Re: [LegacyUG] Cemetery questions

[Scott Hall]

Thanks for the responses so far.

Kathy -- I have a couple of clarifying questions/points for you..

One, by Burial Event, are you saying you record the Cemetery in the
Events/Fact section, and not as an Event Address (reached by clicking the +
sign after the Burial Date/Place field)?  Just wanted to confirm.

Second, my core question was about the relocation of a headstone -- not the
corpse.  In the case I mentioned, no bodies were ever exhumed/disinterred.
Their headstones were simply picked up and relocated to a different
cemetery.  The bodies themselves (whats left of them anyway) remain buried
under the now public park.

I think, after this thread, and consideration, the burial notes field is
the best to indicate the relocation of the headstone.

Now, to get FAG to help clean up all the wrong information on the
memorials.  Much bigger problem! -- well over 1,000 memorials indicate
incorrect burial locations.  Maybe Find A Grave should be renamed Find A
Headstone.  Might be more accurate.  :)

On Sun, Jan 10, 2021 at 3:53 PM Ms Mary K. Lund via LegacyUserGroup <
legacyusergroup@legacyusers.com> wrote:

> Scott,
>
> If people are buried and then moved, I would record the first interment
> (as usually noted on a death certificate, if any) as the Burial event. If
> the body is subsequently moved, I would note that in the note section with
> the place and date, if known.
>
> If the body were formally exhumed for some reason, I would make that a
> separate event with an explanation. This would apply to those you mention
> being removed from the town commons.
>
> In some cases it might depend on which burial has the most information. In
> the past people were reburied in cases of a second marriage, or person
> dying young in a different location from subsequent family burials.
>
> A cremated person can be buried in multiple locations!
>
> Kathy
>
> On Sunday, January 10, 2021, 10:05:51 AM CST, Scott Hall <
> seh0...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> Hey all...
>
> Need some advice on how to handle some cemetery relocation issues.
>
> First, if a person was buried in Cemetery X, but relocated to Cemetery Y,
> I've been recording it as follows:
>
> Original burial information to Burial DatePlace Field
> Attach Cemetery Event Address to Burial Date/Place Field
>
> Reinterment information to Reburial Event Fields.  Add Cemetery name to
> "Description"
> Attach Cemetery Event Address to Event
>
> That's pretty straight forward -- record the event as it occurred at the
> time in the principal field (Burial) and the successive event as an Event.
>
> But, I've recently come across a number of ancestors for whom their
> *headstones* were relocated to a different cemetery, but their corpses *were
> not disinterred*.   This is now challenging me as to how to record the
> location of the headstone.
>
> For those who may have New England ancestors, this issue arises in
> Connecticut where at least two 17th century towns, New Haven and Guilford,
> relocated the headstones of the dead buried on their town commons to
> cemeteries established in the early 19th century.  In both cases, only the
> headstones were moved--the corpses remain buried under the town common, the
> exact site of the graves now lost to history.
>
> It seems obvious to record the original burial information as above -- but
> how to denote the relocation of the headstone?  It's important to keep
> track of, if for no other reason than to explain the plethora of Find a
> Grave and other memorials that seem to indicate burial occurred in these
> newer cemeteries (I'm working with Find a Grave in hopes of cleaning this
> up).
>
> I suppose the best way is to record this as a burial note.
>
> Your thoughts?
>
> If so, then for consistency, should I use Burial notes for actual
> reinterment of corpses instead of Events?
>
> Lastly -- how do you record cemeteries?  Do you use Event Addresses like I
> do, attaching them to the Burial field, do you use Events, or something
> else?
>
> Thanks,
> Scott
> --
>
> LegacyUserGroup mailing list
> LegacyUserGroup@legacyusers.com
> To manage your subscription and unsubscribe
> http://legacyusers.com/mailman/listinfo/legacyusergroup_legacyusers.com
> Archives at:
> http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyusers.com/
> --
>
> LegacyUserGroup mailing list
> LegacyUserGroup@legacyusers.com
> To manage your subscription and unsubscribe
> http://legacyusers.com/mailman/listinfo/legacyusergroup_legacyusers.com
> Archives at:
> http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyusers.com/
>
-- 

LegacyUserGroup mailing list
LegacyUserGroup@legacyusers.com
To manage your subscription and unsubscribe 
http://legacyusers.com/mailman/listinfo/legacyusergroup_legacyusers.com
Archives at:
http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyusers.com/

Re: [LegacyUG] Events descriptions

[sarrazingeorges]

Bonjour Brian

What you mention is a completely different problem that I would like to come 
back to later. 

What interests me here is the labeling of the event section in the ancestry 
books. 
There is a lot of text and it is difficult to navigate. I think, that adding 
the name of the person would make it clearer. 

This is why I thought about modifying the individual label by including the 
name of the person 
Événements importants de la vie de  «b»[Nom]«/b»
and the label 2, for the events related to the marriage, with the name of the 
couple. 
Événements  importants reliés au mariage/union de «b»[CoupleNoms]

It works for the husband, but not for the wife. It doesn't work for couples. 
If it works for the husband, it should work for other situations. That's why, I 
think, this is a bug.

Georges

-Message d'origine-
De : LegacyUserGroup  De la part de 
Brian Kelly
Envoyé : 10 janvier 2021 17:25
À : legacyusergroup@legacyusers.com
Objet : Re: [LegacyUG] Events descriptions

Georges,

In the report I only see one event linked to their marriage: *  Baudouin de 
Dudzeele et Marguerite van der Stove ont détenu des droits de propriété - à 
Montréal.

The event "Notes relatives à leur mariage" appears to be an event you assigned 
to the wife. Did you mean to do that or should you have made that an event for 
the marriage?

Brian Kelly

On 08-Jan.-21 4:32 p.m., sarrazingeor...@gmail.com wrote:
> Thank you Brian
> 
> It worked for most events.
> 
> Georges
> 
> Another small problem
> 
> The format of the book reports is far from clear. It is not easy to 
> differentiate between the events associated with the spouse, with his 
> wife and those associated with the couple.
> 
> So I identified each in the wording.
> For personal events, I have: Événements importants de la vie de 
> «b»[Nom]«/b»
> :
> And for events associated with the marriage, I have: Événements 
> importants reliés au mariage/union de «b»[CoupleNoms] :
> 
> It works for the groom, but not for the bride or for marriage-related 
> events (see example below).
> Is this a bug?
> 
> 
> Baudouin de Dudzeele
> 
> 
>Première génération
> 
>1.  Baudouin de Dudzeele,(1) fils de Sohier de Dudzeele (1) et 
> Prénom inconnu
>   de Voormezeele,(1) est décédé le 3 avr. 1366.(1)
> 
>   Événements importants de la vie de Baudouin de Dudzeele :
> 
>   *  Titre porté par Baudouin de Dudzeele : Chevalier. (1)
>   *  Titre porté par Baudouin de Dudzeele : Seigneur de Dudzeele, 
> Bonhem, et
>  Westkapelle. (1)
>   *  Baudouin de Dudzeele a détenu des droits de propriété - he 
> recovered
> 
>  from the count of Flanders the fiefs of Dudzeele, Bonhem, 
> Westkapelle,
>  and 80 livres parisis of rent attributed to the tonlieu of 
> Bruges from
>  his mother's unidentified sister. He also recovered the fief of
>  StPierre and Uutkerke along with six sub-fiefs, located in the
>  seigneurie of Dudzeele. (1)
>   *  Titre porté par Baudouin de Dudzeele : en 1296, Bruges, Flandres
>  occidentales, Be. Échevin. (1)
>   *  Il a accompli une mission en 1300. He was one of the fifty noble
>  Flemish hostages who accompanied Guy de Dampierre, count of 
> Flanders,
>  into captivity in France. Baudouin was imprisoned at the Chateau de
>  Nanette, Auvergne, France. The surviving hostages were only
>  returned to Flanders after the 1305 Treaty of Athies-sur-Orge.
> However,
>  he may have switched sides as early as 1303 when a "Boudewijn van
>  Dudzele" is listed as a Flemish supporter of the king of 
> France (1)
> 
>Baudouin a épousé Marguerite van der Stove,(1) fille de Guillaume 
> van der Stove.
> 
>Événements importants reliés à leur mariage/union :
> 
>*  Baudouin de Dudzeele et Marguerite van der Stove ont détenu des 
> droits de
>   propriété - à Montréal.
> 
>   Événements importants de sa vie :
> 
>   *  Notes relatives à leur mariage  - according to Piot, he was 
> married to
>  MARGUERITE VAN DER STOVE, but the brass plaque in the church of
>  Dudzeele records his wife as Marye von Belle. (1)
>   *  Marguerite van der Stove a détenu des droits de propriété - 
> his wife
> 
>  survived him and became dame of Dudzelle by dower and she 
> recovered the
>  fief of Moerkerke. At her death Elisabeth de Dudzeele became his
>  principle heir. (1)
> 
> --
> --
> 
> Sources
> 
> 1. Dulong, John P., The Dudzeele and Straten Ancestry of Catherine de 
> Baillon,
>   Part II, Michigan Habitant Heritage, vol 32, no. 4 (octobre 2011), p.
> 156
>   à 166. Récupéré de
> http://habitant.org/baillon/Dudzeele%20Article%202.pdf.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -Message d'origine-
> De : LegacyUserGroup  De la 
> part de Brian Kelly Envoyé : 8 janvier 2021 13:03 À : 
> lega