Do calm down CE I said I was glad it worked for you.
I've been learning about the medieval sources because of my friend's work. I do understand they are different and the need to rely on scholars who can study the difficult data available. I still wouldn't enter more than one persons findings at a time. BUT if it works for you - that's terrific. Cathy At 04:36 PM 13/01/2014, you wrote: >Many of us are working with individuals for whom there are no censi, >unless you count the Domesday Book, which is problematic because of >several generations of aristocracy having the same name and living >at the same time. > >If you don't work with mediaeval ancestors and with the historians >whose lifework is researching the transfer of estates, the only >reliable way to discern ancestry in instances too numerous to >mention, you have no idea. Online databases, with several erudite >exceptions, are a bunch of -----, their sources being other totally >false databases, too many of which are from the LDS, which does not >verify sources of their databases. Too many of the databases that >ancestry,com uses are no more than compilations of internet >databases, meaning they are also totally inreliable. Their latest >addition, the Wills from the Prerogative Court of Canterbury ALL >have the wrong probate dates, easily determined because they have >probate dates that are before the person even died! They don't use >double-dating; their transcribers cannot even transcribe correctly >when the documents are legible, and ancestry.com doesn't care, so >they are NEVER a source. > >If you do not use the Testamenta Eboracensia, Testamenta Leodiensia, >Testamenta Vetusta, Calendar of Close Rolls, Calendar of Fine Rolls, >Inquisitions Miscellaneous, Calendar of Inquisitions Post Mortem, >Calendar of Papal Registers, >Calendarium Rotulorum Patentium, and other primary sources; if you >do not use the epitome of secondary sources, The Complete Peerage, >and follow the corrections that are continually being made to it, >you may have no need whatsoever to ever enter more than one source >at a time. Fine. > >But for those of us who have traced our ancestors back, we research >thoroughly, and when we find these undisputed sources in agreement, >want to enter them. It has been far too long that we have had to >enter 5 or more sources INDIVIDUALLY for each event. > >If you never have a need to do so, you have no obligation to do so. >But please, realize that many of us have been IMMENSELY >inconvenienced during the time the multiple source clipboard was >eliminated. To source one individual has taken often 6+ hours during >its absence. > >There are probably many options you do not use. One of the great >things about Legacy has always been that it has many options you may >not need, but that others do. This is one of them. > > >CE > > > From: genea...@gmail.com > > To: LegacyUserGroup@LegacyUsers.com > > Subject: RE: [LegacyUG] Source Clipboards 1 to 5 > > Date: Mon, 13 Jan 2014 12:56:07 +0800 > > > > CE > > Thanks for the list. I'll pass it on to a friend who is back to > Medieval times. > > > > I agree that sometimes secondary sources are all > > you have and you have to rely on the scholarly > > work of others. Various medieval scholars > > agreeing strengthens the argument. Quite > > different from a number of Ancestry trees > > agreeing and one being different. I'd give > > serious consideration to the different one in > > that case unless the others referred to a primary source. > > > > But I still don't get how I'd use multiple > > clipboards. The way I work, I'd explore one > > source at a time. I know enough from discussing > > things with my friend, that sources like these > > often don't agree and even some that do don't > > make sense when the dates are looked at closely. > > > > When I started a branch of my family I had a > > number of family trees from family members in > > that branch. It was only by entering them one at > > a time that I became aware of the differences > > between them and was able to even ask the > > relevant questions to find the most reliable and > > seek primary sources. I recall I fleetingly > > thought of using the multiple clipboards but soon > > realised it would be far more time consuming for > > me to do that. I think that was when I learnt that they all > attach together. > > > > I'm glad it works for you. Different methods do > > work for different people because we think differently. > > > > Regards, > > Cathy > > > > At 12:06 PM 13/01/2014, you wrote: > > >Obviously you do not yet have mediaeval > > >ancestors in your file, for whom original > > >documents are mostly non-existent, confused by > > >persons with the same names and title living at > > >the same time, and for whom only RELIABLE > > >secondary sources are possible. For these MANY > > >people, having several of these RELIABLE > > >secondary sources agree on the facts is > > >essential to surety that the fact is correct, ie: Legacy User Group guidelines: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Etiquette.asp Archived messages after Nov. 21 2009: http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyusers.com/ Archived messages from old mail server - before Nov. 21 2009: http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyfamilytree.com/ Online technical support: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Help.asp Follow Legacy on Facebook (http://www.facebook.com/LegacyFamilyTree) and on our blog (http://news.LegacyFamilyTree.com). To unsubscribe: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/LegacyLists.asp
