GEN-MEDIEVAL-L ArchivesArchiver > GEN-MEDIEVAL > 2002-07 > 1027890052
From: (Stewart Baldwin)
Subject: Re: The Henry Project - one year later
Date: Sun, 28 Jul 2002 21:23:11 GMT
Kevan L. Barton <> wrote:
>Would not choosing a contemporary European leader as another start also
>produce disconnected data? You say it's a disadvantage of option two, but I
>suppose it could be argued that it is an even greater disadvantage of option
It would depend on who was picked for option one. Some of Henry II's
contemporaries (such as many of the obvious French or German choices)
would have ancestor tables with a very substantial overlap with the
ancestor table of Henry. It seems to me that if you picked several of
Henry's contemporaries in other countries and added ten generations of
their ancestors to the scope of the project, the result would be a
reasonably connected group of individuals. (The obvious exceptions
would be Ireland and Wales, which would be largely disconnected from
the rest, at least at this early time period.)
>... Mind you, if pools of interest is what you are looking for, option two
>must be the choice. You'd naturally get more interest in your project, and
>more open support. Option one would lend it self to passive participants.
>Option two would engender active support.
May I interpret "active support" to mean that people would submit well
documented pages to the project? :-) If so, that would be a
significant incentive to expand the project in such a direction.
>I suppose that the Clares may be an excellent choice, though I don't have
>them in my wood pile (except from the early 14th century back). Why not the
>Cliffords? They are even more interesting, at least in my opinion. But
>regardless, I admire your efforts.
The key would be finding a specific group of medieval individuals who
are of sufficient interest to enough researchers that a significant
number of well documented pages would be submitted.
|Re: The Henry Project - one year later by (Stewart Baldwin)|