Reporting a Location, Question

Moderator: MOD_nyhetsgrupper

Svar
remove the nospam. before

Reporting a Location, Question

Legg inn av remove the nospam. before » 08 aug 2007 21:42:45

Let us say the ancestors were from a small hamlet called:
Klein Hollwedel, Germany; born 1814 and 1854.

2007: Klein Hollwedel, Diepholz, Niedersachsen, Deutschland.
1851: Klein Hollwedel, Diepholz, Kingdom of Hanover.
1814: Klein Hollwedel, Westphalia.

OK, fine!

Do I put the present day name of the city and state or
do I put the name of the city and state at the time of the event?
Ancestors of 1814 and 1854.

Putting the present day name makes more sense to me and putting an
additional "fact" stating the birth location old name.

I'd like to do it the right way.

Thanks.

Gerry

Re: Reporting a Location, Question

Legg inn av Gerry » 08 aug 2007 22:01:23

In article <9Vpui.7072$fk4.2399@trndny05>,
"remove the nospam. before sending" <nospam.paulsessions@bigfoot.com>
wrote:

Let us say the ancestors were from a small hamlet called:
Klein Hollwedel, Germany; born 1814 and 1854.

2007: Klein Hollwedel, Diepholz, Niedersachsen, Deutschland.
1851: Klein Hollwedel, Diepholz, Kingdom of Hanover.
1814: Klein Hollwedel, Westphalia.

OK, fine!

Do I put the present day name of the city and state or
do I put the name of the city and state at the time of the event?
Ancestors of 1814 and 1854.

Putting the present day name makes more sense to me and putting an
additional "fact" stating the birth location old name.

I'd like to do it the right way.

Thanks.

I always use the place name as it was at the time of the event, birth,
marriage, death, as that is where the event took place. That way another
researcher could look for additional information in the appropriate
archives. In your example for 1814, maybe all the Westphalia documents
are stored in one depository, and so listing the birth at the 2007 form
makes it harder for that researcher to find additional information

John

Re: Reporting a Location, Question

Legg inn av John » 09 aug 2007 00:45:33

I definitely agree with Gerry, to a point. I don't think I'll ever call
New York New Amsterdam but I will call Istanbul Constantinople. I
rather like to say that word. :)

In short, yes, small towns and places I leave as they are.


John


Gerry wrote:
In article <9Vpui.7072$fk4.2399@trndny05>,
"remove the nospam. before sending" <nospam.paulsessions@bigfoot.com
wrote:

Let us say the ancestors were from a small hamlet called:
Klein Hollwedel, Germany; born 1814 and 1854.

2007: Klein Hollwedel, Diepholz, Niedersachsen, Deutschland.
1851: Klein Hollwedel, Diepholz, Kingdom of Hanover.
1814: Klein Hollwedel, Westphalia.

OK, fine!

Do I put the present day name of the city and state or
do I put the name of the city and state at the time of the event?
Ancestors of 1814 and 1854.

Putting the present day name makes more sense to me and putting an
additional "fact" stating the birth location old name.

I'd like to do it the right way.

Thanks.

I always use the place name as it was at the time of the event, birth,
marriage, death, as that is where the event took place. That way another
researcher could look for additional information in the appropriate
archives. In your example for 1814, maybe all the Westphalia documents
are stored in one depository, and so listing the birth at the 2007 form
makes it harder for that researcher to find additional information

mickg

Re: Reporting a Location, Question

Legg inn av mickg » 09 aug 2007 01:07:06

remove the nospam. before sending wrote:
Let us say the ancestors were from a small hamlet called:
Klein Hollwedel, Germany; born 1814 and 1854.

2007: Klein Hollwedel, Diepholz, Niedersachsen, Deutschland.
1851: Klein Hollwedel, Diepholz, Kingdom of Hanover.
1814: Klein Hollwedel, Westphalia.

OK, fine!

Do I put the present day name of the city and state or
do I put the name of the city and state at the time of the event?
Ancestors of 1814 and 1854.

Putting the present day name makes more sense to me and putting an
additional "fact" stating the birth location old name.

I'd like to do it the right way.

Thanks.

A common question in London Genealogy. Most of the county of Middlesex
(NOT Middlesex County - please!) Parts of Surrey and Kent were absorbed
into London in 1888 and much more including pretty much the remainder of
Middlesex in the 1960's.

Many many of us have Ancestors who lived in these places when the
designations changed and the commonest practice in order to locate
relevant records is to record events as the place was at the time. Later
events then carry the new designation with a note explaining this change
and when it occurred.

Having said that, they are your genealogy records and there is no
oversight body to fine you for doing it wrong. So record these things as
you find most comprehensible and easy to work with, but for those who
may use your records in the future do make clear qualifying notes.

MickG

Robert Melson

Re: Reporting a Location, Question

Legg inn av Robert Melson » 09 aug 2007 01:58:31

In article <f9dkin$f3r$1@news04.infoave.net>,
John <johncub@blomand.net> writes:
I definitely agree with Gerry, to a point. I don't think I'll ever call
New York New Amsterdam but I will call Istanbul Constantinople. I
rather like to say that word. :)

But, as the now ancient song says, "It's Istanbul, not
Constantinople, it's ..." Why not call it Byzantium and
be done with it?

In short, yes, small towns and places I leave as they are.


John

snip


Bob Melson

--
Robert G. Melson | Rio Grande MicroSolutions | El Paso, Texas
-----
"People unfit for freedom---who cannot do much with it---are
hungry for power." ---Eric Hoffer

Hugh Watkins

Re: Reporting a Location, Question

Legg inn av Hugh Watkins » 09 aug 2007 04:01:36

mickg wrote:


remove the nospam. before sending wrote:

Let us say the ancestors were from a small hamlet called:
Klein Hollwedel, Germany; born 1814 and 1854.

2007: Klein Hollwedel, Diepholz, Niedersachsen, Deutschland.
1851: Klein Hollwedel, Diepholz, Kingdom of Hanover.
1814: Klein Hollwedel, Westphalia.

OK, fine!

Do I put the present day name of the city and state or
do I put the name of the city and state at the time of the event?
Ancestors of 1814 and 1854.

Putting the present day name makes more sense to me and putting an
additional "fact" stating the birth location old name.

I'd like to do it the right way.

Thanks.


A common question in London Genealogy. Most of the county of Middlesex
(NOT Middlesex County - please!) Parts of Surrey and Kent were absorbed
into London in 1888 and much more including pretty much the remainder of
Middlesex in the 1960's.

Many many of us have Ancestors who lived in these places when the
designations changed and the commonest practice in order to locate
relevant records is to record events as the place was at the time. Later
events then carry the new designation with a note explaining this change
and when it occurred.

Having said that, they are your genealogy records and there is no
oversight body to fine you for doing it wrong. So record these things as
you find most comprehensible and easy to work with, but for those who
may use your records in the future do make clear qualifying notes.


this is an active topic with FTM 2008 RC1 beta
which is a totally new product built on MS .net

it has an excellent place editor
BUT the reference list is http://maps.live.com/

which only has modern addresses and not a clue about old counties in UK

Hugh W

--
For genealogy and help with family and local history in Bristol and
district http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Brycgstow/

http://snaps4.blogspot.com/ photographs and walks

GENEALOGE http://hughw36.blogspot.com/ MAIN BLOG

Hugh Watkins

Re: Reporting a Location, Question

Legg inn av Hugh Watkins » 09 aug 2007 04:04:51

remove the nospam. before sending wrote:

Let us say the ancestors were from a small hamlet called:
Klein Hollwedel, Germany; born 1814 and 1854.

2007: Klein Hollwedel, Diepholz, Niedersachsen, Deutschland.
1851: Klein Hollwedel, Diepholz, Kingdom of Hanover.
1814: Klein Hollwedel, Westphalia.

OK, fine!

Do I put the present day name of the city and state or
do I put the name of the city and state at the time of the event?
Ancestors of 1814 and 1854.

Putting the present day name makes more sense to me and putting an
additional "fact" stating the birth location old name.

I'd like to do it the right way.


play with http://maps.live.com/

Hugh W


--
For genealogy and help with family and local history in Bristol and
district http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Brycgstow/

http://snaps4.blogspot.com/ photographs and walks

GENEALOGE http://hughw36.blogspot.com/ MAIN BLOG

Charles Ellson

Re: Reporting a Location, Question

Legg inn av Charles Ellson » 09 aug 2007 04:23:11

On Wed, 08 Aug 2007 20:07:06 -0400, mickg
<mickgNoSpam@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:


remove the nospam. before sending wrote:
Let us say the ancestors were from a small hamlet called:
Klein Hollwedel, Germany; born 1814 and 1854.

2007: Klein Hollwedel, Diepholz, Niedersachsen, Deutschland.
1851: Klein Hollwedel, Diepholz, Kingdom of Hanover.
1814: Klein Hollwedel, Westphalia.

OK, fine!

Do I put the present day name of the city and state or
do I put the name of the city and state at the time of the event?
Ancestors of 1814 and 1854.

Putting the present day name makes more sense to me and putting an
additional "fact" stating the birth location old name.

I'd like to do it the right way.

Thanks.

A common question in London Genealogy. Most of the county of Middlesex

A lot but AFAIR more like only a quarter to a third.


(NOT Middlesex County - please!) Parts of Surrey and Kent were absorbed
into London in 1888

The _County_ of London (otherwise we'll be confusing strangers even

more), within which lay the much smaller City of London.

and much more including pretty much the remainder of
Middlesex in the 1960's.

1965 - nearly all of the County of Middlesex and all of the County of

London (and lumps of Surrey, Kent and Essex) were absorbed into the
County of Greater London, not into London (US readers - think in terms
of New York City and New York State for a rough representation of the
difference).

Many many of us have Ancestors who lived in these places when the
designations changed and the commonest practice in order to locate
relevant records is to record events as the place was at the time. Later
events then carry the new designation with a note explaining this change
and when it occurred.

Having said that, they are your genealogy records and there is no
oversight body to fine you for doing it wrong. So record these things as
you find most comprehensible and easy to work with, but for those who
may use your records in the future do make clear qualifying notes.

MickG

Allen

Re: Reporting a Location, Question

Legg inn av Allen » 09 aug 2007 15:00:13

remove the nospam. before sending wrote:
Let us say the ancestors were from a small hamlet called:
Klein Hollwedel, Germany; born 1814 and 1854.

2007: Klein Hollwedel, Diepholz, Niedersachsen, Deutschland.
1851: Klein Hollwedel, Diepholz, Kingdom of Hanover.
1814: Klein Hollwedel, Westphalia.

OK, fine!

Do I put the present day name of the city and state or
do I put the name of the city and state at the time of the event?
Ancestors of 1814 and 1854.

Putting the present day name makes more sense to me and putting an
additional "fact" stating the birth location old name.

I'd like to do it the right way.

Thanks.
Can you create special fields in your genealogy program? If so, I would

set up one for "current place name" for each event and use the standard
field for the original. It's amazing how much borders have moved around
and how so many places have changed names.
Allen

Svar

Gå tilbake til «alt.genealogy»