Hello Listers, I'd like to add my twopenneth to Andrea's comments on primary and secondary sources if I may. While I agree with her cautions about copies (BTs vs. original registers for example) I have a nagging question: does a filmed copy of a parish register lose its primary status because its a copy ? I'd argue not. It seems to me the major distinction between a primary and a secondary source is the time frame within which it is written and from which the information in it is drawn. Thus a birth certificate contains both contemporary (primary) information (the birth date of the child) and secondary information (eg. the marriage date/place/age etc. of the parents, occasionally, but not usually, contemporaneous with the birth). This distinction is further illustrated by the difference between a collection of documents as used by history students, contemporary with, and illustrating the life of say, the18th century in London, and a book ABOUT the same subject and period written in the 20th century. On this basis a primary source consists of material written at the time of the events described, by people who took part in, observed or were in charge of these events, while a secondary source is someone else's second hand and later account of what (they think) went on. On that basis I wouldn't say that a hand transcription of a parish register lost its primary status, only that it was a few degrees less "pure" or reliable than the original, whereas a history of the parish written in the 20th century would certainly be a secondary source. I'll refrain from further pedantry, and direct you to a very good article on Cyndi's List about this issue. Regards, Kaye Cole in Melbourne > Hi, fellow listers -- > Before I post the info from the Canterbury parishes of St. George and