oteley of Oteley and Pitchford pedigree shows Adam marrying Mary, daughter of Richard Mainwaring of Ightfield. They are shown as parents of Richard who married Katherine Macworth (by the way, I doubt this is Scottish or Irish patronymic, but instead is likely an English toponym, probably derived from Mackworth, Derby, so not MacWorth, just Macworth). They, in turn, are shown with daughter Sara, wife of Edward Owen of Brightley. So far, so good. > > The Owen of Adbrightlee pedigree in the visitation shows Edward and Sara to be parents of three children (by 1623), Margaret (b. ca. 1611), Pontesbury (b. ca. 1613), and Thomas (b. ca 1617). No Richard. One could argue that he was a younger son, born after the date of the visitation, but this does not work, because the marriage of Joan Pitt to Richard Owen of Brome appears in the pedigree of Pitt of Curewiard, (then of Perry, near Stoke, and Brome, near Hopesay), in the same visitation - far from being yet unborn, Richard was already married by 1623, and he was not the son of Edward Owen and Sara Oteley. No dates are given for Joan or her parents, but her first cousin (son of the eldest son, which Joan was daughter of the 6th) had a daughter born 1602, meaning Joan was of the same generation as Sarah Oteley. > > In the nature of these things, it is likely that the entire thing is made up - that someone looking for the parentage of John Owen found the marriage of Richard Owen of Broome in the visitation, and liked the idea of a Pitt connection, so simply decided that John must have been son of Richard and Joan. Then, needing an ancestry for Richard, they arbitrarily decided to make Richard son of Edward. My suggestion is that the authentic pedigree goes no further than the immigrant. > > taf Thanks for the info but since the immigrant John Owen was from the area of Shropshire do you think he may have been from another branch of that family Owen.

I'd just come across this very useful site about a month ago and saw the notice. We need more such search engines. Peter D. A. Warwick

Hi all, I just noticed that one of my most used websites -the University of Iowa Patent Roll search site will be moving to Hathitrust on 1 August 2016. http://sdrc.lib.uiowa.edu/patentrolls/search.html Regards, John

On Sun, 3 Jul 2016 19:37:13 -0700 (PDT), nathanwmurphy@gmail.com wrote: >> John is partially correct, some of it is available, but a whole swag >> of it has been removed or is unavailable. Individuals that appeared >> with wives, children and ancestry back to the beginnings, now have >> ancestry that peters out after 3 or 4 generations, exactly as John has >> experienced. If one tries to follow the Foulke male line, Ieuan ap >> Thomas is as far as I get. The following is what you see ... >> "We are unable to display page content due to technical difficulties. >> Please try again in a few minutes." >> Also note that for sources it has "No Source Title Provided". sources >> which were available not too long ago. Also note that the sentence >> "For information in the FamilySearch wiki about this project, click >> here. " doesn't have a URL attached to it. All very strange. >> >> Cheers, >> Henry Soszynski > >So I've heard four specific problems now: (1) missing individuals, (2) technical difficulties, (3) missing source titles, and (4) missing link to FamilySearch Wiki. > >Has anyone experienced any additional problems? > >Do we think this all began last week (Monday, 27 June 2016) when FamilySearch upgraded the website? Or has it been going on longer? > >I'll try my best to get these reported to the correct person at FamilySearch next week. > >Nathan It's only recent so 27th June sounds about right. I suspect the data is there just not connected as John has mentioned. Some records have information which clearly refer to other records that aren't visible. Cheers, Henry Soszynski

