GEN-MEDIEVAL-L Archives

Archiver > GEN-MEDIEVAL > 2002-07 > 1027644619


From: "Stewart Baldwin" <>
Subject: The Henry Project - one year later
Date: Thu, 25 Jul 2002 20:12:56 -0500


Because of the broken gateway, I had intended to send the message
below to both soc.genealogy.medieval and GEN-MEDIEVAL, but instead of
sending it to GEN-MEDIEVAL I accidently sent it to the Quaker
newsgroup instead. So, here is a copy of what I had intended to send
(which has already received some responses on s.g.m):

---------------

It was one year ago yesterday that I first announced the Henry Project
(see http://sbaldw.home.mindspring.com/hproject/henry.htm) to this
newsgroup. Although the number of pages currently up is fairly small,
it does represent more than ten percent of the individuals who are
well documented ancestors of Henry II in the first ten generations, so
from that point of view, one could argue that the project is now ten
percent complete. On the other hand, all of the pages currently
uploaded list the same person as author, a situation that obscures the
very significant behind-the-scenes support that I have received from
several individuals who have checked references for me and provided
very useful comments on the current pages (some of which I have not
yet gotten around to revising in order to reflect the comments
received). This is certainly different from my original hope that
pages might be submitted by many different individuals.

Part of this is due to a significant miscalculation on my part. When
I chose the individuals on whom the project was based, I did not
consider the fact that the individuals on whom the project was based
(Henry II and his immediate ancestors) lay outside the primary areas
of research of many of the active participants in the group.
Recently, when Todd Farmerie and I were both in Salt Lake City during
overlapping vacations, we discussed some ways in which the scope of
the project might be expanded in order to encourage submissions from
more individuals. A couple of the possibilities mentioned were:

1. Expand the scope of the project to include a number of Henry II's
contemporaries in other countries (and their ancestors through the
tenth generation), so that a more representative sample of early
medieval European nobility is included.

2. Expand the scope of the project to include some of the English
peerage and gentry between the twelfth and fifteenth centuries,
perhaps by picking one or more English individuals of the early
fifteenth century and then adding them and their ancestors to the
scope of the project.

The advantage of the first alternative is that the individuals
involved would still form a fairly compact interrelated group of
several hundred individuals.

The reason for suggesting the second alternative has to do with the
people who participate in this newsgroup. If one looks at the basic
core of individual contributors to this list who regularly use solid
arguments based on good evidence, there is a wide variety of interests
among those individuals, but there seems to be a larger concentration
of expertise in the area of English nobility during the twelfth to
fifteenth centuries, so that expansion of the scope of the prject in
that direction might seem desirable. The main disadvantage is that it
might result in the project covering a somewhat disconnected set of
individuals. I should point out that expansion in this direction
would be very unlikely to result in any pages submitted by me, as my
main interest lies in the earlier period. However, I would be willing
to provide the webspace and editorial work (adding links, etc.) for
such an expansion.

So, what do people think about this? Would such expansion (in one of
the two directions suggested above) be likely to increase the number
of well documented pages submitted to the project? Or should I just
keep it the way it currently is for the time being? (I fully
appreciate the fact that there are some who have both the expertise
and the desire to submit material to this project, but do not do so
because other projects have higher priority.)

Stewart Baldwin



This thread: