Victor, May be the terminology has led us astray. In your earlier postings you said Parish Register (several times), which I took to mean Church Parish Register, and does NOT record Births & Deaths but only Baptisms, Marriages & Burials. But now you say Local Register Office (LRO) which I accept holds the original register of Births & Deaths. Regards, Mike Tate -----Original Message----- Subject: Re: [FHU] Primary Evidence Mike Sorry I will have to disagree with you here. Let's not argue but agree to disagree! I wonder if you have ever ordered a certificate from the LRO. Most people use the GRO because they can find a reference number. The LRO reference number can be found in some area via UKBMD web site. These reference details have been transcribed by local people where the Register agreed to let them. Not all have agreed to this. Victor > > -----Original Message----- > Subject: Re: [FHU] Primary Evidence > > You are wrong I have copies of marriage certificate from parish register. When a marriage takes place in a church all parties sign the registry > > -----Original Message----- > Subject: Re: [FHU] Primary Evidence > > On 22 Dec 2015 10:22 AM, Victor Markham via wrote: > >> You are all talking about GRO certificates. This is a copy of the Parish Register which are kept in the local archives. These archive copies are different from those that you get from the GRO. Basically they are of a different format being in black and white with all the original signatures and also longer than an A4 paper sheet. Whilst the GRO copy is based on this with an extract of the original posted onto a coloured standard template (Red for birth, Green for marriage and black for death) > WRONG! > > Parish Registers record baptisms/christenings, weddings and burials. > > The GRO records births, marriages and deaths. > > GRO Certificates have little to do with Parish Registers - except for weddings that took place in churches. Civil weddings will not appear in the Parish Registers. > > Regards, > Mike Fry > Johannesburg >

On 22/12/2015 17:23, Victor Markham via wrote: > Mike > > Sorry I will have to disagree with you here. Let's not argue but agree > to disagree! > > I wonder if you have ever ordered a certificate from the LRO. Most > people use the GRO because they can find a reference number. The LRO > reference number can be found in some area via UKBMD web site. These > reference details have been transcribed by local people where the > Register agreed to let them. Not all have agreed to this. > > You may have read the other message from Ian Hartas who set up UKBMD. > But if not I copy it here > > Victor > > Please read this message from I Hartas. > Most sources of UK information are a mixture of Primary, Secondary and Tertiary information. For example an English birth certificate for instance gives the following information Date of Birth – Primary Information Name & Surname - Primary Information Name & Surname of Father - Secondary Information or Tertiary Information depending on whether the father or the mother gave the information. Place of Birth of Father - Secondary Information or Tertiary Information depending on whether the father or the mother gave the information. Occupation of Father - Primary Information or possibly Secondary Information depending on how much detail is given. In a similar way the details about the mother may be Primary, Secondary and Tertiary information. Very few UK sources contain only Primary Information. Cheers Guy

Mike Sorry I will have to disagree with you here. Let's not argue but agree to disagree! I wonder if you have ever ordered a certificate from the LRO. Most people use the GRO because they can find a reference number. The LRO reference number can be found in some area via UKBMD web site. These reference details have been transcribed by local people where the Register agreed to let them. Not all have agreed to this. You may have read the other message from Ian Hartas who set up UKBMD. But if not I copy it here Victor Please read this message from I Hartas. --------- Message from Ian Hartas, UKBMD. There was Deregulation Bill put through parliament by Baroness Scott earlier this year which enables changes to the birth, marriage and death registration process to allow easier access to the Birth, Marriage and Death (BMD) records held by the General Register Office (GRO). On Friday 18th Dec. I attended a meeting at the GRO's premises in Southport as a representative of the Local BMD Project where the agenda was to probe the various representatives to see what their views were on the possible features that may be possible following this deregulation. (I.e. this meeting was not part of a full public consultation) One of their first comments surprised me -- the recent deregulation only applies to the GRO and not the local Register Offices. The registration process is such that the BMD events are registered locally first, then quarterly copies are sent to the GRO. Unfortunately the copying process introduced a high rate of errors and omission! s.! > So, although the GRO indexes may offer a national coverage, the indexes produced by the local register offices are more complete and more accurate. They also offer extra facilities such as naming the venue for the marriage. So there are advantages to seeking out copies of the original records from the local register offices rather than a copy of a copy from the GRO. Over the years, hundreds of volunteers from the various family history societies have freely dedicated many hours to transcribe records for the various local BMD websites. A growing number of these local register offices have also made large financial commitments by scanning their registers as a means of protecting the registers, but also as a means of simplifying the creation of copy certificates. Obviously, the register offices were also considering the future possibility of providing easier access online to scanned images, but only after deregulation allows for changes. If the GRO is permitted to produce o! n! l! > ine images of copy certificates at a reduced cost and the local register offices cannot offer the same facilities, then they will be severely disadvantaged financially and the hard work by all the family history society volunteers will be greatly devalued. So, what can you do? One option would be to contact your local MP and ask that the Deregulation Bill is extended to allow the local register offices to have the same rights as the GRO, so for example if the GRO may provide online images, then the local register office may do so too. On 22/12/2015 12:22 PM, Beryl & Mike Tate via wrote: > Victor, I think you will find that is exactly what Mike Fry said, as he made an exception for weddings that took place in churches. > > All other GRO certificates for Birth, Death, and civil Marriages are original and have no Parish Register equivalent. > > Regards, Mike Tate > > -----Original Message----- > Subject: Re: [FHU] Primary Evidence > > You are wrong I have copies of marriage certificate from parish register. When a marriage takes place in a church all parties sign the registry > > -----Original Message----- > Subject: Re: [FHU] Primary Evidence > > On 22 Dec 2015 10:22 AM, Victor Markham via wrote: > >> You are all talking about GRO certificates. This is a copy of the >> Parish Register which are kept in the local archives. These archive >> copies are different from those that you get from the GRO. Basically >> they are of a different format being in black and white with all the >> original signatures and also longer than an A4 paper sheet. Whilst the >> GRO copy is based on this with an extract of the original posted onto >> a coloured standard template (Red for birth, Green for marriage and >> black for death) > WRONG! > > Parish Registers record baptisms/christenings, weddings and burials. > > The GRO records births, marriages and deaths. > > GRO Certificates have little to do with Parish Registers - except for weddings that took place in churches. Civil weddings will not appear in the Parish Registers. > > -- > Regards, > Mike Fry > Johannesburg > > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to FAMILY-HISTORIAN-USERS-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

If one has an ancestor, say, shown in the 1881 census as aged 51 do people enter his/her estimated birth year as 1830 or 1829 in the absence of any other evidence? The census takes place on 3 April and there is approximately a 75% chance that he/she was born in 1829 and a 25% chance that he/she was born in 1830. I suspect most people estimate the birth year as 1830. Joan

Hello Everybody, This is an interesting thread. Another way of looking at what is "primary" is to think of it as "the best available" evidence. If an age is known/believed to be wrong that can be covered by an appropriate note. In that is the situation on a death certificate there are other evidential points such as where died, when died and who was present at death. Happy Christmas to everybody. Rod in Hampshire. --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus

Hi Regards to the accuracy of GRO certificates. I always get them from local register offices. A while ago a new cousin contacted me with a different birth date for one of my relatives. He had got his certificate from the GRO and sent me a copy. It was the correct certificate and recorded in the year the birth took place. The local register office had sent me a the copy of a re-issue of the certificate early in the next year as the informant had corrected the birth date within the six weeks allowed and the new certificate appeared in the GRO index for the first quarter of that year not the birth year. The local office I used also provided a photo copy Wedding certificates with the actual signatures as a certified copy. Regards Mike in a suddenly very wet Droitwich. On 22/12/2015 13:25, Tony Proctor via wrote: > Certainly the textual 'GRO Index' has significant errors, Brian, including > typos and lost entries. I've never been totally certain, though, about the > certificate images. I have seen instances where the image from the LRO > differs slightly from that obtained from the GRO and I've not been able to > explain how or why. They are obviously for the same event, and both with > hand-written information that includes signatures. > > Tony Proctor >

A Death Certificate is a primary source type for a death, and its date, and its location, and its informant, etc. The death details can be confirmed, or contradicted, by other source types, such as Internment Record, Gravestone, Newspaper notice, Family Bible, etc. It can also be a source type for other "facts", but it should be ascribed the relevant reliability rating. So yes, it can be a source for a date of birth but should be of lesser rank than other sources. In the absence of other sources, it may be all that you have to go on for the birth. In which case you would append notation to that effect. It can similarly be your only source or secondary source for wife's name, where residing at death. Even the deceased's parents' names are recorded in some jurisdictions but these can be even less reliable than date of birth. But it is still a source. Bill -----Original Message----- From: family-historian-users-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:family-historian-users-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Dennis Hawkins via Sent: Tuesday, 22 December 2015 9:36 AM To: family-historian-users@rootsweb.com Subject: [FHU] Primary Evidence I have a death certificate which lists the birth date of the subject. Is this primary evidence of birth date? Dennis Hawkins ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to FAMILY-HISTORIAN-USERS-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Certainly the textual 'GRO Index' has significant errors, Brian, including typos and lost entries. I've never been totally certain, though, about the certificate images. I have seen instances where the image from the LRO differs slightly from that obtained from the GRO and I've not been able to explain how or why. They are obviously for the same event, and both with hand-written information that includes signatures. Tony Proctor ----- Original Message ----- From: "Brian Horridge via" <family-historian-users@rootsweb.com> To: "Beryl & Mike Tate" <post@tatewise.co.uk>; <family-historian-users@rootsweb.com> Sent: Tuesday, December 22, 2015 1:09 PM Subject: Re: [FHU] Primary Evidence > Mike > > You are slightly wrong in that GRO certificates obtained from the > central GRO (as opposed to the Local Registrar's offices) are actually > copies submitted on a quarterly basis by the local superintendent > registrar (or marriages by the local vicar / incumbent). One would hope > that they are more accurate than those quarterly returns submitted by > vicars etc but they are still copies none the less. > > Also, I have some certificates obtained from the GRO a long time ago and > are actually hand-written copies and not a photocopy (of a copy) as is > normal nowadays. > > Brian > > > > > On 22/12/2015 12:22, Beryl & Mike Tate via wrote: >> Victor, I think you will find that is exactly what Mike Fry said, as he >> made an exception for weddings that took place in churches. >> >> All other GRO certificates for Birth, Death, and civil Marriages are >> original and have no Parish Register equivalent. >> >> Regards, Mike Tate >> >> > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > FAMILY-HISTORIAN-USERS-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' > without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Mike You are slightly wrong in that GRO certificates obtained from the central GRO (as opposed to the Local Registrar's offices) are actually copies submitted on a quarterly basis by the local superintendent registrar (or marriages by the local vicar / incumbent). One would hope that they are more accurate than those quarterly returns submitted by vicars etc but they are still copies none the less. Also, I have some certificates obtained from the GRO a long time ago and are actually hand-written copies and not a photocopy (of a copy) as is normal nowadays. Brian On 22/12/2015 12:22, Beryl & Mike Tate via wrote: > Victor, I think you will find that is exactly what Mike Fry said, as he made an exception for weddings that took place in churches. > > All other GRO certificates for Birth, Death, and civil Marriages are original and have no Parish Register equivalent. > > Regards, Mike Tate > >

Victor, I think you will find that is exactly what Mike Fry said, as he made an exception for weddings that took place in churches. All other GRO certificates for Birth, Death, and civil Marriages are original and have no Parish Register equivalent. Regards, Mike Tate -----Original Message----- Subject: Re: [FHU] Primary Evidence You are wrong I have copies of marriage certificate from parish register. When a marriage takes place in a church all parties sign the registry -----Original Message----- Subject: Re: [FHU] Primary Evidence On 22 Dec 2015 10:22 AM, Victor Markham via wrote: > You are all talking about GRO certificates. This is a copy of the > Parish Register which are kept in the local archives. These archive > copies are different from those that you get from the GRO. Basically > they are of a different format being in black and white with all the > original signatures and also longer than an A4 paper sheet. Whilst the > GRO copy is based on this with an extract of the original posted onto > a coloured standard template (Red for birth, Green for marriage and > black for death) WRONG! Parish Registers record baptisms/christenings, weddings and burials. The GRO records births, marriages and deaths. GRO Certificates have little to do with Parish Registers - except for weddings that took place in churches. Civil weddings will not appear in the Parish Registers. -- Regards, Mike Fry Johannesburg

Hi Everyone. Thanks a lot for your tips and the prompt feddback from the Calico Pie Team. I managed to reinstall the software. Regards!! On Mon, Dec 21, 2015 at 12:20 PM, Victor via < family-historian-users@rootsweb.com> wrote: > Mike > > That was what I really meant as Pedro mentioned v5 > > One note is great for many things and those who have it should make the > most of it > > Victor > > -----Original Message----- > From: "Beryl & Mike Tate via" <family-historian-users@rootsweb.com> > Sent: ‎21/‎12/‎2015 14:06 > To: "family-historian-users@rootsweb.com" < > family-historian-users@rootsweb.com> > Subject: Re: [FHU] Family Historian 6 Upgrade -Help > > No Victor you do not need to install any earlier versions to install a V5 > to V6 Upgrade (nor for a V4 to V5 Upgrade). > > But you do need two sets of licence details and saving them on OneNote is > a good idea. > I suggest you also save the Email address and date of purchase from Calico > Pie. > Then if you lose the downloaded installation file you can request them to > send it again using those purchase details. > > Regards, Mike Tate > > -----Original Message----- > Subject: Re: [FHU] Family Historian 6 Upgrade -Help > > Pedro > > I think you have to install version 5 first then upgraded it from there. > > Mails have in the past referred to registration key. If you have One Note > installed on your computer you can store you registration > key on here. Just create a Registration key tab then add new sub tab > called Family Historian and ad all the FH version keys on here. > You can also add more sub tabs for other software registration keys. > > Victor > > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > FAMILY-HISTORIAN-USERS-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' > without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > FAMILY-HISTORIAN-USERS-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' > without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message >

On 22 Dec 2015 10:22 AM, Victor Markham via wrote: > You are all talking about GRO certificates. This is a copy of the Parish > Register which are kept in the local archives. These archive copies are > different from those that you get from the GRO. Basically they are of a > different format being in black and white with all the original > signatures and also longer than an A4 paper sheet. Whilst the GRO copy > is based on this with an extract of the original posted onto a coloured > standard template (Red for birth, Green for marriage and black for death) WRONG! Parish Registers record baptisms/christenings, weddings and burials. The GRO records births, marriages and deaths. GRO Certificates have little to do with Parish Registers - except for weddings that took place in churches. Civil weddings will not appear in the Parish Registers. -- Regards, Mike Fry Johannesburg

I would regard a census document as a primary source though as with any primary source it still needs careful evaluation. Primary sources are first hand contemporaneous accounts. They provide the raw material that we use to compile our family trees. Secondary sources are those which have interpreted the raw material to form conclusions. Secondary souces includes family trees compiled by other researchers and biographies. http://lib1.bmcc.cuny.edu/help/sources.html http://guides.library.ucsc.edu/primarysecondary Best wishes Debbie

Hi Dennis, A death certificate is only Primary Evidence of the death, nothing else. For Primary Evidence of a date of birth, you need the Birth Certificate. All the information on a death certificate, with the exception of the date, cause and name and address of the informant is in effect 'hearsay' as it's from the recollections of the informant. Regards Lesley Baxendale On 21/12/2015 22:35, Dennis Hawkins via wrote: > I have a death certificate which lists the birth date of the subject. Is this primary evidence of birth date? > Dennis Hawkins > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to FAMILY-HISTORIAN-USERS-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message >

Please read - it's very interesting & relevant to research. Lesley -------- Forwarded Message -------- Subject: Re: [CHS] Deregulation of access to BMD registers Date: Mon, 21 Dec 2015 14:56:00 +0000 From: Robert Kirk via <cheshire@rootsweb.com> Reply-To: Robert Kirk <bob.kirk@me.com> To: Robert Kirk <bob.kirk@me.com> CC: M&LFHS List <forum@list.mlfhs.org.uk>, Cheshire List <cheshire@rootsweb.com> Please forward this to as many people as possible including family history societies. The more the merrier. Sent from my iPhone > On 21 Dec 2015, at 14:21, Robert Kirk via <cheshire@rootsweb.com> wrote: > > Please read this message from I Hartas. > --------- > > Message from Ian Hartas, UKBMD. There was Deregulation Bill put through parliament by Baroness Scott earlier this year which enables changes to the birth, marriage and death registration process to allow easier access to the Birth, Marriage and Death (BMD) records held by the General Register Office (GRO). On Friday 18th Dec. I attended a meeting at the GRO's premises in Southport as a representative of the Local BMD Project where the agenda was to probe the various representatives to see what their views were on the possible features that may be possible following this deregulation. (I.e. this meeting was not part of a full public consultation) One of their first comments surprised me -- the recent deregulation only applies to the GRO and not the local Register Offices. The registration process is such that the BMD events are registered locally first, then quarterly copies are sent to the GRO. Unfortunately the copying process introduced a high rate of errors and omission! s.! > So, although the GRO indexes may offer a national coverage, the indexes produced by the local register offices are more complete and more accurate. They also offer extra facilities such as naming the venue for the marriage. So there are advantages to seeking out copies of the original records from the local register offices rather than a copy of a copy from the GRO. Over the years, hundreds of volunteers from the various family history societies have freely dedicated many hours to transcribe records for the various local BMD websites. A growing number of these local register offices have also made large financial commitments by scanning their registers as a means of protecting the registers, but also as a means of simplifying the creation of copy certificates. Obviously, the register offices were also considering the future possibility of providing easier access online to scanned images, but only after deregulation allows for changes. If the GRO is permitted to produce on! l! > ine images of copy certificates at a reduced cost and the local register offices cannot offer the same facilities, then they will be severely disadvantaged financially and the hard work by all the family history society volunteers will be greatly devalued. So, what can you do? One option would be to contact your local MP and ask that the Deregulation Bill is extended to allow the local register offices to have the same rights as the GRO, so for example if the GRO may provide online images, then the local register office may do so too. > --------- > Forwarded by > Bob Kirk. > Cumbria > > Sent from my iPhone > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to CHESHIRE-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to CHESHIRE-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

You are wrong I have copies of marriage certificate from parish register. When a marriage takes place in a church all parties sign the registry -----Original Message----- From: "Mike Fry via" <family-historian-users@rootsweb.com> Sent: ‎22/‎12/‎2015 09:15 To: "family-historian-users@rootsweb.com" <family-historian-users@rootsweb.com> Subject: Re: [FHU] Primary Evidence On 22 Dec 2015 10:22 AM, Victor Markham via wrote: > You are all talking about GRO certificates. This is a copy of the Parish > Register which are kept in the local archives. These archive copies are > different from those that you get from the GRO. Basically they are of a > different format being in black and white with all the original > signatures and also longer than an A4 paper sheet. Whilst the GRO copy > is based on this with an extract of the original posted onto a coloured > standard template (Red for birth, Green for marriage and black for death) WRONG! Parish Registers record baptisms/christenings, weddings and burials. The GRO records births, marriages and deaths. GRO Certificates have little to do with Parish Registers - except for weddings that took place in churches. Civil weddings will not appear in the Parish Registers. -- Regards, Mike Fry Johannesburg ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to FAMILY-HISTORIAN-USERS-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

You are all talking about GRO certificates. This is a copy of the Parish Register which are kept in the local archives. These archive copies are different from those that you get from the GRO. Basically they are of a different format being in black and white with all the original signatures and also longer than an A4 paper sheet. Whilst the GRO copy is based on this with an extract of the original posted onto a coloured standard template (Red for birth, Green for marriage and black for death) Also there are a number of certificates that got 'lost' between the local register office and the GRO. My mother's two sisters marriages are not at the GRO but are in the local archives. Victor On 22/12/2015 6:34 AM, D C Banks via wrote: > Hello Adrian > > I agree that most documents are actually 'copies' or 'transcriptions' of an > event but I tend to couple 'primary' and 'trusted' as the same thing. In 99% > of GRO documents I trust the 'copy' of the certificate as it is a copy of > the information known at the time. On the contrary, any family tree put on > the LDS by the public, unless substantiated by another source, I would call > Questionable. > > I think the confusion occurs in the differentiation between 'information' > and 'document'. A document may be 'Primary' (it is what was known at the > time) even though the content may be inaccurate. > > I have put a note on all my GEDCOM and other major data files/storage about > how I have interpreted various types of document so that there is hopefully > no argument later after I have gone to that magic place in heaven where I > can spend 25 hours a day doing family history. > > Just so everybody knows where I am coming from I have designed traceability > and 'genealogical' systems for pharmaceutical, defence and food and beverage > industries so do know a bit about the subject - I have put that knowledge > into how I have set up my document hierarchy - but that's just my way and > opinion - each to their own. > > Happy Christmas everybody > > -----Original Message----- > From: family-historian-users-bounces@rootsweb.com > [mailto:family-historian-users-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Adrian > Bruce via > Sent: 22 December 2015 00:05 > To: Mervyn Ashby; Family Historian UG Mailing List > Subject: Re: [FHU] Primary Evidence > > On 21 December 2015 at 23:44, Mervyn Ashby via < > family-historian-users@rootsweb.com> wrote: > >> I would disagree with the statement that Census documents are primary >> evidence as, with the exception of the U.K. 1901 Census, all you can >> generally see is the is the Enumerators' compilation and >> interpretation of the individual household schedules, which were the >> primary sources, but which have all been destroyed. >> >> It's a good point, but if we take it to its logical conclusion, we'd > probably need to declare all documents to provide secondary evidence only - > GRO certificates are copies; we never see the certificates at superintendent > registrars - but a photocopy might count; parish registers are probably > written up after the event from the priest's notes; WW1 Soldiers' Records > are compiled by clerks from letters long since lost.... > > And if we do all that, what's the point of a classification that makes 99% > of stuff secondary? As I say, this is just a step along the way to deciding > if it's evidence that we can trust - so we do need to worry about > enumerators' errors, absolutely we do - but we might as well put the primary > / secondary boundary somewhere that obviously distinguishes between > (say) microfilm of the 1881 enumerators' forms and the LDS transcription of > the 1881. > > Adrian > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > FAMILY-HISTORIAN-USERS-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' > without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to FAMILY-HISTORIAN-USERS-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Hello Adrian I agree that most documents are actually 'copies' or 'transcriptions' of an event but I tend to couple 'primary' and 'trusted' as the same thing. In 99% of GRO documents I trust the 'copy' of the certificate as it is a copy of the information known at the time. On the contrary, any family tree put on the LDS by the public, unless substantiated by another source, I would call Questionable. I think the confusion occurs in the differentiation between 'information' and 'document'. A document may be 'Primary' (it is what was known at the time) even though the content may be inaccurate. I have put a note on all my GEDCOM and other major data files/storage about how I have interpreted various types of document so that there is hopefully no argument later after I have gone to that magic place in heaven where I can spend 25 hours a day doing family history. Just so everybody knows where I am coming from I have designed traceability and 'genealogical' systems for pharmaceutical, defence and food and beverage industries so do know a bit about the subject - I have put that knowledge into how I have set up my document hierarchy - but that's just my way and opinion - each to their own. Happy Christmas everybody -----Original Message----- From: family-historian-users-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:family-historian-users-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Adrian Bruce via Sent: 22 December 2015 00:05 To: Mervyn Ashby; Family Historian UG Mailing List Subject: Re: [FHU] Primary Evidence On 21 December 2015 at 23:44, Mervyn Ashby via < family-historian-users@rootsweb.com> wrote: > I would disagree with the statement that Census documents are primary > evidence as, with the exception of the U.K. 1901 Census, all you can > generally see is the is the Enumerators' compilation and > interpretation of the individual household schedules, which were the > primary sources, but which have all been destroyed. > > It's a good point, but if we take it to its logical conclusion, we'd probably need to declare all documents to provide secondary evidence only - GRO certificates are copies; we never see the certificates at superintendent registrars - but a photocopy might count; parish registers are probably written up after the event from the priest's notes; WW1 Soldiers' Records are compiled by clerks from letters long since lost.... And if we do all that, what's the point of a classification that makes 99% of stuff secondary? As I say, this is just a step along the way to deciding if it's evidence that we can trust - so we do need to worry about enumerators' errors, absolutely we do - but we might as well put the primary / secondary boundary somewhere that obviously distinguishes between (say) microfilm of the 1881 enumerators' forms and the LDS transcription of the 1881. Adrian ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to FAMILY-HISTORIAN-USERS-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Hi Mervyn I believe if a source of information no longer exists i.e. the original Census documents which were destroyed then it can't be accepted as a source whatsoever, only hearsay. The important thing is once you have set your own rules, stick to them. I have seen original documents that have subsequently been destroyed by a person who thought nobody had seen them, I have annotated to the effect that the author (me) saw the information and I still credit them as Primary. (They were court affidavits) My rule, if I can't go 'back' any further i.e. to the household schedules, then the enumerators schedule is my Primary Source, there is nowhere else to go. David -----Original Message----- From: family-historian-users-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:family-historian-users-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Mervyn Ashby via Sent: 21 December 2015 23:44 To: family-historian-users@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [FHU] Primary Evidence I would disagree with the statement that Census documents are primary evidence as, with the exception of the U.K. 1901 Census, all you can generally see is the is the Enumerators' compilation and interpretation of the individual household schedules, which were the primary sources, but which have all been destroyed. Mervyn Sent from my iPhone

On 21 December 2015 at 23:44, Mervyn Ashby via < family-historian-users@rootsweb.com> wrote: > I would disagree with the statement that Census documents are primary > evidence as, with the exception of the U.K. 1901 Census, all you can > generally see is the is the Enumerators' compilation and interpretation of > the individual household schedules, which were the primary sources, but > which have all been destroyed. > > It's a good point, but if we take it to its logical conclusion, we'd probably need to declare all documents to provide secondary evidence only - GRO certificates are copies; we never see the certificates at superintendent registrars - but a photocopy might count; parish registers are probably written up after the event from the priest's notes; WW1 Soldiers' Records are compiled by clerks from letters long since lost.... And if we do all that, what's the point of a classification that makes 99% of stuff secondary? As I say, this is just a step along the way to deciding if it's evidence that we can trust - so we do need to worry about enumerators' errors, absolutely we do - but we might as well put the primary / secondary boundary somewhere that obviously distinguishes between (say) microfilm of the 1881 enumerators' forms and the LDS transcription of the 1881. Adrian