GENMSC-L Archives
Archiver > GENMSC > 2002-05 > 1022682865
From:
Subject: Re: Lewis Conklin, b. late 1800's, d. early 1950's, Morris Co., NJ
Date: 29 May 2002 14:34:25 GMT
References: <f9dc1c10.0205290359.48e81e1d@posting.google.com>, <ad2lkg$tu7hg$5@ID-134476.news.dfncis.de>, <ad2n06$frs$1@newsg3.svr.pol.co.uk>
Someone who looks an awful lot like Steven Gibbs <> wrote:
> <> wrote in message
> news:ad2lkg$tu7hg$5@ID-134476.news.dfncis.de...
>>
>> Well, the more precision the better, right? Why let some future
> generation
>> have to figure it out?
>>
> Because it's wrong. If a place was in Wales, then it wasn't in England.
OK, then you're missing my point, which is this: Call it whatever it
was called at the time, as well as what it's called today, and it won't
hurt to throw in latitude/longitude information. I'm not arguing that
Wales was or wasn't part of England during the whateverteenth-century.
(snip)
> To take your position to its logical conclusion, it would be more
No, that would be taking your missing of my point to some extreme.
An example - for a time, Norway was under the control of the Danish
government, yet it was still called Norway. So, someone born there
would be listed as name/farm/parish/fylke/country. However, I have
a ggg'father born on the island of Sylt, which at the time was Denmark,
but today is part of Germany. It would be offensive to him to write
his birthplace as "Sylt, Germany", because it was Danish when he was
born there. (his leaving coincides with Germany taking it over, as
well). So, the location for his birth in my records reads "Sylt, Denmark,
Lat/Long (numbers), in the year 2000 is called Sylt, Germany".
Similarly, my ancestors from Gumbinnen, East Prussia, are listed with
birthplace as that. In the notes, I give lat/long, and mention that it's
called "Gusev, Russia" in the year 2000.
That's my point, not debating if Wales was or was not part of England
in whatever year in the 1500's.
Dave Hinz
This thread: