<<snipped>> I have a Marriage Certificate showing that my cousin was 22 when he got married in July 1931. ... I consider that this is "Primary Evidence" that he was born in "approximately 1909". Is this correct? <<snipped>> See http://www.bcgcertification.org/skillbuilders/skbld085.html for the American view from their Board for Certification of Genealogists. To quote... "We need to process every resource by examining every fact and clue. Only then are we able to draw reasonable conclusions. The process includes identifying three basic elements. "Source type-is it an original or a derivative? "Information type(s)-is each piece primary or secondary? "Evidence type(s)-is each piece direct or indirect?" This is valuable because it emphasises that it's more than just the primary / secondary issue that should concern us. It is clear here that the primary / secondary question is about the content. Again, quoting: "A piece of information is primary when it is recorded by a knowledgeable eyewitness or participant in that event, or by an official whose duties require him or her to make an accurate record of the event when it occurs." Thus if we examine the information about his birth, that information is indeed that he was born about 1908/1909. But is it recorded by "a knowledgeable eyewitness or participant in" his birth? (i.e. his birth)? No. Is it recorded by "an official whose duties require him or her to make an accurate record of the event when it occurs"? No - the officials relevant to the birth are long gone. Now, things do go a bit awry between the typical US and UK views. So far as I can see, UK genealogists also require the primary information to be recorded roughly contemporary with the event and by someone who is DISinterested (not UNinterested!) in the information. Thus, a politician's memoir describing how they were brought up in a shoebox might be rejected as primary information both from the lapse of time and from the fact that the politician probably has an interest in emphasising his hard upbringing. So UK genealogists would say the information about the birth is secondary (a) because of the time lapse and (b) because the groom might have an interest in showing he was "of age". Adrian B
<snipped> .. UK genealogists would say the information about the birth is secondary (a) because of the time lapse and (b) because the groom might have an interest in showing he was "of age"... </snipped> My two-penneth: I would take the same line as Adrian. The Marriage Certificate is Primary evidence for the Marriage Ceremony. All else is Secondary, including the parentage of the couple. I have at least one bride with an apparently deceased father, invented for the purposes of the certificate. John --- This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active. http://www.avast.com
Hi John But surely isn't the fact that something was invented for the certificate be an example of the Primary evidence of a deception being employed? David From: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Sent: Tuesday, 4 February 2014, 8:19 Subject: Re: [FHU] Primary Evidence <snipped> .. UK genealogists would say the information about the birth is secondary (a) because of the time lapse and (b) because the groom might have an interest in showing he was "of age"... </snipped> My two-penneth: I would take the same line as Adrian. The Marriage Certificate is Primary evidence for the Marriage Ceremony. All else is Secondary, including the parentage of the couple. I have at least one bride with an apparently deceased father, invented for the purposes of the certificate. John --- This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active. http://www.avast.com/ ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message