GENMSC-L Archives

Archiver > GENMSC > 2002-05 > 1022673545


From: (IanG)
Subject: Re: Lewis Conklin, b. late 1800's, d. early 1950's, Morris Co., NJ
Date: 29 May 2002 04:59:05 -0700
References: <acslha$sc55q$1@ID-71976.news.dfncis.de>, <ad0h3a$tl5$1@newsg4.svr.pol.co.uk>, <ad0sp9$ssot5$1@ID-134476.news.dfncis.de>


wrote in message news:<ad0sp9$ssot5$1@ID-134476.news.dfncis.de>...
> Someone who looks an awful lot like Kelv <> wrote:
>
> > Yes, in the sixteenth century. Today, as has been the case for many years,
> > no-one would seriously consider Wales to be part of England. Even in the
> > legal context, laws apply to "England & Wales" - the very term implies that
> > England and Wales are two separate entities.
>
> True, but if I had an ancestor in that time and place, I'd give the location
> of their (event) as Town, Wales, England, and include the standard note
> which goes something like "This location is at (geographical coordinates
> in degrees latitude/longitude", and in the year 2002 is known as "Town,
> Wales, UK" or whatever the case would be.

At a push, you could possibly claim this if we were talking about the
1500s or 1600s. But the period we're talking about appears to be the
late 19th / early 20th century, when the idea of "Wales, England"
would be just as ridiculous as it is today.

If you really felt the need to qualify where Wales was, then "Wales in
Britain" or "Wales in the UK" would both have been correct during that
period.

Ian


This thread: