Especially when considering someone who lived in Massachusetts, but born before 1620, I wouldn't be sure if they came from England or maybe Holland? Perhaps it would depend on the last name, but even then, the Pilgrims lived in Holland before they came to Mass., so it is possible they were born there.. A small detail, yes, but it would make me want to qualify it with a "probable". Food for thought.. Tim
----- Original Message ---- From: Kirsten Bowman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: LegacyUserGroup <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, June 18, 2008 3:18:53 AM Subject: [LegacyUG] Estimated Locations Group: Now that I have Legacy7 up and running, I feel a compulsion to do some file cleanup but am in a bit of a quandry. May I have some opinions on whether or not to add estimated locations? I know about various methods for *how* to do it, but just can't decide *whether* to do it. If I know that, for example, ancestors were born before 1620 and lived in Massachusetts, it's a pretty safe bet that they were born in England. By the same token, people who were born and died in what is now Ontario in the early 1800's were probably married there. Is anything gained by showing England or Canada (Upper/Lower, West/East) as *probable* locations or is there a good reason for just leaving it blank? Thoughts please. Kirsten Legacy User Group guidelines: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Etiquette.asp Archived messages: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/ 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/[email protected]/ Online technical support: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Help.asp To unsubscribe: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/LegacyLists.asp
