Descendants of Charlemagne

[Rick Eaton]

Hi hope that this is useful to researchers.

Apologies if any or all of this is redundant. I have not been able to be a
steady parfticipant or lurker lately with so many hospital strays and clinic
visits.

As I recall, there was considerable discussion of Charlemange's descendants
within recent months. I came across the following web site and useful
information while researching another subject and thought I woukld pass it
along to others for their use.

There is a not-for-profit, membership organization called The International
Society of the Descendants of Charlemange, web URL:

http://charsoc.users4.50megs.com/

The Society is headed by the Most reverend Lowell A. Barker of Florida
(details at web site).

The following U.S. "gateway descendan's are listed at the site:

Robert Abell - Massachusetts
* Mrs. Margaret Wyatt Allyn - Connecticut
* John Alston - South Carolina
* Samuel Appleton - Massachusetts
* Col. Walter Aston - Virginia


* Col. Kenneth Baillie - Georgia
* Mrs. Elizabeth Alsop Baldwin - Connecticut
* Lancelot Bathurst - Virginia
* Christopher Batt - Massachusetts
* Henry Batte - Virginia
* Thomas Batte - Virginia
* Richard Bernard - Virginia
* Col. William Bernard - Virginia
* William Bladen - Maryland
* Joseph Bolles - Maine
* Thomas Boteler - Maryland
* Griffith Bowen - Massachusetts
* Thomas Bradbury - Massachusetts
* Christopher Branch - Virginia
* Thomas Bressie - Connecticut
* Edward Bromfield - Massachusetts
* Gov. Thomas Brooke - Maryland
* Obadiah Bruen - Connecticut
* Mrs. Thomasine Ward Thompson Buffum - Massachusetts
* Rev. Peter Bulkeley - Massachusetts
* Stephen Bull - South Carolina
* Isabel Burnett - New Jersey
* Mrs. Mary Lawrence Burnham - Massachusetts
* Thomas Bye - Pennsylvania


* John Cadwalader - Pennsylvania
* Hon. Anne Arundell Calvert Baroness Baltimore - Maryland
* Cecil Calvert, 2nd Baron Baltimore - Maryland
* Lady Charlotte Lee Calvert, Baroness Baltimore - Maryland
* Jane Lowe Sewall Calvert Baroness Baltimore - Maryland
* Edward Carleton - Massachusetts
* George Carrington - Virginia
* Mrs. Sarah Ludlow Carter - Virginia
* Rev. Charles Chauncey - Massachusetts
* Lady Agatha Eltonhead Kellaway Wormeley Chichele - Virginia
* Mrs. Elizabeth Boteler Claiborne - Virginia
* Acting Gov. Jeremiah Clarke - Rhode Island
* Matthew Clarkson - New York
* James Claypoole - Pennsylvania
* Mrs. Martha Eltonhead Conway - Virginia
* Henry Corbin - Virginia
* Anna Cordray - Virginia
* Gov. John Cranston - Rhode Island
* George Curwen - Massachusetts


* Mrs. Arabella Smith Dallas - Pennsylvania
* Rev. John Davenport - Connecticut
* Margaret Davis - Pennsylvania
* Gov. Edward Digges - Virginia
* Gov. Thomas Dudley - Massachusetts


* Mrs. Anne Lloyd Yale Eaton - Connecticut
* Mrs. Agnes Harris Spencer Edwards - Connecticut
* Mrs. Mary Fox Ellicott - Pennsylvania


* Mrs. Olive Welby Farwell - Massachusetts
* Mrs. Margery Maude Fisher - Delaware
* Edward FitzRandolph - New Jersey
* Rev. Edward Foliot - Virginia
* Col. Gerard Fowke - Virginia


* Thomas Gerard - Maryland
* Gov. Robert Gibbes - Virginia
* Mrs. Jane Lawrence Giddings - Massachusetts
* Mrs. Mary Mainwaring Gill - Maryland
* William Goddard - Massachusetts
* Mrs. Anne Lovelace Gorsuch - Maryland
* Muriel Gurdon - Massachusetts


* Alexander Hamilton - New York
* Mrs. Elizabeth Bulkeley Whittingham Haugh - Massachusetts
* Edmond Hawes - Massachusetts
* Mrs. Mabel Harlakenden Haynes - Connecticut
* John Henry - Virginia
* Warham Horsmanden - Virginia
* Mrs. Anne Marbury Hutchinson - Rhode Island
* Mrs. Catherine Hamby Hutchinson - Massachusetts


* William Ironmonger - Virginia
* John Irvine - Georgia
* Henry Isham - Virginia


* Gov. Edward Jennings - Virginia
* Mrs. Euphan Scott Johnstone - New Jersey
* Mary Jones - Pennsylvania
* Robert Jones - Pennsylvania


* Joseph Kirkbride - Pennsylvania


* John Lawrence - New York
* Thomas Lawrence - New York
* William Lawrence - New York
* Col. Thomas Ligon - Virginia
* Robert Livingston - New York
* Gov. William Leete - Connecticut
* Gov. Thomas Lloyd - Pennsylvania
* James Logan - Pennsylvania
* Gabriel Ludlow - New York
* Dep. Gov. Roger Ludlow - Connecticut
* Simon Lynde - Massachusetts


* Alexander Magruder - Maryland
* Oliver Mainwaring - Connecticut
* Mrs. Mary Gye Maverick - Massachusetts
* Mrs. Martha Bulkeley Mellowes - Massachusetts
* William Montgomery - New Jersey
* Mrs. Barbara Bennet Murray - North Carolina
* James Murray - Massachusetts


* James Neale - Maryland
* Mrs. Jane Deighton Lugg Negus - Massachusetts
* John Nelson - Massachusetts


* Hugh Owen - Pennsylvania
* Jane Owen - Pennsylvania
* Rebecca Owen - Pennsylvania
* Robert Owen - Pennsylvania
* Rev. John Oxenbridge - Massachusetts


* Dr. Richard Palgrave - Massachusetts
* Mrs. Anne Humphrey Palmes - Massachusetts
* Mrs. Alice Freeman Thompson Parke - Connecticut
* Herbert Pelham - Massachusetts
* Robert Peyton - Virginia
* William Poole - Massachusetts
* Mrs. Amy Wyllys Pynchon - Massachusetts


* William Randolph - Virginia
* Edward Raynsford - Massachusetts
* Col. George Reade - Virginia
* Gainor Roberts - Pennsylvania
* John Roberts - Pennsylvania
* Mrs. Sidney Rees Roberts - Pennsylvania
* Rev. George Ross - Delaware
* Walter Rutherford - New York


* Richard Saltonstall - Massachusetts
* Rev. William Sargent - Massachusetts
* Anthony Savage - Virginia
* Mrs. Katherine Marbury Scott - Rhode Island
* Mrs. Mary Launce Sherman - Massachusetts
* Gov. William Shirley - Massachusetts
* Robert Sinclair - New York
* Sir Grey Skipwith, 3rd Bt. - Virginia
* Lawrence Smith - Virginia
* Constant Southworth - Massachusetts
* Thomas Southworth - Massachusetts
* Gov. Alexander Spotswood - Virginia
* William Strother - Virginia


* Peter Talbot - Massachusetts
* Mrs. Elizabeth Stratton Thorndike - Massachusetts
* John Throckmorton - Rhode Island
* Richard Tilghman - Maryland
* Mrs. Jane Haviland Torrey - Massachusetts
* Lawrence Towneley - Virginia
* Thomas Trowbridge - Connecticut
* St. George Tucker - Virginia


* John Underhill - New York


* Col. John Waller - Virginia
* Mrs. Mary Towneley Warner - Virginia
* John Washington of Surry Co. - Virginia
* John Washington of Westmoreland Co. - Virginia
* Gov. John West - Virginia
* Mrs. Frances Deighton Williams - Massachusetts
* Mrs. Margaret Tyndal Winthrop - Massachusetts
* Jemima Waldegrave - Massachusetts
* William Wentworth - New Hampshire
* Dr. Thomas Wynne - Pennsylvania


* Thomas Yale - Connecticut

[Gary Smith]

Hi,
I've read at various times the asserted estimate that there must be
approximately one billion descendants of Charlemagne. That certainly
increases the number of gateways throughout the world, I'd say.
Cheers, Gary in Berkeley

Post by Rick Eaton
Hi hope that this is useful to researchers.
Apologies if any or all of this is redundant. I have not been able to be a
steady parfticipant or lurker lately with so many hospital strays and clinic
visits.
As I recall, there was considerable discussion of Charlemange's descendants
within recent months. I came across the following web site and useful
information while researching another subject and thought I woukld pass it
along to others for their use.
There is a not-for-profit, membership organization called The

International

Post by Rick Eaton
http://charsoc.users4.50megs.com/
The Society is headed by the Most reverend Lowell A. Barker of Florida
(details at web site).
Robert Abell - Massachusetts
* Mrs. Margaret Wyatt Allyn - Connecticut
* John Alston - South Carolina
* Samuel Appleton - Massachusetts
* Col. Walter Aston - Virginia
* Col. Kenneth Baillie - Georgia
* Mrs. Elizabeth Alsop Baldwin - Connecticut
* Lancelot Bathurst - Virginia
* Christopher Batt - Massachusetts
* Henry Batte - Virginia
* Thomas Batte - Virginia
* Richard Bernard - Virginia
* Col. William Bernard - Virginia
* William Bladen - Maryland
* Joseph Bolles - Maine
* Thomas Boteler - Maryland
* Griffith Bowen - Massachusetts
* Thomas Bradbury - Massachusetts
* Christopher Branch - Virginia
* Thomas Bressie - Connecticut
* Edward Bromfield - Massachusetts
* Gov. Thomas Brooke - Maryland
* Obadiah Bruen - Connecticut
* Mrs. Thomasine Ward Thompson Buffum - Massachusetts
* Rev. Peter Bulkeley - Massachusetts
* Stephen Bull - South Carolina
* Isabel Burnett - New Jersey
* Mrs. Mary Lawrence Burnham - Massachusetts
* Thomas Bye - Pennsylvania
* John Cadwalader - Pennsylvania
* Hon. Anne Arundell Calvert Baroness Baltimore - Maryland
* Cecil Calvert, 2nd Baron Baltimore - Maryland
* Lady Charlotte Lee Calvert, Baroness Baltimore - Maryland
* Jane Lowe Sewall Calvert Baroness Baltimore - Maryland
* Edward Carleton - Massachusetts
* George Carrington - Virginia
* Mrs. Sarah Ludlow Carter - Virginia
* Rev. Charles Chauncey - Massachusetts
* Lady Agatha Eltonhead Kellaway Wormeley Chichele - Virginia
* Mrs. Elizabeth Boteler Claiborne - Virginia
* Acting Gov. Jeremiah Clarke - Rhode Island
* Matthew Clarkson - New York
* James Claypoole - Pennsylvania
* Mrs. Martha Eltonhead Conway - Virginia
* Henry Corbin - Virginia
* Anna Cordray - Virginia
* Gov. John Cranston - Rhode Island
* George Curwen - Massachusetts
* Mrs. Arabella Smith Dallas - Pennsylvania
* Rev. John Davenport - Connecticut
* Margaret Davis - Pennsylvania
* Gov. Edward Digges - Virginia
* Gov. Thomas Dudley - Massachusetts
* Mrs. Anne Lloyd Yale Eaton - Connecticut
* Mrs. Agnes Harris Spencer Edwards - Connecticut
* Mrs. Mary Fox Ellicott - Pennsylvania
* Mrs. Olive Welby Farwell - Massachusetts
* Mrs. Margery Maude Fisher - Delaware
* Edward FitzRandolph - New Jersey
* Rev. Edward Foliot - Virginia
* Col. Gerard Fowke - Virginia
* Thomas Gerard - Maryland
* Gov. Robert Gibbes - Virginia
* Mrs. Jane Lawrence Giddings - Massachusetts
* Mrs. Mary Mainwaring Gill - Maryland
* William Goddard - Massachusetts
* Mrs. Anne Lovelace Gorsuch - Maryland
* Muriel Gurdon - Massachusetts
* Alexander Hamilton - New York
* Mrs. Elizabeth Bulkeley Whittingham Haugh - Massachusetts
* Edmond Hawes - Massachusetts
* Mrs. Mabel Harlakenden Haynes - Connecticut
* John Henry - Virginia
* Warham Horsmanden - Virginia
* Mrs. Anne Marbury Hutchinson - Rhode Island
* Mrs. Catherine Hamby Hutchinson - Massachusetts
* William Ironmonger - Virginia
* John Irvine - Georgia
* Henry Isham - Virginia
* Gov. Edward Jennings - Virginia
* Mrs. Euphan Scott Johnstone - New Jersey
* Mary Jones - Pennsylvania
* Robert Jones - Pennsylvania
* Joseph Kirkbride - Pennsylvania
* John Lawrence - New York
* Thomas Lawrence - New York
* William Lawrence - New York
* Col. Thomas Ligon - Virginia
* Robert Livingston - New York
* Gov. William Leete - Connecticut
* Gov. Thomas Lloyd - Pennsylvania
* James Logan - Pennsylvania
* Gabriel Ludlow - New York
* Dep. Gov. Roger Ludlow - Connecticut
* Simon Lynde - Massachusetts
* Alexander Magruder - Maryland
* Oliver Mainwaring - Connecticut
* Mrs. Mary Gye Maverick - Massachusetts
* Mrs. Martha Bulkeley Mellowes - Massachusetts
* William Montgomery - New Jersey
* Mrs. Barbara Bennet Murray - North Carolina
* James Murray - Massachusetts
* James Neale - Maryland
* Mrs. Jane Deighton Lugg Negus - Massachusetts
* John Nelson - Massachusetts
* Hugh Owen - Pennsylvania
* Jane Owen - Pennsylvania
* Rebecca Owen - Pennsylvania
* Robert Owen - Pennsylvania
* Rev. John Oxenbridge - Massachusetts
* Dr. Richard Palgrave - Massachusetts
* Mrs. Anne Humphrey Palmes - Massachusetts
* Mrs. Alice Freeman Thompson Parke - Connecticut
* Herbert Pelham - Massachusetts
* Robert Peyton - Virginia
* William Poole - Massachusetts
* Mrs. Amy Wyllys Pynchon - Massachusetts
* William Randolph - Virginia
* Edward Raynsford - Massachusetts
* Col. George Reade - Virginia
* Gainor Roberts - Pennsylvania
* John Roberts - Pennsylvania
* Mrs. Sidney Rees Roberts - Pennsylvania
* Rev. George Ross - Delaware
* Walter Rutherford - New York
* Richard Saltonstall - Massachusetts
* Rev. William Sargent - Massachusetts
* Anthony Savage - Virginia
* Mrs. Katherine Marbury Scott - Rhode Island
* Mrs. Mary Launce Sherman - Massachusetts
* Gov. William Shirley - Massachusetts
* Robert Sinclair - New York
* Sir Grey Skipwith, 3rd Bt. - Virginia
* Lawrence Smith - Virginia
* Constant Southworth - Massachusetts
* Thomas Southworth - Massachusetts
* Gov. Alexander Spotswood - Virginia
* William Strother - Virginia
* Peter Talbot - Massachusetts
* Mrs. Elizabeth Stratton Thorndike - Massachusetts
* John Throckmorton - Rhode Island
* Richard Tilghman - Maryland
* Mrs. Jane Haviland Torrey - Massachusetts
* Lawrence Towneley - Virginia
* Thomas Trowbridge - Connecticut
* St. George Tucker - Virginia
* John Underhill - New York
* Col. John Waller - Virginia
* Mrs. Mary Towneley Warner - Virginia
* John Washington of Surry Co. - Virginia
* John Washington of Westmoreland Co. - Virginia
* Gov. John West - Virginia
* Mrs. Frances Deighton Williams - Massachusetts
* Mrs. Margaret Tyndal Winthrop - Massachusetts
* Jemima Waldegrave - Massachusetts
* William Wentworth - New Hampshire
* Dr. Thomas Wynne - Pennsylvania
* Thomas Yale - Connecticut

[Nathaniel Taylor]

Post by Rick Eaton
As I recall, there was considerable discussion of Charlemange's descendants
within recent months. I came across the following web site and useful
information while researching another subject and thought I woukld pass it
along to others for their use.
There is a not-for-profit, membership organization called The International
http://charsoc.users4.50megs.com/
The Society is headed by the Most reverend Lowell A. Barker of Florida
(details at web site).
* Robert Abell - Massachusetts
* Mrs. Margaret Wyatt Allyn - Connecticut
* John Alston - South Carolina
* Samuel Appleton - Massachusetts
* Col. Walter Aston - Virginia

...

[etc., down through:]

Post by Rick Eaton
* Thomas Yale - Connecticut

This list is simply an alphabetical rearrangement of Gary Boyd Roberts'
list of 167 17th-century immigrants with royal descents (all obviously
also descended from Charlemagne) from his first Royal Descents book,
_The Royal Descents of 500 Immigrants..._ (Baltimore, 1993), pp. xl-xlvi.

Mr. Barker's enterprise should not be confused with the 'Order of the
Crown of Charlemagne', which has its own website at

http://www.charlemagne.org

and which was founded in 1939.

Nat Taylor

a genealogist's sketchbook:
http://home.earthlink.net/~nathanieltaylor/leaves/

[Gordon Banks]

Another money-making website?

Post by Nathaniel Taylor

Post by Rick Eaton
As I recall, there was considerable discussion of Charlemange's descendants
within recent months. I came across the following web site and useful
information while researching another subject and thought I woukld pass it
along to others for their use.
There is a not-for-profit, membership organization called The International
http://charsoc.users4.50megs.com/
The Society is headed by the Most reverend Lowell A. Barker of Florida
(details at web site).
* Robert Abell - Massachusetts
* Mrs. Margaret Wyatt Allyn - Connecticut
* John Alston - South Carolina
* Samuel Appleton - Massachusetts
* Col. Walter Aston - Virginia

...
[etc., down through:]

Post by Rick Eaton
* Thomas Yale - Connecticut

This list is simply an alphabetical rearrangement of Gary Boyd Roberts'
list of 167 17th-century immigrants with royal descents (all obviously
also descended from Charlemagne) from his first Royal Descents book,
_The Royal Descents of 500 Immigrants..._ (Baltimore, 1993), pp. xl-xlvi.
Mr. Barker's enterprise should not be confused with the 'Order of the
Crown of Charlemagne', which has its own website at
http://www.charlemagne.org
and which was founded in 1939.
Nat Taylor
http://home.earthlink.net/~nathanieltaylor/leaves/

[Nathaniel Taylor]

In article <***@localhost.localdomain>,
***@gordonbanks.com (Gordon Banks) wrote:

[re: the 'International Society of the Descendants of Charlemagne']

Post by Gordon Banks
Another money-making website?

Googling "Lowell Barker" or "Lowell A. Barker" yields a bit of
background on this individual. For example see his name cropping up in
one of Guy Stair Sainty's informative pages on fake chivalric orders:

http://www.chivalricorders.org/orders/self-styled/slfstlod.htm

or the first section of this musing by 'Dr. Pangloss', titled "The
Chivalric Emporium of West Virginia" (Barker's former home), on-line at
James J. Algrant's website 'Caltrap's Corner':

http://www.maineworldnewsservice.com/caltrap/chivalri.htm

or see Usenet message-id

<***@posting.google.com>

to this list, in 2003.

He seems innocuous enough in his correspondence with Leo, but Mr. Barker
obviously has a history of selling fantasy chivalric orders (and calling
himself an archbishop at some point). Perhaps now he's simply quietly
profiting from serial joiners, selling simple memberships and not
knighthoods. I assume his Charlemagne society has no existence as a
social entity (does it throw parties, sponsor essay contests, or spend
money on anything socially worthwhile?), but this could also be said of
many--if not most--American lineage societies.

Nat Taylor

a genealogist's sketchbook:
http://home.earthlink.net/~nathanieltaylor/leaves/

[Gordon Banks]

I wonder why people join such societies, just for bragging rights?
Surely with the Internet we can get together groups like this one that
share information better than such a society.

Maybe we should start a Sancha de Ayala Society.

Post by Nathaniel Taylor
[re: the 'International Society of the Descendants of Charlemagne']

Post by Gordon Banks
Another money-making website?

Googling "Lowell Barker" or "Lowell A. Barker" yields a bit of
background on this individual. For example see his name cropping up in
http://www.chivalricorders.org/orders/self-styled/slfstlod.htm
or the first section of this musing by 'Dr. Pangloss', titled "The
Chivalric Emporium of West Virginia" (Barker's former home), on-line at
http://www.maineworldnewsservice.com/caltrap/chivalri.htm
or see Usenet message-id
to this list, in 2003.
He seems innocuous enough in his correspondence with Leo, but Mr. Barker
obviously has a history of selling fantasy chivalric orders (and calling
himself an archbishop at some point). Perhaps now he's simply quietly
profiting from serial joiners, selling simple memberships and not
knighthoods. I assume his Charlemagne society has no existence as a
social entity (does it throw parties, sponsor essay contests, or spend
money on anything socially worthwhile?), but this could also be said of
many--if not most--American lineage societies.
Nat Taylor
http://home.earthlink.net/~nathanieltaylor/leaves/

[Nathaniel Taylor]

Post by Gordon Banks
I wonder why people join such societies, just for bragging rights?
Surely with the Internet we can get together groups like this one that
share information better than such a society.
Maybe we should start a Sancha de Ayala Society.

I can't lay a finger on it, but I read about a sherry, marketed in the
mid 20th century with the label 'El Cid', which tried to bank on the
idea of descendants of El Cid.

Nat Taylor

a genealogist's sketchbook:
http://home.earthlink.net/~nathanieltaylor/leaves/

[Leo van de Pas]

Dear Gordon,

You can be proud of your ancestors and you can brag if you can find a link
to people living over a thousand years ago (I can't), I think there is
nothing wrong with that BUT it doesn't make you better or different from
anyone else. I know you agree with this.

What I think is a pity, is that this International Charlemagne Society seems
to be such a closed shop, "You give us information, we only give you your
ancestors and that is it".
I believe in sharing and let others have access to information as then you
have a chance that someone will make corrections and additions. There is
always room for improvement.

I think the idea of a Charlemagne or Sancha de Ayala group/society is
interesting as long as it involves sharing knowledge and being open with the
details collected. I think Charlemagne has a unique position in history as
well as in genealogy, but so does Sancha de Ayala, William the Conqueror,
Robert the Bruce, William the Silent, Gustaf Vasa and
many others, but Charlemagne stands out. He is the first and most of the
others mentioned are his descendants. I think Charlemagne steered Europe
into a direction which has had effects to the present.

I agree with Gordon that we should share our information, but then we
already do on gen-med. I think Stewart Baldwin is another example of sharing
highly specialised information.
Best wishes
Leo van de Pas
Canberra, Australia

----- Original Message -----
From: "Gordon Banks" <***@gordonbanks.com>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-***@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Thursday, February 24, 2005 7:50 AM
Subject: Re: Descendants of Charlemagne

Post by Gordon Banks
I wonder why people join such societies, just for bragging rights?
Surely with the Internet we can get together groups like this one that
share information better than such a society.
Maybe we should start a Sancha de Ayala Society.

Post by Nathaniel Taylor
[re: the 'International Society of the Descendants of Charlemagne']

Post by Gordon Banks
Another money-making website?

Googling "Lowell Barker" or "Lowell A. Barker" yields a bit of
background on this individual. For example see his name cropping up in
http://www.chivalricorders.org/orders/self-styled/slfstlod.htm
or the first section of this musing by 'Dr. Pangloss', titled "The
Chivalric Emporium of West Virginia" (Barker's former home), on-line at
http://www.maineworldnewsservice.com/caltrap/chivalri.htm
or see Usenet message-id
to this list, in 2003.
He seems innocuous enough in his correspondence with Leo, but Mr. Barker
obviously has a history of selling fantasy chivalric orders (and calling
himself an archbishop at some point). Perhaps now he's simply quietly
profiting from serial joiners, selling simple memberships and not
knighthoods. I assume his Charlemagne society has no existence as a
social entity (does it throw parties, sponsor essay contests, or spend
money on anything socially worthwhile?), but this could also be said of
many--if not most--American lineage societies.
Nat Taylor
http://home.earthlink.net/~nathanieltaylor/leaves/

--

[Dolly Ziegler]

Post by Gordon Banks
I wonder why people join such societies, just for bragging rights?
Surely with the Internet we can get together groups like this one that
share information better than such a society.
Maybe we should start a Sancha de Ayala Society.

Oh yes, delicious heraldic trappings. May I suggest: Sources required. No
dues. No meetings. Need a motto. As many officers as can be inveigled.
Should we have a recognition pin? No secret handshake, though, I think.

Gordon, will you accept the post of chairman?

At google.com, click images, search for "sancha de ayala" [with the quote
marks], the two related hits are interesting. I was hoping for an effigy
of Walter and Sancha but no luck.

Cheers, Dolly in Maryland USA

[W***@aol.com]

Leo wrote: "I believe in sharing and let others have access to information as then you have a chance that someone will make corrections and additions. "

I agree with Leo. Frequently, as a professional genealogist, people will complain to me that they don't want to "resell all the research *they've* done". I have to explain that I don't resell other people's research.
What I sell is my *time* to do the research, not the results of that research. My results, are all posted, free-for-all, on various web sites, including my own.
So if you're patient and lucky you may get free results if one of your relatives pays me to reseach part of the shared line. If you're less patient, then you can pay me to sit and spin microfilm reels or get into a sneezing fit looking through old ledgers.
I don't see who the Charlemagne Society thinks its going to fool. With the large databases of www.ancestry.com, www.familysearch.org, www.genealogy.com, and of course Leo's database and others it is doubtful that there are any already-researched Charlemagne descents (within the first 20 generations at any rate) that are not posted at least in one place already.
And of course there are many that are spurious most likely, and which are posted all over the place. Which doesn't stop those who wish they had a royal connection from adopting those lines without question.
Will

[Tim Powys-Lybbe]

Post by W***@aol.com
With the large databases of www.ancestry.com, www.familysearch.org,
www.genealogy.com, and of course Leo's database and others it is
doubtful that there are any already-researched Charlemagne descents
(within the first 20 generations at any rate) that are not posted at
least in one place already. And of course there are many that are
spurious most likely, and which are posted all over the place.

The last time I looked, at least a couple of years ago, the problem I
found with all the Charlemagne databases that I came across was that
none of them had any research information to go with them, leo's apart
of course. I suspect that if that had changed, we would have heard
about it on this group. Has it changed?

(Nor have I found any reasonably priced book to do this, certainly
nothing anywhere near the quality of CP.)

[Denis Beauregard]

Post by Tim Powys-Lybbe

Post by W***@aol.com
With the large databases of www.ancestry.com, www.familysearch.org,
www.genealogy.com, and of course Leo's database and others it is
doubtful that there are any already-researched Charlemagne descents
(within the first 20 generations at any rate) that are not posted at
least in one place already. And of course there are many that are
spurious most likely, and which are posted all over the place.

The last time I looked, at least a couple of years ago, the problem I
found with all the Charlemagne databases that I came across was that
none of them had any research information to go with them, leo's apart
of course. I suspect that if that had changed, we would have heard
about it on this group. Has it changed?

Sources ? What's that !

The major Quebec resources are as follows:

DGFC/Tanguay (1870-1891): no source (but most data is from records)

DNCF/Red Drouin (1958): no source (most data is from DGFC)

DGFQ/Jette (1983): the first general purpose book to have sources
and not always. Usually, only the major work about a given family
(no page is a book, volume and page is a review).

DGQA/Desjardins (2001?): CD-ROM, no source

FFAN/Beauregard (in preparation): most sources will be indicated


The major Acadian resources are as follows:

HGA/Arsenault: very few sources (the dates are usually skipped when
known)

GAAQ/Bergeron: very few sources

DGFA/White: all sources and a lot of comments


I think you will see something similar with New England early gen.
like Torrey, Savage or Clemens.


Most major works have no sources or only a list of sources at the
end of the book. So, giving the sources is not very typical !


But in medieval genealogy, it can be somewhat different. For
instances, the Quartiers des reines et impératrices de France,
or Sang de Charlemagne, sources are there. In DelaChenaye-Desbois,
St-Allais, there are few sources. So, older resources have few or
no sources. Recent printed resources have more sources but
computer based have few or none.


Denis

[W***@aol.com]

Tim wrote: "The last time I looked, at least a couple of years ago, the problem I found with all the Charlemagne databases that I came across was that none of them had any research information to go with them..."

You are quite right Tim. Most people, once they hit a royal vein, spend huge amounts of time just trying to enter all the NAMES and dates into a file, let along all the extra detail for which you are looking.

I know I am as guilty as the next person of that. There are just such a huge number of ancestors to enter. It can take a dedicated typist a year I suspect. And then after that is finished, you lurk on here and cut and paste responses and "fix" the data up as you go along.

One of the more useful sources is the www.familysearch.org Medieval Research section. Sometimes when you look underneath an IGI entry it will say something like "Medieval Research". I've stumbled acros this now and then and I believe it means they are copying data out of actual original documents, but I'm not sure.

At any rate the Ancestral File attempts to create just one single entry for each individual. The IGI creates one entry for each DOCUMENT. Quite a different thing. In the Ancestral File they have attempted to coalesce the various information about an individual, so the entry for King Richard III of England can be counted on to be at least mostly accurate whereas of course the entry for Martha Smith 1805 is only as good as the one or two people who submitted on that person. There are probably a few hundred people who've submitted information on King Richard III.

SO just like www.wikipedia.com, the more submitters to the Ancestral File, the better it is supposed to be getting. As for sources, I agree with Denis that for late Medieval Quebec 1600-1660, Jette is the best, he gives sources on each family unit instead of just lumping them all at the back of the book. I have used his information to find some of the original documents, and in one case at least was able to extend and correct what he had listed.

Also, it's a painstaking exercise, but you WILL find on the Ancestral World Tree (at www.ancestry.com) that there are people, like myself, who do attempt to give sources for certain facts and in some cases full biographies. It's just hard to search through 300 entries on Richard III, to find the "best" one. So for the famous I use www.wikipedia.org and for the not-so-famous www.familysearch.org and www.ancestry.com and of course this list.

Will

[Renia]

Post by W***@aol.com
One of the more useful sources is the www.familysearch.org Medieval Research section. Sometimes when you look underneath an IGI entry it will say something like "Medieval Research". I've stumbled acros this now and then and I believe it means they are copying data out of actual original documents, but I'm not sure.

It appears to me that this "Medieval Research Section" comprises
material taken from published works, such as Burke's.

FamilySearch is more usful for material from Parish Registers and
Bishop's Transcripts. Anything else, you hold your breath and hope.

Renia

[Dolly Ziegler]

Hello to the list. I'm truly sorry to tell you that you cannot rely on
medieval lineages in the Ancestral File of the Family History
Department, even those processed by the Medieval Families Unit. I wish it
were reliable! Renia is correct, published works were used.

There are some real howlers, impossible chronologies. Use Ancestral File
only as a clue, then work to find source material.

The Ancestral File has been closed to new entries. People (not only LDS
Church members) are now encouraged to contribute their lines to the
Pedigree Resource File (PRF), also at www.familysearch.org

An index to PRF (many millions of names with other data) is online. For
the full files, you have a choice: Go to a Family History Center that has
bought the PRF on CD -- more than 90 of the CDs now, IIRC -- or buy the
CDs for yourself. The first 75 cost $177 (total), but use is free at a
FHC. Some of us think the entire database will be online "someday" but
that has not been announced. ($177 is correct, not a typo. Still more than
I want to spend. That's my Scots ancestry.)

The oldest of these huge LDS Church databases, the International
Genealogical Index (IGI), is an index to church ordinances. It's important
to know the difference between "patron submissions" -- where the accuracy
varies; and "extracted" entries which have a good degree of accuracy (but
always look at the original yourself!) Most originals will be on
microfilm.

Always use the online IGI, which is current. The microfiche version at
FHCs is at least 10 years out of date, and the CD version also is out of
date. Some FHCs keep the older versions because of reports that in a few
instances, they have information that is not online. My (unsupported)
opinion is that this is a rare situation.

If you are at an FHC, ask if they have the British Isles Vital Records
Index 2nd edition: 16 CDs with partial (NOT COMPLETE) extracted civil and
church records dating from 1530 to 1906. It's my understanding that all
these will eventually be in the online IGI -- but I don't know when. (This
set, too, is available for purchase, $20. But most FHCs will have it.)
The website has a breakdown of how many births/christenings and marriages
are available for each county in England, Ireland, Scotland and Wales.
"This collection does not contain all available records from this time
period or from these localities."

Cheers, Dolly in Maryland USA

[Gordon Banks]

I don't think Ancestral File is actively taking new submissions.
Perhaps Doug can comment since he is there often.

Post by W***@aol.com
Tim wrote: "The last time I looked, at least a couple of years ago, the problem I found with all the Charlemagne databases that I came across was that none of them had any research information to go with them..."
You are quite right Tim. Most people, once they hit a royal vein, spend huge amounts of time just trying to enter all the NAMES and dates into a file, let along all the extra detail for which you are looking.
I know I am as guilty as the next person of that. There are just such a huge number of ancestors to enter. It can take a dedicated typist a year I suspect. And then after that is finished, you lurk on here and cut and paste responses and "fix" the data up as you go along.
One of the more useful sources is the www.familysearch.org Medieval Research section. Sometimes when you look underneath an IGI entry it will say something like "Medieval Research". I've stumbled acros this now and then and I believe it means they are copying data out of actual original documents, but I'm not sure.
At any rate the Ancestral File attempts to create just one single entry for each individual. The IGI creates one entry for each DOCUMENT. Quite a different thing. In the Ancestral File they have attempted to coalesce the various information about an individual, so the entry for King Richard III of England can be counted on to be at least mostly accurate whereas of course the entry for Martha Smith 1805 is only as good as the one or two people who submitted on that person. There are probably a few hundred people who've submitted information on King Richard III.
SO just like www.wikipedia.com, the more submitters to the Ancestral File, the better it is supposed to be getting. As for sources, I agree with Denis that for late Medieval Quebec 1600-1660, Jette is the best, he gives sources on each family unit instead of just lumping them all at the back of the book. I have used his information to find some of the original documents, and in one case at least was able to extend and correct what he had listed.
Also, it's a painstaking exercise, but you WILL find on the Ancestral World Tree (at www.ancestry.com) that there are people, like myself, who do attempt to give sources for certain facts and in some cases full biographies. It's just hard to search through 300 entries on Richard III, to find the "best" one. So for the famous I use www.wikipedia.org and for the not-so-famous www.familysearch.org and www.ancestry.com and of course this list.
Will

[Douglas Richardson [e-mail]]

Dear Gordon ~

The Medieval Families Unit was reactived about three years ago under
the direction of Mrs. Debbie Latimer. The reactivated unit has been
working on revising the medieval part of the Ancestral File for England
and other countries. They've already canvassed a lot of secondary
sources which are in print. At some point the unit plans to release a
revised edition of the Ancestral File. So far, there has been no
annoucement about a release date.

Based on my discussions with Mrs. Latimer, it is apparent that the
medieval part of the revised Ancestral File will be much superior to
the one currently in use. Among other things, I believe they plan to
include a list of sources for each family in the revised Ancestral
File. So, in the future, researchers will be able to tell exactly
where the unit obtained their information. That in itself is a big
improvement.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Website: www.royalancestry.net

Post by Gordon Banks
I don't think Ancestral File is actively taking new submissions.
Perhaps Doug can comment since he is there often.

Post by W***@aol.com
Tim wrote: "The last time I looked, at least a couple of years ago,

the problem I found with all the Charlemagne databases that I came
across was that none of them had any research information to go with
them..."

Post by Gordon Banks

Post by W***@aol.com
You are quite right Tim. Most people, once they hit a royal vein,

spend huge amounts of time just trying to enter all the NAMES and dates
into a file, let along all the extra detail for which you are looking.

Post by Gordon Banks

Post by W***@aol.com
I know I am as guilty as the next person of that. There are just

such a huge number of ancestors to enter. It can take a dedicated
typist a year I suspect. And then after that is finished, you lurk on
here and cut and paste responses and "fix" the data up as you go along.

Post by Gordon Banks

Post by W***@aol.com
One of the more useful sources is the www.familysearch.org Medieval

Research section. Sometimes when you look underneath an IGI entry it
will say something like "Medieval Research". I've stumbled acros this
now and then and I believe it means they are copying data out of actual
original documents, but I'm not sure.

Post by Gordon Banks

Post by W***@aol.com
At any rate the Ancestral File attempts to create just one single

entry for each individual. The IGI creates one entry for each
DOCUMENT. Quite a different thing. In the Ancestral File they have
attempted to coalesce the various information about an individual, so
the entry for King Richard III of England can be counted on to be at
least mostly accurate whereas of course the entry for Martha Smith 1805
is only as good as the one or two people who submitted on that person.
There are probably a few hundred people who've submitted information on
King Richard III.

Post by Gordon Banks

Post by W***@aol.com
SO just like www.wikipedia.com, the more submitters to the

Ancestral File, the better it is supposed to be getting. As for
sources, I agree with Denis that for late Medieval Quebec 1600-1660,
Jette is the best, he gives sources on each family unit instead of just
lumping them all at the back of the book. I have used his information
to find some of the original documents, and in one case at least was
able to extend and correct what he had listed.

Post by Gordon Banks

Post by W***@aol.com
Also, it's a painstaking exercise, but you WILL find on the

Ancestral World Tree (at www.ancestry.com) that there are people, like
myself, who do attempt to give sources for certain facts and in some
cases full biographies. It's just hard to search through 300 entries
on Richard III, to find the "best" one. So for the famous I use
www.wikipedia.org and for the not-so-famous www.familysearch.org and
www.ancestry.com and of course this list.

Post by Gordon Banks

Post by W***@aol.com
Will

--

[D. Spencer Hines]

That is GREAT NEWS.

I was told the previous Medieval Families Unit was shut down by the LDS
because it was considered "too elitist" [thereby arousing dysfunctional
jealousies in some poor addle-pated folks] -- among other reasons --
including "finances" and "allocation of resources" -- two reasons often
used as cover-up excuses.

So this is welcome news indeed.

Thanks for posting this, Douglas.

D. Spencer Hines

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

Vires et Honor

<***@msn.com> wrote in message news:***@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

| Dear Gordon ~
|
| The Medieval Families Unit was reactived about three years ago under
| the direction of Mrs. Debbie Latimer. The reactivated unit has been
| working on revising the medieval part of the Ancestral File for
England
| and other countries. They've already canvassed a lot of secondary
| sources which are in print. At some point the unit plans to release a
| revised edition of the Ancestral File. So far, there has been no
| annoucement about a release date.
|
| Based on my discussions with Mrs. Latimer, it is apparent that the
| medieval part of the revised Ancestral File will be much superior to
| the one currently in use. Among other things, I believe they plan to
| include a list of sources for each family in the revised Ancestral
| File. So, in the future, researchers will be able to tell exactly
| where the unit obtained their information. That in itself is a big
| improvement.
|
| Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
|
| Website: www.royalancestry.net
|
|
| Gordon Banks wrote:
| > I don't think Ancestral File is actively taking new submissions.
| > Perhaps Doug can comment since he is there often.
| >
| > On Wed, 2005-02-23 at 20:27 -0500, ***@aol.com wrote:
| > > Tim wrote: "The last time I looked, at least a couple of years
ago,
| the problem I found with all the Charlemagne databases that I came
| across was that none of them had any research information to go with
| them..."
| > >
| > > You are quite right Tim. Most people, once they hit a royal vein,
| spend huge amounts of time just trying to enter all the NAMES and
dates
| into a file, let along all the extra detail for which you are looking.
| > >
| > > I know I am as guilty as the next person of that. There are just
| such a huge number of ancestors to enter. It can take a dedicated
| typist a year I suspect. And then after that is finished, you lurk on
| here and cut and paste responses and "fix" the data up as you go
along.
| > >
| > > One of the more useful sources is the www.familysearch.org
Medieval
| Research section. Sometimes when you look underneath an IGI entry it
| will say something like "Medieval Research". I've stumbled acros this
| now and then and I believe it means they are copying data out of
actual
| original documents, but I'm not sure.
| > >
| > > At any rate the Ancestral File attempts to create just one single
| entry for each individual. The IGI creates one entry for each
| DOCUMENT. Quite a different thing. In the Ancestral File they have
| attempted to coalesce the various information about an individual, so
| the entry for King Richard III of England can be counted on to be at
| least mostly accurate whereas of course the entry for Martha Smith
1805
| is only as good as the one or two people who submitted on that person.
| There are probably a few hundred people who've submitted information
on
| King Richard III.
| > >
| > > SO just like www.wikipedia.com, the more submitters to the
| Ancestral File, the better it is supposed to be getting. As for
| sources, I agree with Denis that for late Medieval Quebec 1600-1660,
| Jette is the best, he gives sources on each family unit instead of
just
| lumping them all at the back of the book. I have used his information
| to find some of the original documents, and in one case at least was
| able to extend and correct what he had listed.
| > >
| > > Also, it's a painstaking exercise, but you WILL find on the
| Ancestral World Tree (at www.ancestry.com) that there are people, like
| myself, who do attempt to give sources for certain facts and in some
| cases full biographies. It's just hard to search through 300 entries
| on Richard III, to find the "best" one. So for the famous I use
| www.wikipedia.org and for the not-so-famous www.familysearch.org and
| www.ancestry.com and of course this list.
| > >
| > > Will
| > --
| > Gordon Banks <***@gordonbanks.com>

[Gordon Banks]

The driving force in what the LDS Church does genealogically is rooted
in making sure temple ordinances are done for the dead. As I understand
it, the names of these medieval persons were being submitted by members
of the church over and over with differing names and differing family
structures, etc., and so the church wanted the unit in order to make
sure the temple work for these people who are the common ancestors of
millions of people was done in a more rational way. Members are told
not to submit names earlier than a certain date, and leave the work for
these medieval people to the Medieval Unit.

A vetted Medieval Ancestral File would be a great boon, even better than
the Henry Project, if it is done right, since it would contain many more
names. What a huge job though. I wonder how many people will be
working in this unit?

Post by D. Spencer Hines
That is GREAT NEWS.
I was told the previous Medieval Families Unit was shut down by the LDS
because it was considered "too elitist" [thereby arousing dysfunctional
jealousies in some poor addle-pated folks] -- among other reasons --
including "finances" and "allocation of resources" -- two reasons often
used as cover-up excuses.
So this is welcome news indeed.
Thanks for posting this, Douglas.
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Vires et Honor
| Dear Gordon ~
|
| The Medieval Families Unit was reactived about three years ago under
| the direction of Mrs. Debbie Latimer. The reactivated unit has been
| working on revising the medieval part of the Ancestral File for
England
| and other countries. They've already canvassed a lot of secondary
| sources which are in print. At some point the unit plans to release a
| revised edition of the Ancestral File. So far, there has been no
| annoucement about a release date.
|
| Based on my discussions with Mrs. Latimer, it is apparent that the
| medieval part of the revised Ancestral File will be much superior to
| the one currently in use. Among other things, I believe they plan to
| include a list of sources for each family in the revised Ancestral
| File. So, in the future, researchers will be able to tell exactly
| where the unit obtained their information. That in itself is a big
| improvement.
|
| Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
|
| Website: www.royalancestry.net
|
|
| > I don't think Ancestral File is actively taking new submissions.
| > Perhaps Doug can comment since he is there often.
| >
| > > Tim wrote: "The last time I looked, at least a couple of years
ago,
| the problem I found with all the Charlemagne databases that I came
| across was that none of them had any research information to go with
| them..."
| > >
| > > You are quite right Tim. Most people, once they hit a royal vein,
| spend huge amounts of time just trying to enter all the NAMES and
dates
| into a file, let along all the extra detail for which you are looking.
| > >
| > > I know I am as guilty as the next person of that. There are just
| such a huge number of ancestors to enter. It can take a dedicated
| typist a year I suspect. And then after that is finished, you lurk on
| here and cut and paste responses and "fix" the data up as you go
along.
| > >
| > > One of the more useful sources is the www.familysearch.org
Medieval
| Research section. Sometimes when you look underneath an IGI entry it
| will say something like "Medieval Research". I've stumbled acros this
| now and then and I believe it means they are copying data out of
actual
| original documents, but I'm not sure.
| > >
| > > At any rate the Ancestral File attempts to create just one single
| entry for each individual. The IGI creates one entry for each
| DOCUMENT. Quite a different thing. In the Ancestral File they have
| attempted to coalesce the various information about an individual, so
| the entry for King Richard III of England can be counted on to be at
| least mostly accurate whereas of course the entry for Martha Smith
1805
| is only as good as the one or two people who submitted on that person.
| There are probably a few hundred people who've submitted information
on
| King Richard III.
| > >
| > > SO just like www.wikipedia.com, the more submitters to the
| Ancestral File, the better it is supposed to be getting. As for
| sources, I agree with Denis that for late Medieval Quebec 1600-1660,
| Jette is the best, he gives sources on each family unit instead of
just
| lumping them all at the back of the book. I have used his information
| to find some of the original documents, and in one case at least was
| able to extend and correct what he had listed.
| > >
| > > Also, it's a painstaking exercise, but you WILL find on the
| Ancestral World Tree (at www.ancestry.com) that there are people, like
| myself, who do attempt to give sources for certain facts and in some
| cases full biographies. It's just hard to search through 300 entries
| on Richard III, to find the "best" one. So for the famous I use
| www.wikipedia.org and for the not-so-famous www.familysearch.org and
| www.ancestry.com and of course this list.
| > >
| > > Will
| > --

[Mark Harry]

Post by Douglas Richardson ***@msn.com
Dear Gordon ~

Post by Douglas Richardson ***@msn.com
Based on my discussions with Mrs. Latimer, it is apparent that the

medieval part of the revised Ancestral File will be much superior to
the one currently in use. Among other things, I believe they plan to
include a list of sources for each family in the revised Ancestral
File. So, in the future, researchers will be able to tell exactly
where the unit obtained their information.

Good, I am glad to hear this.
I wrote to Salt Lake about 4-5 years ago, wanting to know their
sources for the pedigree of a medieval Devonshire family, as the dates
were quite obviously wrong in a multitude of places (sons born 3 years
after the father's date of death, and so forth) and while I got a
response, it was not very helpful.
In some cases it is apparent that where several differing versions of
a family pedigree exist, all the versions were put in without that
fact being made clear, making the result terribly confusing for
someone who did not have a prior knowledge of the issues around the
pedigree concerned.

[Todd A. Farmerie]

Post by Gordon Banks
I don't think Ancestral File is actively taking new submissions.

No, it is not. It has been superseded by the Pedigree Resource
File. The primary difference, for better or worse, is that each
submission is a stand-alone pedigree, with no opportunity to link
to or correct a prior submission (which also means others can't
'correct' yours). I not the Ancestry is now experimenting in the
opposite direction, linking pedigrees in WorldConnect into
OneWorldTree - I just saw one where two people with the same
name, born the same year, were linked, in spite of one being born
in Ohio, the other in Australia.

taf

[Renia]

This post might be inappropriate. Click to display it.

[W***@aol.com]

In a message dated 2/26/2005 6:56:28 PM Pacific Standard Time,

Post by Mark Harry
In some cases it is apparent that where several differing versions of
a family pedigree exist, all the versions were put in without that
fact being made clear,

I think you are confusing the IGI with the Ancestral File. The IGI *does*
have several different versions of "facts" on the same person, and
correspondingly many entries on the same person. The Ancestral File is and should remain a
file where each *person* is represented by exactly one entry.
Will

[Denis Beauregard]

Post by W***@aol.com
In a message dated 2/26/2005 6:56:28 PM Pacific Standard Time,

Post by Mark Harry
In some cases it is apparent that where several differing versions of
a family pedigree exist, all the versions were put in without that
fact being made clear,

I think you are confusing the IGI with the Ancestral File. The IGI *does*
have several different versions of "facts" on the same person, and
correspondingly many entries on the same person. The Ancestral File is and should remain a
file where each *person* is represented by exactly one entry.

The joke of the day !!!

I have seen recently someone married twice. There were about 4
entries for the 1st marriage and 2 for the 2nd, i.e. about 6
spouses were indicated with similar names and dates but not
exactly the same data.


Denis

[Mark Harry]

Post by W***@aol.com
In a message dated 2/26/2005 6:56:28 PM Pacific Standard Time,

Post by Mark Harry
In some cases it is apparent that where several differing versions of
a family pedigree exist, all the versions were put in without that
fact being made clear,

I think you are confusing the IGI with the Ancestral File. The IGI *does*
have several different versions of "facts" on the same person, and
correspondingly many entries on the same person. The Ancestral File is and should remain a
file where each *person* is represented by exactly one entry.
Will

Should be, but isn't.

[Debbi]

Should be, but often is not. The initial version of the AF was taken
directly from the IGI, with all of its errors. Sometimes there is
duplication stemming from the fact that one individual may have submitted a
name in the format "Simon of Montfort" and another in the format "Simon
Montfort." Other duplications stem from one individual submitting a place
in the format "Alton, Staffordshire, England," and another in the format
"Alton Parish, Staff, Eng.", and still another in the format "Alton,
England." Some of these errors have been cleaned out of the system, but
with over 100K names (not counting the duplicates) it will take some doing
to clear them all. It took me over a month to clear out the duplications
when I first downloaded a geed.com from AF in 1994 to get the obvious
duplications weeded in my database. I occasionally still find a duplicate
Now that I have learned more about the individuals and how they were
referred to in contemporary documents.

Debbi
----- Original Message -----
From: <***@aol.com>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-***@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Saturday, February 26, 2005 9:02 PM
Subject: Re: New Ancestral File

Post by W***@aol.com
In a message dated 2/26/2005 6:56:28 PM Pacific Standard Time,

Post by Mark Harry
In some cases it is apparent that where several differing versions of
a family pedigree exist, all the versions were put in without that
fact being made clear,

I think you are confusing the IGI with the Ancestral File. The IGI *does*
have several different versions of "facts" on the same person, and
correspondingly many entries on the same person. The Ancestral File is and should remain a
file where each *person* is represented by exactly one entry.
Will

[W***@aol.com]

In a message dated 2/26/2005 10:11:39 PM Pacific Standard Time,

Post by Denis Beauregard
I have seen recently someone married twice. There were about 4
entries for the 1st marriage and 2 for the 2nd, i.e. about 6
spouses were indicated with similar names and dates but not
exactly the same data.

The IGI is not *verified* by the LDS staff, they just enter it. The
variations are caused by people like you and me and others sending in variant data.
Just like real life. The IGI is not, in this case any *better* then the
Ancestral World Tree at www.ancestry.com. That is also just submissions by anyone
and their crazy aunt which may or may not be accurate. The IGI just compiles
it all, they don't edit it for accuracy.
Will

[Denis Beauregard]

Post by W***@aol.com
In a message dated 2/26/2005 10:11:39 PM Pacific Standard Time,

Post by Denis Beauregard
I have seen recently someone married twice. There were about 4
entries for the 1st marriage and 2 for the 2nd, i.e. about 6
spouses were indicated with similar names and dates but not
exactly the same data.

The IGI is not *verified* by the LDS staff, they just enter it. The
variations are caused by people like you and me and others sending in variant data.
Just like real life. The IGI is not, in this case any *better* then the
Ancestral World Tree at www.ancestry.com. That is also just submissions by anyone
and their crazy aunt which may or may not be accurate. The IGI just compiles
it all, they don't edit it for accuracy.

It was in the Ancestor File.


Denis

[Doug McDonald]

Then what is Pedigree Resource File?

Doug McDonald

[Denis Beauregard]

On Sun, 27 Feb 2005 08:59:11 -0600, Doug McDonald

Post by Doug McDonald
Then what is Pedigree Resource File?

It was explained by one of the programmer who worked on the
presentation software in 2001.

AF is the old set of files. The Mormons try to merge repeated
data into one record, i.e. if John Smith and Mary Johnson from
Boston married in 1712 appear in 5 records, they will try to
have them in one single record, one number (AFN), etc. This
process is very long because it is not always obvious that
John Smith is also Jno Smyther married to Marge Jonson married
about 1714. So, someone submitting his data in 1990 may see
them in the database in 1995 only.

PRF is the new set of files. Now, they don't try to merge the
data and will distribute the GEDCOMs they receive short after
they receive them. Someone submitting a GEDCOM in 2005 can see
it on a CD-ROM in 2005 ! Much faster. But no duplicate is
removed.


Denis

[Renia]

Post by Doug McDonald
Then what is Pedigree Resource File?

Supposed to be the new, updated version of Ancestral File.

Renia

[Chris Dickinson]

Post by W***@aol.com
The IGI is not *verified* by the LDS staff, they just enter it. The
variations are caused by people like you and me and others sending in variant data.
Just like real life. The IGI is not, in this case any *better* then the
Ancestral World Tree at www.ancestry.com. That is also just submissions by anyone
and their crazy aunt which may or may not be accurate. The IGI just compiles
it all, they don't edit it for accuracy.

That's a little misleading and close to being wrong.

(1)
A significant number of IGI entries have been extracted from parish
registers and other sources under controlled conditions. These are
'reliable' in so far as any transcript in reliable and don't add material
beyond the source. These entries are, in your sense, verified.

(2)
Even indiviual transcripts sent in privately (so long as they don't add wild
ABT. guesses) are generally less subject to inaccuracy than are submitted
pedigrees. As soon as I connect extracted fact A to extracted fact B, I'm
adding my own interpretation and making it more difficult for any
third-party to make a judgement about the reliability of the evidence.

In both those senses, then, the IGI is 'better'.


Chris

[Richard C. Browning, Jr.]

-----Original Message-----
Sent: Sunday, February 27, 2005 09:13
Subject: Re: New Ancestral File

Post by W***@aol.com
The IGI is not *verified* by the LDS staff, they just enter it. The
variations are caused by people like you and me and others

sending in

Post by W***@aol.com
variant data. Just like real life. The IGI is not, in this case any
*better* then the Ancestral World Tree at www.ancestry.com. That is
also just submissions by anyone
and their crazy aunt which may or may not be accurate. The IGI just compiles
it all, they don't edit it for accuracy.

That's a little misleading and close to being wrong.
(1)
A significant number of IGI entries have been extracted from
parish registers and other sources under controlled
conditions. These are 'reliable' in so far as any transcript
in reliable and don't add material beyond the source. These
entries are, in your sense, verified.
(2)
Even indiviual transcripts sent in privately (so long as they
don't add wild ABT. guesses) are generally less subject to
inaccuracy than are submitted pedigrees. As soon as I connect
extracted fact A to extracted fact B, I'm adding my own
interpretation and making it more difficult for any
third-party to make a judgement about the reliability of the evidence.
In both those senses, then, the IGI is 'better'.
Chris

Chris, while your first statement is probably correct, the second statement is hard for me
to believe from what I have seen on the familysearch site. I give one reference John
Browning with parents John Browning and Mary Codrington. Using this search I get an
ancestral file, seven IGI entries and 5 Pedigree Resource File entries all showing this
relationship. How does one explain the chronological impossibility the John Browning b.
1588 is the son of people who died in the late 17th century?

And apparently there is no possibility of correcting these errors.

At least one of the other sites allow post a sticky note to point out the error.

Richard C. Browning, Jr.
Grand Prairie, TX

[Chris Dickinson]

Post by Richard C. Browning, Jr.
Chris, while your first statement is probably correct, the second statement is hard for me
to believe from what I have seen on the familysearch site. I give one reference John
Browning with parents John Browning and Mary Codrington. Using this search I get an
ancestral file, seven IGI entries and 5 Pedigree Resource File entries all showing this
relationship. How does one explain the chronological impossibility the John Browning b.
1588 is the son of people who died in the late 17th century?
And apparently there is no possibility of correcting these errors.
At least one of the other sites allow post a sticky note to point out the error.

Yes, I take your point.

I take no notice of private submissions on the IGI, so I'm not greatly
concerned by the ridiculous ones! They are easy enough to spot and
eliminate.

There are, nevertheless, non-extracted submissions (even if I take no notice
of them!) that have clearly been done by serious researchers who have looked
at sources not available to the LDS.

My second statement was really meant to say that it's easier to discard or
challenge raw date in an IGI form than it is to challenge information once
it has been drawn up into a chart. That's not jut an Internet problem - it's
a problem for all chart formats, even 17th century Visitation ones. Charts
have to simplify - the genealogist/herald/trickster can't include
everything.

Sure, charts that allow amendments are better than charts that don't.

Chris

[Richard C. Browning, Jr.]

My main problem with the FamilySearch site and their databases is that there appears no
way to get invalid data corrected. To me this seems hypocritical to me if the
genealogical connections are somehow related to religious ceremonies. I don't know how
the LDS uses this data in thir religion, but it must mean something to them if they go
back into the past and "seal" ancestors.

Richard C. Browning, Jr.
Grand Prairie, TX

[Janet Ariciu]

The people who post their family are sometimes not members of the LDS
church. I am not member but I can post my family tree there. Like said in
email before the church does not check all the folks who add family tree to
their site.

Now if they seal those are members of the church and must be right. The
check and check but they human and one or two might get through.

I found one that some one post on church site and on worldconnect site too.
It took me while get it straight but the worldconnect is right but LDS site
is still wrong they cannot chance it.

Uncle Earl story is there and well always well be. That is why you must take
it as place to start not a place to stop.

I know it hard but sometimes the site do help. They do have records they
copied from Churches/Parishes, counties records, state records and books on
microfilm

You can order them from Salt lake to local LDS History Center.


Janet Ariciu
-----Original Message-----
From: Richard C. Browning, Jr. [mailto:***@anet-dfw.com]
Sent: Sunday, February 27, 2005 1:56 PM
To: GEN-MEDIEVAL-***@rootsweb.com
Subject: RE: New Ancestral File


My main problem with the FamilySearch site and their databases is that there
appears no
way to get invalid data corrected. To me this seems hypocritical to me if
the
genealogical connections are somehow related to religious ceremonies. I
don't know how
the LDS uses this data in thir religion, but it must mean something to them
if they go
back into the past and "seal" ancestors.

Richard C. Browning, Jr.
Grand Prairie, TX
--
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.300 / Virus Database: 266.5.0 - Release Date: 2/25/2005

[Doug McDonald]

Post by Richard C. Browning, Jr.
My main problem with the FamilySearch site and their databases is that there appears no
way to get invalid data corrected. To me this seems hypocritical to me if the
genealogical connections are somehow related to religious ceremonies.

That's silly. The person at whom they are directed will not be
misled by mistakes, since he knows everything anyway.

Doug McDonald

[Todd A. Farmerie]

Post by Richard C. Browning, Jr.
My main problem with the FamilySearch site and their databases is that there appears no
way to get invalid data corrected. To me this seems hypocritical to me if the
genealogical connections are somehow related to religious ceremonies. I don't know how
the LDS uses this data in thir religion, but it must mean something to them if they go
back into the past and "seal" ancestors.

This is a misunderstanding of what the data represents. Contrary
to appearances, the IGI is not a collection of genealogical
facts. It is an index. It reports, for example, that an
ordinance was performed for a person with the listed
characteristics. Unless no such ordinance was performed, this is
not an error, even if the individual was wrongly described at the
time the ordinance was performed. To "correct" the information
would make it an inaccurate index of the actual ordinace performed.

Ancestral File allowed corrections, only to find that as many
people 'corrected' right to wrong as wrong to right. Hence
Pedigree Resource File, where one can 'correct' an erroneous
entry by submitting your own verson.

taf

[Richard C. Browning, Jr.]

-----Original Message-----
A. Farmerie
Sent: Sunday, February 27, 2005 18:05
Subject: Re: New Ancestral File

Post by Richard C. Browning, Jr.
My main problem with the FamilySearch site and their

databases is that

Post by Richard C. Browning, Jr.
there appears no way to get invalid data corrected. To me

this seems

Post by Richard C. Browning, Jr.
hypocritical to me if the genealogical connections are

somehow related

Post by Richard C. Browning, Jr.
to religious ceremonies. I don't know how the LDS uses

this data in

Post by Richard C. Browning, Jr.
thir religion, but it must mean something to them if they

go back into

Post by Richard C. Browning, Jr.
the past and "seal" ancestors.

This is a misunderstanding of what the data represents. Contrary
to appearances, the IGI is not a collection of genealogical
facts. It is an index. It reports, for example, that an
ordinance was performed for a person with the listed
characteristics. Unless no such ordinance was performed, this is
not an error, even if the individual was wrongly described at the
time the ordinance was performed. To "correct" the information
would make it an inaccurate index of the actual ordinace performed.
Ancestral File allowed corrections, only to find that as many
people 'corrected' right to wrong as wrong to right. Hence
Pedigree Resource File, where one can 'correct' an erroneous
entry by submitting your own verson.
taf

What are these ordinances that the IGI indexes, I see entries for birth, christening, and
marriage. Are these records indexes to records of these events at performed during the
life of the subject, or of events performed at a later date? This has always been
confusing to me.

I realize this is moving toward (if it hasn't already) becoming off topic, is is important
to me as I use FamilySearch and the IGIs as direction toward possible data sources.

Thanks
Richard C. Browning, Jr.
Grand Prairie, TX

[Todd A. Farmerie]

Post by Richard C. Browning, Jr.
What are these ordinances that the IGI indexes, I see entries for birth, christening, and
marriage. Are these records indexes to records of these events at performed during the
life of the subject, or of events performed at a later date? This has always been
confusing to me.

It can be confusing. The ordinances are baptism (LDS, not to be
confused with non-Mormon baptism, which the IGI calls
christening), sealing to spouse and parents, and endowment (all
performed at a later date unless the individual themselves was a
church member). Unless you are logged in with an LDS member
number, the on-line version hides from you the ordinance
information it was created to index. (Look at the old fiche
version, and you see the ordinance information over in the right
hand columns.)

What you see for these records is the biographical information
relevant to events during the life of the individual, submitted
by the person having the ordinances performed at the time the
ordinances were performed, in order to uniquely identify and
document the individual.

taf

[Guy Etchells]

This post might be inappropriate. Click to display it.

[Gordon Banks]

Post by Richard C. Browning, Jr.
What are these ordinances that the IGI indexes, I see entries for birth, christening, and
marriage. Are these records indexes to records of these events at performed during the
life of the subject, or of events performed at a later date? This has always been
confusing to me.

They may be either. In order to see the actual ordinance information,
you have to login as a member of the church using a number that is akin
to a social security number that each member has. Once you do that, all
the ordinance information is shown on each IGI entry.

The church reportedly is working on a method to prevent duplication of
ordinances. Unfortunately, this is not easy. Currently, submitters of
names for ordinances are supposed to run the names through a program and
affirm that their ancestor is not the same as ones already done, but
obviously that doesn't always work. Most colonial American immigrants
have had the ordinances performed by proxy a score of times or more. It
would take a staff of thousands of genealogists probably to prevent the
duplications.

[Janet Ariciu]

The Ancestral file at one time would replace the old ones. If Jane Smith
family knew the truth because they own the family Bible they would post from
it. Then here came Uncle Earl family and because Uncle Earl thought they
knew the family history because Uncle Earl said so.
The new would replace the old one even if it was wrong.

You can see the problem this cause.

Then the starting just add new ones and not replacing.

Then found this was to much and now they make CD. Now if they are going to
keep making new CD. This is question.

IGI do good information when the church goes to Church/Parish and copy of
their records.

You have to go through all IGI on line to find good one for sometimes IGI
and AF were be mix.

Now folks must look and see the source is church records or people records
or if the source is list. My worldconnect I post there with family history,
there is documents to back what I found but like said Uncle Earl was
wonderful story teller but was it truth or just family stories that were
past down with a little bit of truth.

You must take care but you might be lucky and get good facts
Like I did on my Coulter Parish records.


Janet

[W***@aol.com]

In a message dated 2/27/2005 11:11:45 AM Pacific Standard Time,

Post by Renia

Post by Doug McDonald
Then what is Pedigree Resource File?

Supposed to be the new, updated version of Ancestral File.
Renia

No Renia, the PRF is not the updated AF. Rather its more akin to the updated
IGI portion that was created by Patron Sheets.

The IGI is composed of many sources. If you find a particular entry, you can
"View Source" and it will tell you the source. So you may find in the
"Source" such things as:
1) Marriages of Benton Co, AR 1851-1876. County Clerk
2) Patron submitted sheets
3) Tombstones of the Van Arkle Family

or whatever. Lots of sources.

Now the PRF is a database of any and all GEDCOMs submitted by any person who
wishes to. Member of the church or not, makes no difference. Anyone
including Renia or myself can simply go there, upload a GEDCOM and it will appear at
some short time within the PRF. So in this way it's identical to the Ancestral
World Tree (www.ancestry.com) or the previous incarnation of same the
WorldConnect Project (www.rootsweb.com), now both owned by the same company.
The Ancestral File however was a place were dedicated persons within the
LDS staff with actively merging various uploaded individuals into one person.
So John Brown 1694 of New York City who married Matilda Shavers in 1712 ...
would end up with one, single entry for himself and one for his wife, no matter
how many sources showed them. So even if there were 42 sheets from different
patrons, plus 12 land records and 18 tax records, and two marriages, and a
tomb stone and a will ... you end up with one single entry for John Brown.
On the IGI these "facts" would created individual entries for each fact,
so John Brown would appear (42 + 12 + 18 + 2 + 1 + 1) number of times in the
IGI but only once in the AF.
The PRF is more similar to the IGI but this John Brown would appear only
42 times, once for each GEDCOM submitted.
HTH
Will Johnson

[Renia]

Post by W***@aol.com
In a message dated 2/27/2005 11:11:45 AM Pacific Standard Time,

Post by Renia

Post by Doug McDonald
Then what is Pedigree Resource File?

Supposed to be the new, updated version of Ancestral File.
Renia

No Renia, the PRF is not the updated AF. Rather its more akin to the updated
IGI portion that was created by Patron Sheets.
The IGI is composed of many sources. If you find a particular entry, you can
"View Source" and it will tell you the source. So you may find in the
1) Marriages of Benton Co, AR 1851-1876. County Clerk
2) Patron submitted sheets
3) Tombstones of the Van Arkle Family
or whatever. Lots of sources.
Now the PRF is a database of any and all GEDCOMs submitted by any person who
wishes to. Member of the church or not, makes no difference. Anyone
including Renia or myself can simply go there, upload a GEDCOM and it will appear at
some short time within the PRF. So in this way it's identical to the Ancestral
World Tree (www.ancestry.com) or the previous incarnation of same the
WorldConnect Project (www.rootsweb.com), now both owned by the same company.
The Ancestral File however was a place were dedicated persons within the
LDS staff with actively merging various uploaded individuals into one person.
So John Brown 1694 of New York City who married Matilda Shavers in 1712 ...
would end up with one, single entry for himself and one for his wife, no matter
how many sources showed them. So even if there were 42 sheets from different
patrons, plus 12 land records and 18 tax records, and two marriages, and a
tomb stone and a will ... you end up with one single entry for John Brown.
On the IGI these "facts" would created individual entries for each fact,
so John Brown would appear (42 + 12 + 18 + 2 + 1 + 1) number of times in the
IGI but only once in the AF.
The PRF is more similar to the IGI but this John Brown would appear only
42 times, once for each GEDCOM submitted.
HTH
Will Johnson

The IGI is single-generational (plus parents), but the PRF is
multi-generational. In that respect, it is nearer to AF.

