536Re: [AQ_NFS] Medieval Research and Sy
- Jun 8, 2010Furthering this discussion just a bit...
If a person falls into the "famous" person category, then if there are
records that are not combined, trying to combine them fails (this is
not a AQ problem, but is built into nFS).
There is currently a group in the FHL that is working with medieval
records (pre-1500) and making sure they are fully documented, etc.,
similar to what the former group was doing. It is primarily concerned
with Europe, so the far eastern records (China & Japan) that go way
back are handled normally. They also don't have the problems that the
European royalty has with respect to IOUS persons.
There are a couple of problems with trying to link to royalty via
existing data bases -- one is that most of them are not accurate with
respect to the distant ancestors. That's one of the reasons that the
unit exists that is currently working with these records. They are
going for accuracy and not notoriety (which is where most of the
records lose their accuracy).
A much fun as "A Knight's Tale" was, there are some points of accuracy
represented in it. One of them is that the genealogies for these
knights were often "created" fiction, just to get the people into the
games. These records of royalty connections (Heraldry) are problematic
at best -- the unit is substantiating where they can with things like
landed gentry, and known royal lines established by the skimpy history
that remains of those times.
The problem is further compounded much closer to home. I have a line
that was originally connected into one of the court families of
England going back to the early 1500s. A cousin connected our line to
the Rhode Island line (which is connected to the English family) in
order to become a qualified member of the D.A.R.
Research has proven that there is no connection to the Rhode Island
family and, in fact, a published county history has often been quoted
to substantiate the connection. But that history, if read properly,
does not establish a connection between the families, only that there
were families of the same name living in Eastern Pennsylvania and in
Rhode Island. Common surnames and common given names are always
problems and that's what happened there.
So, my advice is to prove everything, otherwise, you have mythology.
Published family histories can only be used as guides, unless they are
well sourced (and documented). Even histories that I formerly trusted
have turned out to have mistakes in the families, dates, and places.
An author of a history was not beyond copying data from another author
without substantiating the information.
Since this involved newFamilySearch, we are talking about the
possibility of Temple work coming from such record gathering. I am not
connected to the British court family. Therefore, I have turned my
research back toward me, and believe me, I'm turning up a lot of names
with good substantiated records that need to have their work done. And
I started back only five generations (counting myself) and have yet to
finish finding all the descendants of that first Huber set of parents.
And that is only tracking the lines down to where the 95-year rule
AQ is working great for me and between researching on Ancestry.com and
state archives, along with graveyard records, I am able to
consistently find new relatives for which the temple work has not been
- << Previous post in topic Next post in topic >>