TMG-L Archives

Archiver > TMG > 2000-10 > 0970408377


From: "Darrell A. Martin" <>
Subject: Re: [TMG] Place Levels and "villages"
Date: Sun, 01 Oct 2000 08:52:57 -0500
References: <3.0.5.32.20000930191147.007d1ba0@m2.sprynet.com><B0000424708@millenni-iom342.millennium20.com><3.0.5.32.20000929202236.007d0930@m2.sprynet.com><2d.1872497.2705f6a5@cs.com>
In-Reply-To: <4.1.20001001021902.00a965f0@pop.mis.net>


At 02:38 AM 10/01/2000 -0400, Lee Hoffman/KY wrote:

Hi, Lee:

I'm going to interject my comments in this message, thus.

>Darrell A. Martin wrote:
>>Nope, not combining, and at least 200 years old but still current. Saxtons
>>River is a village located in Rockingham; so is Bellows Falls, the largest
>>in fact. Rockingham is the town (elsewhere in the U.S. called a township,
>>but in New England they are much more important governmentally and
>>genealogically). There is also a village in Rockingham named Rockingham,
not
>>to mention Cambridgeport and Bartonsville. All vital records are kept at
the
>>town level, by the Town Clerk, whose office is located in the town's
largest
>>village Bellows Falls, not in the village of Rockingham. Still confused
<big
>>grin>??

[snip]

>You took the word right out of my mouth. When I asked the question, I
>kinda figured that something was going on. Hmm!! Then Rockingham operates
>much like a county in the sense that the vital records are maintained there
>for the villages located therein while another town may be in the same
>county and the vital records for it are maintained there.

You are correct, but it may be important to note that neither
a native Yankee nor a New England researcher would usually
think in those terms. In N.E., the town is PARAMOUNT. Only
the state approaches it in importance. The county is a mere
geographical reference, except for probate courts. Not only
are vital records kept by the town, but schools and roads are
also town functions. There are exceptions, and some recent
changes, but that's the historical perspective (including up
to at least my career in Social Studies classes in the school
system of Springfield, VT -- SHS Class of '67).

Also, most of the land area in Vermont would NOT fall under
any village's umbrella at all. So, in that sense, it is not
"normal" to say that the town is maintaining records "for"
the villages therein. The town just "keeps records."

> I think I would
>make entries as follows:
>
>Detail:Gowdy Invalid Home, Saxtons River
>City:Town of Rockingham
>County:Windham County
>State:Vermont
>Short: Saxtons River, VT

This is the exact suggestion made earlier by Teresa,
and the one I am leaning toward taking.

>An alternative is:
>Detail:Gowdy Invalid Home
>City:Saxtons River
>County:Town of Rockingham, Windham County
>State:Vermont
>Short: Saxtons River, VT
>
>On further thinking, I believe the alternative is probably better. This
>indicates the county but shows the town. Thus, if someone went there to
>research and went to the county offices for records only to be told they
>were in the town, then the town would be right there for them to know and
>go to.

Well, if there *were* any county offices to go to, maybe.
But there usually aren't. Again, this is a regional thing.
It can be confusing as the dickens for somebody outside
the area. I believe that I could do 98% of my non-probate
research in Vermont without the slightest interest in what
county I was working in. And for probate, the important
thing is the probate *district*, not the county per se
(although I think probate districts are either the same as
a county or are subdivisions of a county). If Windham Co.
Vermont has a county seat, I have no clue where it might
be. And I don't need to, either.

>Note that I added the "Town of" modifier to Rockingham based on your
>explanation. If that is not the official designation, change it to
>whatever is correct.

Well, "Town of Rockingham" is about the closest, I would
guess. But that jars on my Yankee ears. Even in a formal
genealogical setting, just plain "Rockingham" would be
expected in most cases, and would sufficiently and
unambiguously identify the place for all and sundry.

> Similarly, you might want the correct modifier for
>Saxtons River (i.e., "Village of"?). The full names/modifiers can
>certainly help eliminate questions here and in other even more confusing
>place names.

That is a good suggestion for Saxtons River, which I
believe is incorporated. But for the many places in
Vermont which are recognized by the USGS but which are
not incorporated, "Village of ..." is actually technically
INcorrect and could lead a future researcher astray.

> And if you are consistant in this, a future researcher
>(including yourself years from now) should not have any problems.
>
>Hope this helps -

Yes, it does help a lot. But here is my problem. I
like being able to scan my MPL (one of the big pluses
of the UFT --> TMG move) and see "all the same places
IN the same places". For most tags, Rockingham, VT is
my place entry. Note that it is entirely possible
that an event which has the place Rockingham, VT may
have occurred in Saxtons River, but since that is not
explicit in the records (it very often would not be)
there is no way of knowing. My Rockingham MPL is:

Detail:[n/a]
City: Rockingham
County:Windham County
State: Vermont
Short: Rockingham, VT

Where I know that an event occurred in Saxtons
River, I use the Saxtons River, VT place, for which
my MPL is:

Detail:Saxtons River
City: Rockingham
County:Windham County
State: Vermont
Short: Rockingham, VT

These are both fine. But your alternative suggestion,
which makes good sense within TMG,

Detail:Gowdy Invalid Home
City: Saxtons River
County:Town of Rockingham, Windham County
State: Vermont
Short: Saxtons River, VT

changes the detail (village in the previous example),
city, *and* county fields even though all that is
different is that I know the building! And I think
that the MPL sort order would be changed, and your
alternative wouldn't even be "in" the right county
order any more, and could easily be missed.

I think maybe it is as simple as that TMG doesn't
have enough levels in its place file. Anyway, I
will close with a quote from Robert Frost's poem
"The Generations of Men," which is about a
supposed "Stark" reunion in New Hampshire:

... "I may be mad."
"You look so, sitting out here in the rain
Studying genealogy with me
You never saw before. What will we come to
With all this pride of ancestry, we Yankees?
I think we're all mad. . . ."
lines 83-88

Darrell



Darrell A. Martin
no longer proud to have been a Vermonter
but still proud of my Vermont roots
currently in exile in Addison, Illinois


This thread: