According to AniMap, in 1686, the colonies of Massachusetts, New Plymouth, New Hampshire and Rhode Island combined into the Dominion of New England. In 1687, Connecticut was added. In 1688, New York was added. In 1689, it was dissolved. In what respect are you stating 'New England is not a location?'. I have also used New England as a 'fake' state for source purposes only. Example: Source Name: US; USA, New England, NEGHR v035, Source Title: The New England Genealogical and Historic Register volXCIX Rich in LA CA
----- Original Message ---- From: Elizabeth Richardson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: LegacyUserGroup@legacyfamilytree.com Sent: Tuesday, June 3, 2008 9:17:43 PM Subject: Re: [LegacyUG] Source titling question New England is not a location? Elizabeth researching the descendants of William and Sarah (Patterson) Thompson ----- Original Message ----- From: "Kirsten Bowman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <LegacyUserGroup@legacyfamilytree.com> Sent: Tuesday, June 03, 2008 4:50 PM Subject: RE: [LegacyUG] Source titling question > Elizabeth: > > Grouping by location is a fine way to handle certain records. Most people > handle census records just that way and many others group vital records by > location. > > As Angela pointed out, grouping by family is problematic when you run into > an extended family in a census. And what do you do if you're lucky enough > to find records for several of your lines in Cutter's 1915 _New England > Families_, for example? (I have 23 different lines in that handy book.) > Of > course it would be ideal to go to the original records, but what if you > just > can't because they no longer exist or are not available to the public? > Would you create 23 separate master sources--one for each surname? > > You can certainly group by family if you like. Legacy is flexible enough > to > make later changes relatively easy. I've grouped and regrouped more than > a > couple of times myself. > > Kirsten > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of > Elizabeth Richardson > Sent: Tuesday, June 03, 2008 2:23 PM > To: LegacyUserGroup@legacyfamilytree.com > Subject: Re: [LegacyUG] Source titling question > > > OK, why do we care that a particular *type* of source is listed with its > like? Why wouldn't we prefer the sources be grouped by location, or by > family? > > e.g. > > OHIO - death records > FERGUSON - Our Ferguson Family > > Elizabeth > researching the descendants of William and Sarah (Patterson) Thompson > > > > > > > Legacy User Group guidelines: > http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Etiquette.asp > Archived messages: > http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyfamilytree.com/ > Online technical support: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Help.asp > To unsubscribe: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/LegacyLists.asp > > > Legacy User Group guidelines: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Etiquette.asp Archived messages: http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyfamilytree.com/ Online technical support: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Help.asp To unsubscribe: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/LegacyLists.asp Legacy User Group guidelines: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Etiquette.asp Archived messages: http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyfamilytree.com/ Online technical support: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Help.asp To unsubscribe: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/LegacyLists.asp
