Why a Blog?

A good question! When I started this web-site about a year ago, I didn’t see any need to have a blog. Now I’m not entirely convinced that I need one, but we are going to try it for a while at least.


Although there is a Contact page, it hasn’t been used very much and feed-back has been almost nil. Everyone is welcome to discuss genealogical matters relevant to this site; to point out typos and links which don’t work; to provide relevant, well documented, additional information about the ministers on this site; to tell me what is most useful or isn’t at all useful; or even to suggest what further information I might provide in the future, as the web-site develops.

Perhaps you will find a Blog page a more useful way of providing feed-back than the Contact page.



Up to now, I have been reporting on progress regularly – to let people know that the project is alive and moving ahead. I have done this reporting in the right side-bar. From now on, every time there is a significant updating of the web-site – significant progress towards meeting the stated goals – I will issue a blog with regard to it, rather than put the information in the side-bar. These blogs will be preserved and accessible long after they were first issued. In comparison, the material in the side-bar was replaced by something else and was then lost. This means that anyone really interested can see better how fast the work is progressing. And if there is no one out there really interested, it will still be of use to myself: I can look back and assess progress better.



From time to time, I come across material that strikes me as particularly interesting and I say to myself: I must study that sometime.

I will use the blog to share some of these matters with readers. Some of these might be classed as “ecclesiastical trivia”; others are matters of general interest and still others are themes worthy of more study. The blog will allow me to muse on such matters. Perhaps someone else might find them interesting.

There are also matters that can benefit from fuller discussion than can be conveniently given in the Supplementary Information. Thus, for example, there is a discrepancy between FES and Ewing in regard to Archibald Nicol. The facts of the matter are stated in the Supplementary Information; the explanation is given in a Blog.


You may also like...

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *