Hi, fellow listers -- Before I post the info from the Canterbury parishes of St. George and St. Margaret, I wanted to make some comments, offer some cautions and state some opinions. If any of you have anything to add, for or against, please post to the list. Remember, these are my opinions but they are widely held among genealogists. (The following remarks are an adaptation of a post first sent to the list on 22 April in regard to my look-ups in the records of "Naturalizations and Denizations for Aliens in England". However, this touches on a subject I think we should always keep in mind as we do our research so I think it's worth repeating.) First, it is generally recognized that a genealogist's standard of research should be, first and foremost, to obtain info from primary sources for authenticity (if at all possible). By primary sources, I mean original records. Anything else is a secondary source which should be checked against the primary source. By secondary sources I mean any of the following:-- copies or transcripts of originals, extracts from originals, any material sent to you by someone else, anything you read in a book, on a mailing list, on a web site or elsewhere on the internet, etc. Please understand -- I am not saying info in these sources is always wrong. But it could be. I am just saying this -- you need to authenticate the truth of the info by verifying it yourself in primary (ie. original) sources. Sometimes, of course, it's not possible to see the primary sources. In this case, you go with the best you've got, cross your fingers and hope it's correct. And mention your source (with a caution) in any material you compile and/or pass on to others. Now, sometimes even primary sources are wrong. An example is my own parents' marriage certificate which contains no less than seven errors! But, the primary sources are all we have, short of inventing a time machine and going back into the past. Here are some comments specifically about the Canterbury surname extractions I will post soon. In the first place, the filmed records I took these from are a copy of the original records. This copy is called the Bishop's Transcripts (BT's). Once a year, each parish was required to make a copy of all the baptisms, marriages and burials which had occurred in that parish over the previous year. Therefore, the vicar or the curate (or possibly his clerk or one of his churchwardens) made a copy, from info he had written in his original parish registers (PR's), then sent this copy in to the Bishop. Obviously, errors could have occurred when making this copy. As a result, there can be differences between the BT's and the PR's (and also in a second copy which was made, called the AT's or Archdeacon's Transcripts). You might find details in one which are not in the other. Or particular entries may be missing altogether. So, when I researched the BT's on film at my local FHC, what I was researching was a copy of the original. When I extracted surnames, I made a (partial) copy of that copy. First, I hand-wrote extracts from the BT's. Then, I used those handwritten notes to type the info into my computer. This chain of events can lead to errors even though I made every effort, of course, to be accurate. But I'm only human so mistakes or omissions could have occurred. This is also not a secondary source anymore -- this is a copy of a copy of a copy. So, please verify for yourself, at some point, any info which I post, by going back to the originals. Do not rely only on what I have sent to the list. This advice applies to any info I post, past and future. As I mentioned earlier, I welcome any comments on this issue from other listers. Andrea