tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1527613590529958801.post5129236451896488739..comments2024-03-21T19:08:05.737-07:00Comments on Genealogy's Star: Genealogical Standardization: Friend or Foe?James Tannerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02989059644120454647noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1527613590529958801.post-78249775090437623562018-12-15T05:39:49.003-07:002018-12-15T05:39:49.003-07:00Of course you are right. However, the geographic e...Of course you are right. However, the geographic extent of these early colonial designations are extremely vague and indiscriminate use of the designations causes even more confusion. This also includes standard designations such as "British Colonial America" that have no historical antecedents. James Tannerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02989059644120454647noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1527613590529958801.post-8515783248267005312018-12-14T19:49:47.622-07:002018-12-14T19:49:47.622-07:00I was particularly interested in Plymouth Colony. ...I was particularly interested in Plymouth Colony. Years ago, I standardized my place name entries to the name appropriate at the time of the event I was documenting (despite Family Tree Maker insisting on naming Plymouth towns as part of [Town], Plymouth, Massachusetts, USA). And so it is still today. But, to be accurate, I recorded the town name and Plymouth Colony. After 7 Oct 1691 and through 1776, I record Province of Massachusetts Bay. Massachusetts Bay Colony and Province of Massachusetts Bay never co-existed as one might infer from the text of this post. And the matter of Connecticut Colony, New Haven Colony, and Saybrook Colony adds another layer of complication. Wikipedia does a good job of explaining these changes with dates and maps.Hilltownrootshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09754812663999866537noreply@blogger.com