I also have a situation where I know a man married one of three possible "Jones" daughters and another where a man was the son of one of two brothers. Rather than leaving the individuals unlinked and possibly losing track of them I add, in the first case, another daughter called Unknown and link the husband temporarily to her. In the second case, I add another brother called Unknown and link the son to him. In both cases I use source notes extensively to explain the situation.
It's a somewhat risky practice since others could pick up the information without reading the source notes, but my philosophy is to do what makes the research most understandable for me first, and then to do what I can to explain the whys to others who are willing to take the time to read it. Kirsten -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Saturday, December 19, 2009 6:09 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [LegacyUG] Bridging Gaps Dawn and Bill, I have specific present problems, but my question was intended to be general. Two examples, a data disjoint one from my maternal tree, the other missing people gaps from a project: John Pratt b. ~1520 left a PCC will entailing Plymtree property to Edward>male heirs, line failing Richard & same, line failing John the younger and same, else females. A William Pratt was churchwarden in Plymtree in 1630 (my mother's line), clearly a grandson of John by likely minimum age for that and death date, but of which son? Burke's Peerage notes issue to Edward but no names; Richard's are all known, but no William; John the younger had one son, William, and two daughters who contested their father's PCC will leaving all property - unspecified - to William. There might be proof in the resulting Sentence, but my Latin hasn't been used in 50 years. Either Edward had a William son - timing iffy for that - OR he passed Plymtree on (perhaps because he had Kentisbeare property or annoyed at his nieces) OR he had no surviving son or all daughters AND Richard passed on Plymtree in favor of the youngest brother or nephew. Clearly, my mother descended from scion John. Currently, I have her line headed with "Mr. Pratt" as a placeholder who maps to either Edward or John the younger, and a separate Pratt genealogy omitting the Plymtree line. I'd like a graceful connection which permits merger but cannot propagate error: My grandfather had Plymtree as a given name and went by it. My mother had access to the War Room unchallenged by sentries and almost certainly saw Winston Churchill there - presumably neither knowing they shared John Pratt of 1520 as an ancestor. It's too good a family tale to pass up... The other example derives from a single name DNA project. It appears that an early 11th century clade head from Normandy had descendants who obtained property in England ~1150, eventually changed name to the place, branched with a further change and probably left a further place name related variants as yeomen cadets or lesser sons. Since the names are geographically restricted and distinctive, DNA may be unusually effective and economical to relate descendants. Further, there is early history and genealogies to ~1400, and two or more probably related ones, modern back to 1500. That probably offers unusual opportunity for DNA research (as distinct from genealogical). Best for that would be a working group with a master file set and website to map all the names group in a 5 county UK area using Legacy facilities. Those like timeline charting are notably valuable for analysis of provisional data assemblies, aiding discussion and exposing logic to argument, but one then needs to provide Legacy with links across gaps. Obvious options are parent with children born a century or more later, or insertion of placeholders like Parent>Missing1390>Missing1425>Missing1460>Child1492. Research needs may be a bit oddball, but now that we have DNA as a genealogical tool and proof, many genealogies will reliably connect to others, though the precise linkage be unknown. If that isn't a common problem yet, it will be. Is there a way within Legacy to span such gaps in lineage? Or any workarounds for this problem? kb ----- Original Message ----- From: "Dawn Crowley" <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Sent: Saturday, December 19, 2009 3:13:21 PM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern Subject: Re: [LegacyUG] Bridging Gaps I don't understand your question. Can you provide an example or two? Thanks, Dawn [email protected] wrote: I have good reason to use Legacy for genealogies which are a sparse in hard data or missing a piece. Does Legacy offer a general way to bridge gaps from missing individuals or discontinuity in information? kb Legacy User Group guidelines: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Etiquette.asp Archived messages after Nov. 21 2009: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/ Archived messages from old mail server - before Nov. 21 2009: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/ Online technical support: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Help.asp To unsubscribe: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/LegacyLists.asp