On Monday, July 4, 2016 at 10:13:33 AM UTC-7, Paulo Canedo wrote: > I have seen in many genealogy websites this connection Richard Mainwaring > and his wife Dorothy Corbet were parents of Maria Mainwaring who married > Adam Oteley and were parents of Richard Oteley who married Katherine > MacWorth and were parents of Sarah Oteley who married Edward Owen and > were parents of Richard Owen who married Johanna Pitt and were parents > of the immigrant John Owen. The onomastic and geographical evidence > support this connection but is this connection true or false. The 1623 Visitation of Shropshire (as published) shows, in its Mainwaring of Ightfield pedigree, that Richard and Dorothy had a daughter Mary who married Adam Oteley of Picheford. The Oteley of Oteley and Pitchford pedigree shows Adam marrying Mary, daughter of Richard Mainwaring of Ightfield. They are shown as parents of Richard who married Katherine Macworth (by the way, I doubt this is Scottish or Irish patronymic, but instead is likely an English toponym, probably derived from Mackworth, Derby, so not MacWorth, just Macworth). They, in turn, are shown with daughter Sara, wife of Edward Owen of Brightley. So far, so good. The Owen of Adbrightlee pedigree in the visitation shows Edward and Sara to be parents of three children (by 1623), Margaret (b. ca. 1611), Pontesbury (b. ca. 1613), and Thomas (b. ca 1617). No Richard. One could argue that he was a younger son, born after the date of the visitation, but this does not work, because the marriage of Joan Pitt to Richard Owen of Brome appears in the pedigree of Pitt of Curewiard, (then of Perry, near Stoke, and Brome, near Hopesay), in the same visitation - far from being yet unborn, Richard was already married by 1623, and he was not the son of Edward Owen and Sara Oteley. No dates are given for Joan or her parents, but her first cousin (son of the eldest son, which Joan was daughter of the 6th) had a daughter born 1602, meaning Joan was of the same generation as Sarah Oteley. In the nature of these things, it is likely that the entire thing is made up - that someone looking for the parentage of John Owen found the marriage of Richard Owen of Broome in the visitation, and liked the idea of a Pitt connection, so simply decided that John must have been son of Richard and Joan. Then, needing an ancestry for Richard, they arbitrarily decided to make Richard son of Edward. My suggestion is that the authentic pedigree goes no further than the immigrant. taf

On 7/4/2016 6:56 AM, WJH via wrote: > Never one to refuse a challenge, here are some starting thoughts. To my mind these could apply to any genealogical "wiki" more-or less irrespective of its specific purpose. Obviously, most of your items have the potential to generate long separate discussions. I will make some brief comments on a few of them and some general comments. > b. multiple alternates for elements such as dates, places, names etc. (FS - P) I'm not sure exactly what this means. If it means that alternate spellings, etc. should be indicated, then there should be an effort to keep it from cluttering things too much. If it means providing alternates in cases of genuine controversy, then I believe that the entry should be "unknown" ("uncertain", etc.), with a separate discussion of the issues. > d. merging that preserves data as alternates (FS - N) If done right to begin with, there should be little need for merging. When necessary, merging should be done with extreme care, one individual at a time, with reference to the primary sources in case of conflict. In cases of controversy, reasonable merging cannot be done reasonably by someone unfamiliar with the primary evidence, and any data that is clearly wrong should not be kept (or should be placed in a clearly marked "trash bin"). > e. bitlock style data history to ensure auditability (FS - P) I have no idea what that is. > f. data deletion to require justification (FS - P) "No known source" should be sufficient reason for deletion (or temporarily placing in a "trash bin"). > i. provision for alternate "universes" where data is capable of more than one interpretation, ideally with ability to view side-by-side (FS - N) Maintaining data structures and allowing the flexibility needed for specific cases are in clear conflict here. I'm not sure how you could do this, as the presentation of complicated issues almost always needs to be organized by some creative process if it is to be comprehensible. > j. automatic recognition / translation of old and new style dates in appropriate periods (FS - N) Clearly, it is a good idea to have a O.S./N.S. label, but in my opinion, "translation" from O.S. to N.S. is almost always a bad idea, except where some sort of chronological discussion is necessary. (Conversions from other calendars, like the Islamic or Jewish calendars, are another story). Enough flexibility has to be left for unusual cases. Before, after, and "boxed-in" (between) dates need to be supported. Dates obtained by calculation should be clearly labelled, e.g., b. ca. 1535 (calc.), or b. ca. 1535 (aged 26 in 1561 [with source]). A clear distinction needs to be made between approximate dates (dates proven by known evidence to be close to the indicated date, usually indicated by "about" or "circa/ca.") and estimated dates (dates estimated by more general considerations, such as generation length or typical age at marriage, usually indicated in the scholarly genealogical literature by the word "say", e.g. "b. say 1520"). > 4. data elements to be colour-coded according to source: e.g. reddish - no source; orangey - secondary source; yellowy - primary source transcription; greeny - primary source viewed; bluey - primary source image attached. Fixed formats for sources defined by moderators. (FS - N). In my opinion, including any unsourced information in the principle account of an individual is a very bad idea, especially for medieval individuals. If you really want a color scheme, how about reddish for a secondary source which does not cite primary evidence, and "orangey" for a secondary source which gives the primary evidence (preferably cited indirectly). In the medieval period, if you can't find a pre-Internet published source for some information in somebody's GEDCOM file, then it is almost certainly bad information, and one of the points of such an exercise is to help prevent the spread of bad information. If you want to keep the information as a potential clue, why not have a separate "scratch-paper" page for the individual (preferably with a prominent in-your-face dire warning that the information might be false) containing unconfirmed information that might be used as a finding aid (and perhaps as an incentive for those who do have the proof to produce it). Such a page (or a separate page) might also include disproven or discredited information on the individual, perhaps with a "red flag" attached to data that is suspicious but has not actually been disproven. However, in the medieval period, unsourced dates of birth or places of birth or death are usually just guesswork, and should just be scrapped to start with, unless there is some indication that the data might provide a useful clue. > 5. A separate place name database, subject to similar rules as regards sources, with different matrices e.g Saxon shires & hundreds, Domesday, English historic, English administrative pre-1973, registration districts etc. with relevant dates. (A particular bug-bear of mine stemming from being a Geographer at heart) (FS - P) And if you are going to do this, separate lists of office holders, with appropriate links, seems like a good idea. > 6. ideally linked archive of sources in public domain to permit internal rather than external links. (FS - P) A huge project in itself. However, as appealing as items 5 and 6 are, spreading the efforts too thin seems like a recipe for disaster. If high quality is the main goal, it is best to start small. One additional issue that is unavoidable in genealogy, and especially difficult in any thinly documented period or place, is the problem of identification. Many (probably even a majority) of the errors which occur in genealogy are due either directly or indirectly to the incorrect identification of individuals of the same (or similar) names appearing in two or more different records. When genealogists are trying to verify research done by others in the primary sources, the step that they are most likely to overlook is verifying that the John Smiths appearing in two different records were in fact the same man. When genealogists are researching a large number of individuals with the same surname, one of the problems they face is sorting out who was who, and even when the identifications are all correct, the reasoning behind them is not always adequately spelled out. Even for the experienced genealogist writing up his/her results, deciding how much discussion to devote to identification of individuals can be difficult. Some such discussions would amount to "beating a dead horse" (e.g., a man with an unusual name appearing in many records in a given location, with no indications of a namesake in the area), and sometimes the identifications are clear from the other evidence presented (at least to an experienced genealogist), even if they are not explicitly discussed. A good "reference" website would need a reasonable way of dealing with the identification of individuals. If an identification is well documented, but not reasonably clear in the context of the evidence mentioned (e.g., in cases of significant geographical moves), there should at least be a comment to see such-and-such a source for proof that the John Smith in record #1 is the same as the John Smythe in record #2. Cases involving significant disagreement among scholars regarding identification are much more difficult, and extremely numerous in medieval genealogy. See, for example, the page on Hunroch, count of Ternois, in the Henry Project. Some way needs to be found to deal with such difficult situations, preferably without catering to the fill-in-the-blank mentality of many amateur genealogists. The more that amateurs are forced to think independently about such issues, and the more they are led to the better sources which allow them to do so in an informed manner, then the more they might become experienced enough to make worthwhile contributions to such a project. There is one obvious question that hasn't been mentioned yet. Who would host such a website and provide the necessary funding? Who would have ultimate control? Any profit-based website is likely to eventually get corrupted by forces that are more interested in profit than in accuracy, and any genuinely high-quality genealogical website is going to have to reject the work of many amateurs, some of whom would not be happy that their "ancestors" were rejected (i.e., "angry customers"). I think that some sort of academic-based support would be necessary to ensure the necessary quality. Stewart Baldwin

On Sat, 2 Jul 2016 21:39:40 -0700 (PDT), nathanwmurphy@gmail.com wrote: >On Saturday, July 2, 2016 at 11:13:23 AM UTC-6, John Higgins wrote: >> It appears that the FHL’s Welsh Medieval Genealogy database is no longer available online. > >I just checked. The Welsh Medieval Genealogy database is still online at FamilySearch in the "Genealogies" section. Here's a link to Welsh-American Edward Foulke: https://familysearch.org/ark:/61903/2:2:3W49-7N8 > >Nathan John is partially correct, some of it is available, but a whole swag of it has been removed or is unavailable. Individuals that appeared with wives, children and ancestry back to the beginnings, now have ancestry that peters out after 3 or 4 generations, exactly as John has experienced. If one tries to follow the Foulke male line, Ieuan ap Thomas is as far as I get. The following is what you see ... "We are unable to display page content due to technical difficulties. Please try again in a few minutes." Also note that for sources it has "No Source Title Provided". sources which were available not too long ago. Also note that the sentence "For information in the FamilySearch wiki about this project, click here. " doesn't have a URL attached to it. All very strange. Cheers, Henry Soszynski

Em terça-feira, 10 de maio de 2016 21:39:44 UTC+1, jmb...@albion.edu escreveu: > Also, as usual, the article is sloppy and sensationalist with genealogy. The interviewee, A.J. Jacobs, is a journalist/entertainment author, not a researcher, and got all his info from the user-contributed website geni.com. (Maybe we could all get on some talk shows with our special "findings" of distant famous cousins.) As for the Trump ancestry, I don't know if it is proven, possible, or plausible; at first glance the generations seem to line up chronologically well, but someone would need to prove it from documents. > Jim+ For what I know from other post in this newsgroup the Trump ancestry is plausible there´s only some uncertainty in the parents of Catherine/Christian MacLeod.

I have seen in many genealogy websites this connection Richard Mainwaring and his wife Dorothy Corbet were parents of Maria Mainwaring who married Adam Oteley and were parents of Richard Oteley who married Katherine MacWorth and were parents of Sarah Oteley who married Edward Owen and were parents of Richard Owen who married Johanna Pitt and were parents of the immigrant John Owen. The onomastic and geographical evidence support this connection but is this connection true or false.

Never one to refuse a challenge, here are some starting thoughts. To my mind these could apply to any genealogical "wiki" more-or less irrespective of its specific purpose. NB according to the wiki (disambiguation) page on wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wiki_(disambiguation) "A wiki (or wiki wiki) is a collaborative website." and I feel they probably ought to know! Hopefully this stalking horse has enough flesh that anyone interested can add / challenge what's there... NB I have indicated whether the option is currently fully available in Familysearch (Y), partially available (P) or not available (N) 1. 2. Moderation by appropriately experienced genealogists i.e. having had at least two articles published in peer reviewed journals. Rationale - we are borrowing those journals' due diligence procedures: in time we could probably add our own. (FS _ N) 2. ability to nominate specific "owner" moderators with power to review all changes before they take effect. (NB this effectively requires a parallel data set showing the effect of unapproved changes) (FS - N) Within this, electronic import of data ONLY permitted after such data has been reviewed by a moderator. Rationale - we don't want to make life needlessly difficult but we don't want wholesale import of rubbish. (FS - no controls I think) 3. Data to be structured so as to allow: a. each element to be sourced. (FS - P) b. multiple alternates for elements such as dates, places, names etc. (FS - P) c. identification of individuals in long-form e.g. "Mary Smith who was married to John Smith of Somewheresville at some point in the 15th century according to Surtees" (FS - N) d. merging that preserves data as alternates (FS - N) e. bitlock style data history to ensure auditability (FS - P) f. data deletion to require justification (FS - P) g. ability to "watch" individuals / families with notification of others' changes (FS - Y) h. ability to reserve individuals that users are working on. (FS - N) i. provision for alternate "universes" where data is capable of more than one interpretation, ideally with ability to view side-by-side (FS - N) j. automatic recognition / translation of old and new style dates in appropriate periods (FS - N) k. multiple fields / flags for "families" and or "lines" to help with searching e.g. "descendant of charlemagne" or "ancestor of pilgrim father" (FS - N) 4. data elements to be colour-coded according to source: e.g. reddish - no source; orangey - secondary source; yellowy - primary source transcription; greeny - primary source viewed; bluey - primary source image attached. Fixed formats for sources defined by moderators. (FS - N). 5. A separate place name database, subject to similar rules as regards sources, with different matrices e.g Saxon shires & hundreds, Domesday, English historic, English administrative pre-1973, registration districts etc. with relevant dates. (A particular bug-bear of mine stemming from being a Geographer at heart) (FS - P) 6. ideally linked archive of sources in public domain to permit internal rather than external links. (FS - P) 7. Users wishing to link "out-of-period" or "not famous" descendants to a tree on a different platform should be required to show evidence for the link and where appropriate make their tree viewable on the other platform. (FS - N) Have Fun James

On Sunday, July 3, 2016 at 7:37:14 PM UTC-7, nathan...@gmail.com wrote: > > John is partially correct, some of it is available, but a whole swag > > of it has been removed or is unavailable. Individuals that appeared > > with wives, children and ancestry back to the beginnings, now have > > ancestry that peters out after 3 or 4 generations, exactly as John has > > experienced. If one tries to follow the Foulke male line, Ieuan ap > > Thomas is as far as I get. The following is what you see ... > > "We are unable to display page content due to technical difficulties. > > Please try again in a few minutes." > > Also note that for sources it has "No Source Title Provided". sources > > which were available not too long ago. Also note that the sentence > > "For information in the FamilySearch wiki about this project, click > > here. " doesn't have a URL attached to it. All very strange. > > > > Cheers, > > Henry Soszynski > > So I've heard four specific problems now: (1) missing individuals, (2) technical difficulties, (3) missing source titles, and (4) missing link to FamilySearch Wiki. > > Has anyone experienced any additional problems? > > Do we think this all began last week (Monday, 27 June 2016) when FamilySearch upgraded the website? Or has it been going on longer? > > I'll try my best to get these reported to the correct person at FamilySearch next week. > > Nathan I'd add a 5th problem - missing pedigrees. Even if the people are in the database, they are not connected to others in the database, either their ancestors or their descendants - and thus they don't show up in a pedigree. See the examples that I posted earlier in this thread. I can't be certain that it began just last week at the time of the website upgrade. As it happened, I had taken a break from my Welsh research for a week or so before the June 27th upgrade - and came back to find it essentially non-functional. But it definitely was working without problems until at least mid-June. I've been accessing the Welsh database nearly every day for several months now. Note that these comments apply specifically to the Community Trees functionality - not necessarily the other databases like AF, Pedigree Resource File, and IGI. I certainly hope that the data has not been lost - but I'm getting worried!! If others in this group have similar concerns, it would be useful to voice them here and now, so that Nathan can carry them back to the Family Search group.

> John is partially correct, some of it is available, but a whole swag > of it has been removed or is unavailable. Individuals that appeared > with wives, children and ancestry back to the beginnings, now have > ancestry that peters out after 3 or 4 generations, exactly as John has > experienced. If one tries to follow the Foulke male line, Ieuan ap > Thomas is as far as I get. The following is what you see ... > "We are unable to display page content due to technical difficulties. > Please try again in a few minutes." > Also note that for sources it has "No Source Title Provided". sources > which were available not too long ago. Also note that the sentence > "For information in the FamilySearch wiki about this project, click > here. " doesn't have a URL attached to it. All very strange. > > Cheers, > Henry Soszynski So I've heard four specific problems now: (1) missing individuals, (2) technical difficulties, (3) missing source titles, and (4) missing link to FamilySearch Wiki. Has anyone experienced any additional problems? Do we think this all began last week (Monday, 27 June 2016) when FamilySearch upgraded the website? Or has it been going on longer? I'll try my best to get these reported to the correct person at FamilySearch next week. Nathan

On 3/07/2016 1:49 PM, Andrew Lancaster via wrote: > Dear Peter > > > This misses the point that the value of the Henry Project is largely > that it does not rely on "sources like Richardson and Complete Peerage". > > No, in fact I think you might be missing the point I was making. I am > saying that something like wikitree is not aiming at the same thing as > something like the Henry project. I am trying to say there is an apples > and pears problem in the discussion, because there is assumption which > keeps slipping back between the lines that there is only one worthwhile > aim in online genealogical collaboration. Works like Complete Peerage > are useful to even the best genealogists for example, because of how > much they bring together. I'm not missing your point - this was made clear enough when you wrote: "Projects like the Henry project can also help improve other online collaborations as a source itself (properly cited and all that)." My point is that if the Henry Project is the current gold standard of online medieval genealogy, and if the proposed wiki aims to match its quality, then Complete Peerage and Richardson's works should be considered at most as aids to research of primary sources but not "sources" in themselves. The fudging of definition on this is as unhelpful as calling the wiki community in itself a "wiki". > Most genealogists are unable to achieve anything like the Henry > project's aims, or to find flaws in Complete Peerage, but many try to > perform more menial tasks that they would think still achieves something > positive. The aim of the most massive online collaborations is to > organize pre-digested information, which is largely having to come from > somewhere else. Wikitree and similar projects often describe themselves > as having the aim of putting together in one place, with all the > software tools, a single family tree which links all family trees. As > information is accumulated on to such a platform it can be played with > (read and absorbed) in ways that were not possible before computers > developed to the level existing today. > > You are correctly pointing out that any such project will never be > better than whatever other sources it cites. Right. That is why, once > you solve the various other problems we have discussed such as proper > citations, no gedcom uploads, such projects can be better or worse in > different periods and different families depending on what types of > sourcing is available, and indeed what types of volunteers are > available. (You keep asking for an example of a good wikitree article > for example, but in a way the question is meaningless, because you or me > can literally go and make what we consider to be one right now and say > "look". The more interesting questions are what that SHOULD look like, > and whether it will stay that way. Any project can set whatever aims it > wants. Some might have silly aims, and some much more impressive.) I think you are confusing two different people - I am Peter Stewart, while this part of your response is evidently addressed to Stewart Baldwin (I have not asked for an example of a good wiki - indeed, the existence of such a thing has not entered my head). > > But, just in case you are wondering, Wikitree does not forbid original > research like Wikipedia does. It is possible to cite primary documents > and "correct" a respected source. Richardson and Complete Peerage are > respected partly because they also explain their sourcing (maybe not > always perfectly), which is as we all agree very important for such > large scale collating work. Richardson is not universally respected - very far from it outside the transparent bubble of his admirers - in part because his works do NOT consistently explain the sourcing but rather dump lists of authorities (some of which he demonstrably has not studied) without specifying what information has been drawn from these. As countless SGM discussions have shown, much is taken from the far too many obsolete secondary works that he habitually wallows in and/or filched without citation from the work of contemporaries. Peter Stewart

Dear all, Jobst von Kospoth (fl. 1494-1546) was lord of Seubtendorff and Schilbach in modern-day Thuringia, married Maria von Creutzen, daughter of Bernhard von Creutzen a. Niedendorff, and left numerous descendants surviving into the present day. That much seems clear. Less clear, however, is his ancestry. Valentin König in his generally reliable - for the time - _Genealogische Adels-Historie_ of 1736 states that Jobst was the eldest son of Hans von Kospoth a. Seubtendorff und Schilbach (d. 1493) by his wife Ursula von Watzdorff a.d.H. Zop(po)ten and provides a fairly circumstantial pedigree back to the mid-twelfth century. However, the 1903 edition of the _Gothaisches genealogisches Taschenbuch der adeligen Häuser_ also deals with this family and instead states that Jobst was the son of one Friedrich von Kospoth a. Seubtendorff und Schilbach (fl. 1479, 1494), and grandson of Karl von Kospoth (fl. 1447), but provides no further information. Did the editors of the Taschenbuch have access to documentation which disproved König's pedigree? I wonder. Any thoughts on this would be greatly appreciated, as would suggestions for published primary sources dealing with late medieval Saxony. For the record, Jobst von Kospoth appears on Genealogics at http://genealogics.org/getperson.php?personID=I00452024&tree=LEO And is given for parents Hans von Kospoth and Ursula von Drachsdorff (rather than Watzdorff): http://genealogics.org/getperson.php?personID=I00452020&tree=LEO http://genealogics.org/getperson.php?personID=I00452021&tree=LEO It might be of interest to the group that Jobst von Kospoth is ancestral to Anna Petronilla von Pölnitz, wife of Edward Morgan and mother-in-law of the privateer Henry Morgan. All best wishes, Kelsey

On 3/07/2016 7:15 AM, Andrew Lancaster via wrote: > Dear Stewart > > I think all your replies are very reasonable, so just quickly: > > >Even if a database "improves" to the point where 90% of the pages are > reasonable and 10% of the pages are nonsense, that is still pretty bad, > especially when claims of "accuracy" are badly overstated. > > I do not disagree. I have not argued that all projects eventually need > to be big. Actually, I think genealogy can benefit from small focused > collaborations in critical ways, which large projects will always > struggle with, for reasons like those you mention. > > You are right for example that Wikitree has that awkward thing about > surnames. It is a special part of the design now, and is justified as > making surname searches easier. I find it grating and I believe that the > website should have a google-like search possibility, rather than a > surname one. > > I would say though that Carolingians are a particular challenge for this > type of project. The sources are not simple to use, as you know. I think > it can and does do better in the 1300-1500 area which is better covered > by easy-to-use sources like Richardson and Complete Peerage. > > If someone to ask me of an online collaboration which shows what can be > done in a more focused way I would point to the Henry project. Projects > like the Henry project can also help improve other online collaborations > as a source itself (properly cited and all that). This misses the point that the value of the Henry Project is largely that it does not rely on "sources like Richardson and Complete Peerage". As for the alleged "challenge" of the Carolingians, secondary works by Werner and Settipani are every bit as easy to use (and at least as likely to be misleading) as Complete Peerage, while they usually make their primary sources much easier to identify than Richardson. The second-last paragraph in the post above is the sort of statement that exasperates and discourages the conscientious genealogists whose co-operative efforts are being solicited for the proposed wiki. Peter Stewart

On Saturday, July 2, 2016 at 9:39:43 PM UTC-7, nathan...@gmail.com wrote: > On Saturday, July 2, 2016 at 11:13:23 AM UTC-6, John Higgins wrote: > > It appears that the FHL’s Welsh Medieval Genealogy database is no longer available online. > > I just checked. The Welsh Medieval Genealogy database is still online at FamilySearch in the "Genealogies" section. Here's a link to Welsh-American Edward Foulke: https://familysearch.org/ark:/61903/2:2:3W49-7N8 > > Nathan Thanks for your assistance in this - it's much appreciated. But it seems that the Welsh database is only partially available at present. Here are two examples for individuals in Barturm's Welsh Genealogies, which was fully available online prior to this week. 1) At the top of Bartrum's table Bleddyn ap Maenyrch 29 (and also on Bleddyn ap Maenyrch 28) is Owain Gethin ab Owain of Glyntawe: http://cadair.aber.ac.uk/dspace/bitstream/handle/2160/5614/Bleddyn%20ap%20Maenyrch%2029.png?sequence=1&isAllowed=y Here is how he shows up currently in the Welsh database - with no spouse, no children, and no ancestry: https://familysearch.org/ark:/61903/2:2:3WWL-8X1 2) 1) At the top of Bartrum's table Bleddyn ap Maenyrch 17 (and also on Bleddyn ap Maenyrch 16) is Hywel ab Einion Sais: http://cadair.aber.ac.uk/dspace/bitstream/handle/2160/5222/Bleddyn%20ap%20Maenyrch%2017.png?sequence=1&isAllowed=y Here is how he shows up currently in the Welsh database - again, with no spouse, no children, and no ancestry: https://familysearch.org/ark:/61903/2:2:3WWL-ZRQ My guess is that there's been a technical glitch somewhere in the handling of the Welsh database. But I can't seem to convey this to the customer-service folks at Family Search, who just keep referring me to pages on their wiki which don't address the issue. I can't figure out how to get past these people (well-meaning as they are) and get to a technical person who may better understand the issue. Perhaps you can have better luck than I've had in this. Any assistance will be much appreciated! (If you want to take this off-group, feel free to contact me directly at my email address as in the message header.)

Dear Peter > This misses the point that the value of the Henry Project is largely that it does not rely on "sources like Richardson and Complete Peerage". No, in fact I think you might be missing the point I was making. I am saying that something like wikitree is not aiming at the same thing as something like the Henry project. I am trying to say there is an apples and pears problem in the discussion, because there is assumption which keeps slipping back between the lines that there is only one worthwhile aim in online genealogical collaboration. Works like Complete Peerage are useful to even the best genealogists for example, because of how much they bring together. Most genealogists are unable to achieve anything like the Henry project's aims, or to find flaws in Complete Peerage, but many try to perform more menial tasks that they would think still achieves something positive. The aim of the most massive online collaborations is to organize pre-digested information, which is largely having to come from somewhere else. Wikitree and similar projects often describe themselves as having the aim of putting together in one place, with all the software tools, a single family tree which links all family trees. As information is accumulated on to such a platform it can be played with (read and absorbed) in ways that were not possible before computers developed to the level existing today. You are correctly pointing out that any such project will never be better than whatever other sources it cites. Right. That is why, once you solve the various other problems we have discussed such as proper citations, no gedcom uploads, such projects can be better or worse in different periods and different families depending on what types of sourcing is available, and indeed what types of volunteers are available. (You keep asking for an example of a good wikitree article for example, but in a way the question is meaningless, because you or me can literally go and make what we consider to be one right now and say "look". The more interesting questions are what that SHOULD look like, and whether it will stay that way. Any project can set whatever aims it wants. Some might have silly aims, and some much more impressive.) But, just in case you are wondering, Wikitree does not forbid original research like Wikipedia does. It is possible to cite primary documents and "correct" a respected source. Richardson and Complete Peerage are respected partly because they also explain their sourcing (maybe not always perfectly), which is as we all agree very important for such large scale collating work. Best Regards Andrew

Thanks, Jason. It's excellent to have searchable copies of this work.

Dear Stewart I think all your replies are very reasonable, so just quickly: >Even if a database "improves" to the point where 90% of the pages are reasonable and 10% of the pages are nonsense, that is still pretty bad, especially when claims of "accuracy" are badly overstated. I do not disagree. I have not argued that all projects eventually need to be big. Actually, I think genealogy can benefit from small focused collaborations in critical ways, which large projects will always struggle with, for reasons like those you mention. You are right for example that Wikitree has that awkward thing about surnames. It is a special part of the design now, and is justified as making surname searches easier. I find it grating and I believe that the website should have a google-like search possibility, rather than a surname one. I would say though that Carolingians are a particular challenge for this type of project. The sources are not simple to use, as you know. I think it can and does do better in the 1300-1500 area which is better covered by easy-to-use sources like Richardson and Complete Peerage. If someone to ask me of an online collaboration which shows what can be done in a more focused way I would point to the Henry project. Projects like the Henry project can also help improve other online collaborations as a source itself (properly cited and all that). Regards Andrew

> Thanks for making this available....looking forward to volume 2. Volume 2 is now uploaded to archive.org ... Enjoy !! Vol 1 https://archive.org/details/HistoryAndAntiquitiesOfTheCountyOfNorthamptonBakerVol1 Vol 2 https://archive.org/details/BakersHistoryOfNorthamptonVol2 Index of Pedigrees https://archive.org/stream/indextoprintedpe00briduoft#page/88/mode/2up Some of Baker's MSS. references from the Phillips collection, pg 208 https://books.google.com/books?id=QFleAAAAcAAJ&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q=11962&f=false