On 13/06/2016, Richard Smith via <gen-medieval@rootsweb.com> wrote: > On 03/06/16 00:22, Richard Carruthers via wrote: >> On 02/06/2016, Richard Smith via <gen-medieval@rootsweb.com> wrote: >>> On 02/06/16 08:02, Richard Carruthers via wrote: >>> >>>> The List or Index to the Landed, Manorial, or Gentry Families (LMGF) >>>> is the first thing I think needs to be established. >>> >>> What purpose do you see this list or index having? I am to some extent >>> playing Devil's Advocate here, but it is a key point to which to have >>> agreement. >>> >>> I see several possible purposes: >>> >>> 1. To provide information on the demographics of the upper levels >>> of mediaeval society. >>> >>> 2. As an index to help researchers locate primary sources on >>> particular families or individuals. >>> >>> 3. As the index to a large-scale collaborative genealogy (and/or >>> biographical dictionary) of the mediaeval landed gentry. >>> >>> Probably there are other possibilities I've not considered. >> >> primarily 2 with a possibility of 3, but closer to >> >> 4. To provide a List of LMG Families to enable researchers to locate >> individual families in the catchment area and discover other parties >> interested in a given family to facilitate research, and, if desired, >> engage in solo or collaborative research into LGM Families in a >> scholarly manner, with evidence-based and peer-reviewed findings >> available online through a potential series of linked pages, but at >> least one Master List page for each county showing the details I >> listed in my first mock-up. > > You give locating individual families with the catchment area as a use > for the list. Is there a big requirement for this? When researching > the mediaeval landed gentry, typically I either know fairly precisely > where the family is from because they were referred to as of some place; > or I can do no better than the vaguest of guesses as to the region of > the country they may be from. I rarely have a situation where I want to > know, say, where the Eayre families were in Wiltshire in the 15th > century. And if I did, many (most?) areas have a 18th or 19th century > county history that I would trust to answer questions on the general > whereabouts of families, if not on the particulars of their genealogy. Territoriality is as Dr Coss has written one of the several prerequisites of the gentry, hence my emphasis on it. Moreover, as you rightly point out, this is normally how such families file themselves (as it were), so I am simply following suit. As researchers we rely heavily on such territorial identifications to locate which family we are investigating, further underlining the necessary linkage. > > As for discovering other researchers interested in a family, assuming > they wish to be discovered, I've found Google searches to be a pretty > good way of finding them. Is what you're proposing going to serve that > purpose better than a few carefully crafted searches? I believe so. The method you propose can, in fact, be an extremely time consuming process as one is by no means sure of its yielding a satisfactory result. Moreover, one is not assured of obtaining contact information, much less an idea of whether or not that research is still active. Of course, any listing would need updating, but the advantage of creating a link between families and researchers in an Index or List is akin to that of the old Genealogical Research Directories of the 1980s and 1990s. > > Where I think your suggestion gets more interesting is when you talk > about "evidence-based and peer-reviewed findings available online > through a series of linked pages". This is something I think could > potentially be of genuine value, but this then is getting closer to my > third purpose, above. I think one has to lay the groundwork of creating an Index or Listing of LMG Families that is seeks to be reasonably comprehensive before one can get down to the more in-depth aspects of such an undertaking. I think that creating the List first would serve to stimulate the deeper aspects of the List when its uses are expanded for various of the families listed. Moreover, seeing where there are blanks for deeper coverage might serve to encourage researchers to cover those neglected families of which there are bound to be many (indeed, they are quite likely to be the vast majority). If that's to be the main purpose, then it should > be the focus from the very start. I don't see how it can be. One needs the framework first. The List or Index is the initial framework, on to which the deeper aspects can added as the project gets further along or as individual contributors desire. >>> However I'm not sure which, if either, of the latter two suggested >>> purposes you intended. I initially thought it was a collaborative >>> genealogy, but now I'm not wondering whether you are more focused on the >>> second. Either way, I'm not sure the list, as per your mock up, is >>> doing it. >> >> How would you suggest its deficiencies ought to be made up? > > It's not that I don't think the list you propose is potentially useful; > rather, my concern is that if it's to be useful, then it is as a small > part of a bigger project, but I've yet to fully understand the nature of > that larger project (if indeed there is to be one). I can't help but > feel that this thread is becoming the equivalent of having a detailed > discussion about the format of the index of a book, without first > establishing what its contents are and at whom it is targeted. Hence the title I proposed at the beginning of the thread: "Toward a List..." I don't think that compiling in advance a list or index of the territory one wishes to see covered in any way vitiates against the secondary or tertiary purposes of the List. Indeed, I think it essential to lay the groundwork/framework first. Then one can see what the next stage will be more clearly. So, in the end, I see the creation of the List of LMG Families as being Stage 1 of what could become a larger project. That said, I think the List (Stage 1) could still stand on its own as something useful that did not depend on the success of later stages, however many there may ultimately prove to be. That is also why I remain open to ideas about how other stages may take shape. After all, if one is to have a collegial and scholarly project one must be open to considering the scope of the input. > >>> When it comes to genealogical details, I think either you need a much >>> clearer policy on what you want and how, or you should drop it entirely >>> until such time as you do. Ahem, I do have ideas about genealogical details, but I am trying to encourage others to expand on this before I necessarily jump in as the initiator of these aspects of the later stages of a potentially multi-stage ongoing project of interlinked stages. That's an aspect of the collegiality I am striving for. Moreover, if serious researchers are to be encouraged to participate or contribute, I think it desirable that they be given the incentive of having their ideas considered. For one thing, I feel sure that there are plenty of members of soc-gen-medieval who are much more knowledgeable about what they much envisage as useful to include in the project's later stages than I. >> >> What sort of genealogical details do you think it desirable that such a >> List lead to on deeper linked pages? > > It's not so much the details, as how they are presented. You need a > consistent style from the beginning. I have no problem with striving for consistency. I think we need to see who would be willing to form a consultative board re that very matter lest it all be left a committee of one with all the deficiencies that that would occasion unless that one were a truly great genealogist and mediaevalist. Moreover, I am hoping to encourage the cooperation, involvement, and contributions of many within the scholarly community of mediaeval genealogy rather than just one or two. > >> I think, however, that such a List and linked pages should provide >> facilities >> for comment areas linked to all pages, > > That's sensible. It's the Wikipedia model: every page has a "Talk page" > distinct from the page itself where the page can be discussed. Yes, it seems to be one of the advantages that doing this on-line as a group project would afford us. > >> This would, for example, allow one to critique an entry that cobbled >> together findings in such a way that a given entry amounted to >> something erroneous. In the end, this could be a could [sic, good] way of >> providing consistent scholarly criticism for otherwise unreviewed >> information of the "Fab Pedigree" kind. > > I would hope that if you intend this to be a serious scholarly work, > descents such as that on the "Fab Pedigree" site would be deleted pretty > quickly. That's not to say you shouldn't have sections discussing > incorrect aspects of the genealogy of real people when such errors are > prevalent on-line, and explaining why they are erroneous. I certainly don't want rubbish to appear save for the purpose of debunking it and keeping a record of such for posterity to facilitate the work of other scholars and, yes, tyros. >> [...] This is all part of the Verified Genealogy idea I referred to >> earlier. > > Your idea of verified genealogies is perhaps worth pursuing > independently of this project. I take your point, but what I was trying to get at here was the notion of striving for a high standard of genealogical and historical scholarship in any and all aspects of the project. > > Richard [Smith] Thank you, Richard C-Z