Renia

[W***@aol.com]

In a message dated 2/27/2005 3:11:53 PM Pacific Standard Time,

Post by Renia
The IGI is single-generational (plus parents), but the PRF is
multi-generational. In that respect, it is nearer to AF.

Not quite. The IGI generations cannot be "clicked" on but that doesn't mean
they aren't there. You just have to enter the names of the "parents" as
"individuals" and they will pop up as well. So the IGI is multi-generational, its
just that the connections between those generations aren't automatically
linked for you. But the underlying sources are still present and accessible and
still link the same source documents.
And again the AF only has or is only *supposed* to have one entry per
person the PRF may have 42 entires per person as I already remarked. So in that
way there are very different.
I can agree that in some respect its like the AF and in some respect its
like the IGI, but really its identical to the AWT so why not just use that
relationship.
Oh and by the way, as far as online sources go, its also identical to the
format of the GEDCOMS presented on www.gencircles.com which again allows
anyone who wishes to, to upload a GEDCOM and presents all the data in seperate
files.
The interesting advantage to gencircles is that they attempt to "link"
similar or same name/date/place people to each other. So their software tries to
find "matches" in someone else's GEDCOM to information in YOUR gedcom. It's
not always right in who it matches up.
Will "I can be as stubborn as you" Johnson

[W***@aol.com]

In a message dated 2/27/2005 4:11:39 PM Pacific Standard Time,

Post by Todd A. Farmerie
IGI is not a collection of genealogical
facts. It is an index. It reports, for example, that an
ordinance was performed for a person with the listed
characteristics. Unless no such ordinance was performed, this is
not an error, even if the individual was wrongly described at the
time the ordinance was performed. To "correct" the information
would make it an inaccurate index of the actual ordinace performed.

Sorry but this is not accurate. You make it sound as if, looking at a record
we would see John Brown b 5 Apr 1832 and baptised in the church [an ordinance]
on 7 Jul 1996. But we don't what we see is:
John Brown b 5 Apr 1832 Source: Patron submitted sheets.

The IGI *does* allow corrections. This is how ... submit more sheets.
There is no way to correct someone else's research because there is no way in
the real world to do that either. If Susie Smith insists your grandmother
was born in 1911 and you insist she was born in 1912 then the solution is to
submit both sets of information. That's it.
Will

[Todd A. Farmerie]

Post by W***@aol.com
In a message dated 2/27/2005 4:11:39 PM Pacific Standard Time,

Post by Todd A. Farmerie
IGI is not a collection of genealogical
facts. It is an index. It reports, for example, that an
ordinance was performed for a person with the listed
characteristics. Unless no such ordinance was performed, this is
not an error, even if the individual was wrongly described at the
time the ordinance was performed. To "correct" the information
would make it an inaccurate index of the actual ordinace performed.

Sorry but this is not accurate.

Huh? It is perfectly accurate for the example described.

Post by W***@aol.com
You make it sound as if, looking at a record
we would see John Brown b 5 Apr 1832 and baptised in the church [an ordinance]
on 7 Jul 1996.

That might be exactly what you see if you are logged in with your
member number.

Post by W***@aol.com
John Brown b 5 Apr 1832 Source: Patron submitted sheets.

See up there where it says, "for example . . ."? That means what
followed was only an example. Patron submitted sheets are
another example, but it works the same. The IGI likewise indexes
the information reported in these, and "correcting" that IGI
record would likewise render it an inaccurate index of the
submitted record. The point is the same - an individual entry is
hoped to approximate genealogical reality, but what it actually
represents is the contents of a submitted record (ordinance,
patron sheet, extraction). As such, the only appropriate
correction to an individual record (as per the original
complaint) would be if it does not reflect what is in the record
it is supposed to be indexing - the ordinance or patron sheet,
not if it doesn't reflect historical reality. (Now, having a new
entry added with different information, that is a different story.)

taf

[W***@aol.com]

In a message dated 2/27/2005 6:21:18 PM Pacific Standard Time,

Post by Richard C. Browning, Jr.
What are these ordinances that the IGI indexes, I see entries for birth,
christening, and marriage. Are these records indexes to records of these
events at performed during the life of the subject, or of events performed at a
later date?

The dates indexed are the dates of the individuals actual birth, chr, mar.
They are not the dates of the various ordinances.
Will

[W***@aol.com]

In a message dated 2/27/2005 7:41:56 PM Pacific Standard Time,

Post by W***@aol.com
The Ancestral File is and should remain a

Post by W***@aol.com
file where each *person* is represented by exactly one entry.
Will

Should be, but isn't.

That's because they didn't finish the job. It was their plan, but the best
laid plans of mice and LDS Staffers oft gang awry (or something like that).
Will

[W***@aol.com]

In a message dated 2/27/2005 10:26:59 PM Pacific Standard Time,

Post by Todd A. Farmerie
That might be exactly what you see if you are logged in with your
member number.

What are you talking about? I've never seen any ordinance dates in the IGI
at all. They *are* in the Ancestral File however.

[Todd A. Farmerie]

Post by W***@aol.com
In a message dated 2/27/2005 10:26:59 PM Pacific Standard Time,

Post by Todd A. Farmerie
That might be exactly what you see if you are logged in with your
member number.

What are you talking about? I've never seen any ordinance dates in the IGI
at all. They *are* in the Ancestral File however.

The old fiche version had them right there to see. Using the DOS
version, there were two versions, one without, and the other with
(under the name of Ordinance Index). On the on-line version of
the IGI, as I said, if you log in with your LDS member number,
you see the ordinance information. Are you a member? Have you
ever logged in with your member number?

Ordinance information is in Ancestral File if and only if the
submitter included them, either by commission or omission, in
their upload.

taf

[Renia]

Post by W***@aol.com
In a message dated 2/27/2005 10:26:59 PM Pacific Standard Time,

Post by Todd A. Farmerie
That might be exactly what you see if you are logged in with your
member number.

What are you talking about? I've never seen any ordinance dates in the IGI
at all. They *are* in the Ancestral File however.

Then you are confusing the IGI and AF.

Renia

[M***@aol.com]

Taf wrote: "Unless you are logged in with an LDS member number, . . ."


Is it possible to obtain such a number without being a member of the Mormon
church?

MLM

[Todd A. Farmerie]

Post by M***@aol.com
Taf wrote: "Unless you are logged in with an LDS member number, . . ."
Is it possible to obtain such a number without being a member of the Mormon
church?

Absolutely not (well, I guess you could beat a member with wet noodle
until they give up theirs). This login is intended to restrict the
ordinance information (and some other areas of the site) to church members.

taf

[W***@aol.com]

Chris wrote: "Even indiviual transcripts sent in privately (so long as they don't add wild ABT. guesses) are generally less subject to inaccuracy than are submitted pedigrees."

This is because you are assuming that the IGI is only composed of "individual transcripts". However "Patron submitted sheets" might be pedigree charts as well. And as such is identical to "submitted pedigrees"
Will

[W***@aol.com]

Will wrote : > What are you talking about? I've never seen any ordinance dates in the IGI

Post by W***@aol.com
at all. They *are* in the Ancestral File however.

Renia wrote: "Then you are confusing the IGI and AF."

OK I just checked again and the AF does include ordinance data. I'm looking right at it. However the *online* version of the AF does not include ordinance data. Only the CD version available in FHC's includes it. I don't know why.
Will

[a***@pacbell.net]

I beg to differ, the Ancestral File was originally submissions from LDS
members and
other interested parties. The IGI is erroneous when it comes to many of the
member
submissions; but is much more accurate when it comes to extractions, which
are
extracted from records, usually, but not always, primary.

Kay Allen AG

Original Message:
-----------------
From: Debbi ***@bellsouth.net
Date: Tue, 1 Mar 2005 16:24:33 -0600
To: GEN-MEDIEVAL-***@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: New Ancestral File


Should be, but often is not. The initial version of the AF was taken
directly from the IGI, with all of its errors. Sometimes there is
duplication stemming from the fact that one individual may have submitted a
name in the format "Simon of Montfort" and another in the format "Simon
Montfort." Other duplications stem from one individual submitting a place
in the format "Alton, Staffordshire, England," and another in the format
"Alton Parish, Staff, Eng.", and still another in the format "Alton,
England." Some of these errors have been cleaned out of the system, but
with over 100K names (not counting the duplicates) it will take some doing
to clear them all. It took me over a month to clear out the duplications
when I first downloaded a geed.com from AF in 1994 to get the obvious
duplications weeded in my database. I occasionally still find a duplicate
Now that I have learned more about the individuals and how they were
referred to in contemporary documents.

Debbi
----- Original Message -----
From: <***@aol.com>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-***@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Saturday, February 26, 2005 9:02 PM
Subject: Re: New Ancestral File

Post by W***@aol.com
In a message dated 2/26/2005 6:56:28 PM Pacific Standard Time,

Post by Mark Harry
In some cases it is apparent that where several differing versions of
a family pedigree exist, all the versions were put in without that
fact being made clear,

I think you are confusing the IGI with the Ancestral File. The IGI *does*
have several different versions of "facts" on the same person, and
correspondingly many entries on the same person. The Ancestral File is

and should remain a

Post by W***@aol.com
file where each *person* is represented by exactly one entry.
Will

--------------------------------------------------------------------
mail2web - Check your email from the web at
http://mail2web.com/ .