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

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

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