TMG-L Archives

Archiver > TMG > 2003-05 > 1051963210


From: bob gillis <>
Subject: Re: [TMG] Journal Narrative Report was A little advise please
Date: Sat, 03 May 2003 08:01:48 -0400
References: <1d9.8b4f507.2be3495a@aol.com> <006001c310a7$4fe20060$0200a8c0@caroline>


Caroline, I think one reason that TMG has not developed another report
format is that you European (and I include the Commonwealth)
genealogists do not have any established report format.

Joan Lince explained the origins of the types in TMG and why they have
stuck for so many years. They mainly differ in the numbering of the
descendants

A number of people have requested a strictly chronological report which
is probably coming. However I wonder how readable such a report would
be:

"John was born in 1875, John was in the 1881 Census with his parents; he
graduated from University in 1898, he appeared in the 1901 Census living
with a family in London where he was studying law, he married Alice in
1905, he became a barrister in 1907, son William was born 1909, he
became a leftenant in 1914, daughter Emily was born 1916, he fought in
the Battle of the xxxx in 1916 where he was wounded, he was discharged
as a Major in 1919, he became a QC in 1924, he died in 1949 and was
buried in St Albans Cemetery."

If you can come up with a consensus of a British report as our Swedish
member has, I am quite sure that Bob V will consider it. I do not
remember anyone proposing another format except a strictly chronological
one.

I think any format will have to group the children so that a reader can
tell who they are without wading through a lot of detail.

bob gillis


Caroline Gurney wrote:
>
> Barb wrote:
>
> > > These formats are only "accepted" in the USA. They have no relevance to
> > > anyone in other countries.
> > >
> >
> > I'm curious. Are there any websites where I could see samples of the type
> of
> > report "accepted" by genealogy journals and outside the US?
>
> Barb,
>
> Jonas has posted links to a genealogical format which is the most common
> standard in Swedish and Finnish publications but you won't find anything
> similar for the UK because it doesn't exist.
>
> Journals of various types are published by a number of national family
> history organisations (the Society of Genealogists, the Institute of
> Heraldic & Genealogical Studies, the Guild of One Name Studies, the
> Federation of Family History Societies) and by the numerous county or
> regional family history societies (FHS). To my knowledge, none of these
> societies lays down a specific format in which work must be presented in
> order for it to be published. Certainly, this is the case for all the
> journals to which I currently subscribe or have done in the past.
>
> You will notice that I wrote "journals" without an initial capital J. These
> are *not* "Journals" in the sense that they have some prestigious existence
> of their own. It is the organisations that matter, not their journals, which
> are simply means for the society and its membership to communicate with each
> other. There is no particular kudos attached to having an article published
> in one of them - indeed, editors are usually chronically short of material
> and forever issuing appeals for the membership to write something. What
> interests the readership is the content of a particular article. How it is
> presented (provided it is clear and cites its sources) is not important.
>
> After several years on this list, I know that friends in the USA have a hard
> time getting their heads round our laissez-faire approach & the fact that we
> have no Mills or Lackey to tell us how to cite our sources (and indeed would
> bitterly resent it if anyone tried). Perhaps it would help to remember that
> we have no written constitution or codified system of law either - this way
> of doing things is something deeply entrenched in our national character.
>
> If there is anything like a universal standard, it would be for drawing
> family trees, where the British convention has been to use a drop line
> pedigree chart in the format:
>
> Father = Mother
> |
> ________
> | |
> Child Child
>
> I hope my drawing comes through clearly in other people's e-mail programs.
> Marie Lynskey's website gives some beautiful examples of this layout at
> http://www.ml.clara.net/trees/trees.html .
>
> However, none of the American produced family history programs draw trees in
> this way and so one increasingly sees computer-generated trees, drawn in the
> American style, published in family history journals.
>
> I am a student on the Correspondence Course in Genealogy with the Institute
> of Genealogical and Heraldic Studies (IHGS), which awards genealogical
> qualifications which are accepted for membership of The Association of
> Genealogists and Researchers in Archives (AGRA), although membership of AGRA
> is, I think, more commonly gained by practical experience (see:
> http://www.ihgs.ac.uk/courses/qualifications.php and
> http://www.agra.org.uk/). The IHGS have so far laid down no rules for the
> presentation of my work (apart from the obvious "cite your sources")
> *except* a requirement to submit hand-drawn drop-line pedigrees because no
> family history program produces acceptable ones. I am currently working on
> such a chart & am using Marie Lynskey's book "Family Trees - A Manual for
> their Design Layout & Display" to help me do it (see:
> http://www.ml.clara.net/books/books.html ).
>
> It is a big wish of UK users of TMG, and those in the British tradition in
> Australia and New Zealand, that VCF would allow us the option to draw charts
> in our "native" format.
>
> Caroline Gurney
> Portsmouth, UK
>
>
> ==== TMG Mailing List ====
> To un-subscribe from TMG-L (in MAIL mode), send a message to <> with just the word "unsubscribe" (no quotes)in the text and turn off your signature.

This thread: