<<snipped>> But, do not assume that the information from the GRO is always going to be correct. ... It is derivative and mistakes can be made. <<snipped>> Absolutely - and do not assume that an ORIGINAL is correct either! Adrian B

But, do not assume that the information from the GRO is always going to be correct. I have had one instance of the GRO Indexes with a mistranscription (TAYTOR instead of TAYLOR) and one copy certificate where I am 90% certain that the witness name was a mistranscribed as I have always "known" that the witness was the bride's little brother (WILSON has become WILSEN) It is derivative and mistakes can be made. Regards Steve On 21/03/2013 23:16, Adrian Bruce wrote: > <<snipped>> > The Marriage record I have of my husbands Grt.Grandfather, came from the > Public Record Office, so it would be considered Tertiary as it was copied > twice > <<snipped>> > This would be > - a derivative source because it's been copied twice - once to produce the > copy sent to the General Register Office, and a 2nd time to produce your > copy. You'd note that in both cases the aim of the copying was to produce an > exact copy - indeed, the copies may be certified to be an exact copy. Again, > it looks a good product; > - it's PRIMARY information about the marriage because the information was > captured contemporary with the event. We don't say it's secondary because > it's been copied - we've already said that when we said it was a derivative > source; > - direct evidence for the date of the marriage, etc. >

For what it's worth, trying to work in the spirit of that American analysis... <<snipped>> I myself have gone to great lengths to get the churchbook records. Many of my records come from film from L.D.S. & I copied them....are they considered Original or Secondary? <<snipped>> I presume you mean "parish register" when you say "churchbook" - I hope I understood. Let's say you saw a microfilm of the original parish register containing baptisms, marriages and burials. Then what you saw would be: - a derivative source - you'd note that the copying was via microfilm, so no worries, it *should* be faithful to the original. You might, however, note that the top inch of the film is badly scratched (say); - primary information about the marriage etc. (because it's been captured contemporary with the event by a "neutral" body); - direct evidence for the date of the marriage, etc. <<snipped>> The Marriage record I have of my husbands Grt.Grandfather, came from the Public Record Office, so it would be considered Tertiary as it was copied twice <<snipped>> This would be - a derivative source because it's been copied twice - once to produce the copy sent to the General Register Office, and a 2nd time to produce your copy. You'd note that in both cases the aim of the copying was to produce an exact copy - indeed, the copies may be certified to be an exact copy. Again, it looks a good product; - it's PRIMARY information about the marriage because the information was captured contemporary with the event. We don't say it's secondary because it's been copied - we've already said that when we said it was a derivative source; - direct evidence for the date of the marriage, etc. Now, compare that to seeing the details of the ceremony in the IGI. What would that be? - a derivative source, but now you'd note that the source indexes only some items and they may be altered for spelling, etc. This makes it a more risky copy than the previous ones; - secondary information because the information isn't the same as it was, as it's only a summary; - direct evidence for the date of the marriage, etc. Sure, this is a bit more complex than just sticking a label of Primary / Secondary on it, but isn't it good to be thinking about the right things? I'll just throw this one in - read any history book about (say) the medieval period, and you may well find that the bibliography refers to translations of charters from the Latin as being PRIMARY sources. This is quite opposed to many family historians' view, which would see this as a SECONDARY source. That's because it's a derivative source (a copy made through translation and publishing) but primary information - the info in the translation should be untouched, so remains contemporary. Adrian B

I want to thank the recent members for posting sources of research. I myself have gone to great lengths to get the churchbook records. Many of my records come from film from L.D.S. & I copied them....are they considered Original or Secondary? The Marriage record I have of my husbands Grt.Grandfather, came from the Public Record Office, so it would be considered Tertiary as it was copied twice (I also have the churchbook record of this marriage,and they match). Now, I do have my parents 'original' Marriage Certificate from, 1931 Ontario, Canada. This is all signed by witnesses & the Minister, numbered, etc. I consider it the absolute original. Ellen, Ontario.

<<snipped>> Of the two sources you recommended, the first is a tertiary source and the second is secondary. <<snipped>> There's actually no such thing as a tertiary source. I know what you're getting at - a copy of a copy of an original, but if we allow tertiary then we should have quaternary, etc., etc. (No, I don't know what the other words would be). The definitions just go for simplicity - there's primary evidence and there's the rest - alias secondary. <<snipped>> a primary source is defined as the earliest official or first-hand recording of an event <<snipped>> Again, if I may tweak that for simplicity - don't worry about whether it's the earliest. If we did, we'd be panicking about which marriage certificate got signed first in the church. Just saying "contemporary" suffices. <<snipped>> a primary source may not necessarily be an accurate fact <<snipped>> Absolutely! If you look at American practice, they've tried to simplify and add rigour (or "rigor") by separating out concepts like the degree of copying from the type of information in the source. See http://www.bcgcertification.org/skillbuilders/skbld085.html taken from Linda Woodward Geiger, "Guidelines for Evaluating Genealogical Resources," OnBoard 14 (May 2008): 14-15. To quote from there: "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?" So copying it, turns it from an original into a derivative. Your "tertiary" source is simply a derivative that gone through 2 copying stages. Note in this classification, it's the INFORMATION that's primary or secondary and there's no such thing as a primary SOURCE or a secondary SOURCE. This gets round the clumsy way in which we say that a burial record in a parish register is primary for burial date but secondary for birth date. Adrian B

I very much agree with Ruth's approach. Baptism records are not simply inferior forms of birth records but are independent records of a completely different event at a different time - particularly in large towns and cities a baptism is often several months or a year or two after birth It's surprising how often they can throw up evidence not in a birth record (after 1837). For example address might be different or just more detailed, the father's occupation ditto. And you sometimes get a family baptism of several siblings together - my record is eight. More importantly, it's just good research practice to check what you think you know through other sources. Personally I always try to get all 5 vital events after 1837: birth, baptism, marriage(s), death, burial. Best wishes Paul On 21 March 2013 11:09, Ruth J <ruthgenda@btinternet.com> wrote: > My apologies for a belated reply. > > Peter, I was attempting to respond to your statement that you were > struggling to understand 'why post 1837 people would look for baptisms > rather than civil birth registrations'. You then gave your method of > working. > > My response to that was not meant as a lecture - far from it - it was > meant as an argument. It was an argument for rigour in research (and that > goes for any branch of research). This is why, personally, I wouldn't > suggest that people, and I have in mind those new to genealogy or family > history, go to secondary or tertiary records FIRST when primary sources are > easily available on websites. Of the two sources you recommended, the > first is a tertiary source and the second is secondary. Both are limited > and do not give complete transcriptions. All transcriptions are liable to > error because they are carried out by human beings! We're flawed. The > further away one is from the original document the more likely any errors > are confounded. We've all been down those routes at times and can vouch > for that as Denise does in her posting. > > Why do I look for both birth and baptismal certificates? I want to know > as much as I can about my paper-thin ancestors in order to round them out, > to begin to see them as 3-dimensional people. I also want confirmation of > previously found evidence. Occasionally, doing this adds only confusion. > But that I have to regard as par for the course. More often, I gain from > seeing both. > > Thank you, Eric, for your question too. At risk of accusations of > delivering another 'lecture' in genealogy, a primary source is defined as > the earliest official or first-hand recording of an event. But, and it's a > big sad 'but', a primary source may not necessarily be an accurate fact. > You give a number of examples of why this happens and you show what can > happen. However, it's the best we have and it's that we have to work with. > But don't take my word for it. See here: > > http://genealogyqualitycode.org/primary-and-secondary-sources/ > > Ancestry gives very useful pages here: > > http://ancestry.org/primary-secondary-genealogy-sources/ > > http://www.progenealogists.com/sourcetypes.htm > > I agree completely with you, Peter, when you talk about using the LDS and > FreeBMD websites during a general overview because they both can be > excellent finding aids but as the first of the links above points out, 'It > is important, therefore, when publishing your Tree or Family History to > make quite clear which facts can be supported by PRIMARY sources; which > facts are based on good SECONDARY sources; and which are based purely on > SUPPOSITION or HEARSAY. It is no crime to include such conjectural > material in your tree, but it is misleading and unhelpful not to > distinguish between the relative reliability of the data you offer.' So > checking post 1837 BMD certificates and pre 1837 church records, which is > what your question was about, is very necessary. With luck they can be > found on the web in the original so they don't have to be bought. But many > people will want to buy because they are creating their own family archives > - and I am one of those people. > > I hope this clarifies why I responded as I did. I was merely presenting > another side to your argument - that's all. > > Ruth > ****************************** > ATTENTION TO ALL:- When replying please remove the details that do not > apply to your mail and change the SUBJECT LINE for best useage of ARCHIVED > MATERIALS. > ****************************** > PLEASE keep your Anti-Virus and Anti-Malware software up to date. BEWARE > of messages making it onto the List with a single URL. NEVER follow the > link. It's usually from an infected source! > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > STAFFORDSHIRE-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without > the quotes in the subject and the body of the message >

Couldn't agree more Ruth! I'm with you on every word. And I have no trouble with lectures - full of interesting advice & info! I lecture myself into always looking for at least two sources of the same fact if I possibly can. But you've made me realise I haven't been quite as rigorous as I might in marking up in the trees I create my assessment of the varying reliability of sources, eg. when using someone else's transcript of a parish register as opposed to having seen the original, and whether I saw the original 'in the flesh' (the actual register) or a microfilm, especially as I've discovered that there can be more than one copy of an 'original' register in the archives and both may not have been filmed, eg. when a fine copy has been made of an original register at some point in its history and only the fine copy has been filmed - that makes it a secondary, even tertiary, source. I found there were differences in content between the 'original' and the 'fine' copy of one parish's register I checked. And I failed to find a critical marriage once which didn't appear in the filmed register or in a published transcript of a particular parish, but when I checked the original register in the archives to try and read some faded writing with a UV lamp, there at the start of it were unfilmed and untranscribed pages, detailing the marriages carried out in the interregnum period, where the lost marriage was entered! For me, double and triple checking the facts in original sources, or as original as one can find them, is very much part of the fun - it gives you such a greater feel for the history and the period that's being explored. At times, it leads into a search of the history of the parish rather than one's ancestor, in order to get clear where to look and what to check. I've described this experience in my blog: https://morgansite.wordpress.com/2012/11/03/lost-in-osmaston-or-when-is-a-parish-not-a-parish/ Cheers, Celia Renshaw in Chesterfield UK On 21 March 2013 11:09, Ruth J <ruthgenda@btinternet.com> wrote: > My apologies for a belated reply. > > Peter, I was attempting to respond to your statement that you were > struggling to understand 'why post 1837 people would look for baptisms > rather than civil birth registrations'. You then gave your method of > working. > > My response to that was not meant as a lecture - far from it - it was > meant as an argument. It was an argument for rigour in research (and that > goes for any branch of research). This is why, personally, I wouldn't > suggest that people, and I have in mind those new to genealogy or family > history, go to secondary or tertiary records FIRST when primary sources are > easily available on websites. Of the two sources you recommended, the > first is a tertiary source and the second is secondary. Both are limited > and do not give complete transcriptions. All transcriptions are liable to > error because they are carried out by human beings! We're flawed. The > further away one is from the original document the more likely any errors > are confounded. We've all been down those routes at times and can vouch > for that as Denise does in her posting. > > Why do I look for both birth and baptismal certificates? I want to know > as much as I can about my paper-thin ancestors in order to round them out, > to begin to see them as 3-dimensional people. I also want confirmation of > previously found evidence. Occasionally, doing this adds only confusion. > But that I have to regard as par for the course. More often, I gain from > seeing both. > > Thank you, Eric, for your question too. At risk of accusations of > delivering another 'lecture' in genealogy, a primary source is defined as > the earliest official or first-hand recording of an event. But, and it's a > big sad 'but', a primary source may not necessarily be an accurate fact. > You give a number of examples of why this happens and you show what can > happen. However, it's the best we have and it's that we have to work with. > But don't take my word for it. See here: > > http://genealogyqualitycode.org/primary-and-secondary-sources/ > > Ancestry gives very useful pages here: > > http://ancestry.org/primary-secondary-genealogy-sources/ > > http://www.progenealogists.com/sourcetypes.htm > > I agree completely with you, Peter, when you talk about using the LDS and > FreeBMD websites during a general overview because they both can be > excellent finding aids but as the first of the links above points out, 'It > is important, therefore, when publishing your Tree or Family History to > make quite clear which facts can be supported by PRIMARY sources; which > facts are based on good SECONDARY sources; and which are based purely on > SUPPOSITION or HEARSAY. It is no crime to include such conjectural > material in your tree, but it is misleading and unhelpful not to > distinguish between the relative reliability of the data you offer.' So > checking post 1837 BMD certificates and pre 1837 church records, which is > what your question was about, is very necessary. With luck they can be > found on the web in the original so they don't have to be bought. But many > people will want to buy because they are creating their own family archives > - and I am one of those people. > > I hope this clarifies why I responded as I did. I was merely presenting > another side to your argument - that's all. > > Ruth > ****************************** > ATTENTION TO ALL:- When replying please remove the details that do not > apply to your mail and change the SUBJECT LINE for best useage of ARCHIVED > MATERIALS. > ****************************** > PLEASE keep your Anti-Virus and Anti-Malware software up to date. BEWARE > of messages making it onto the List with a single URL. NEVER follow the > link. It's usually from an infected source! > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > STAFFORDSHIRE-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without > the quotes in the subject and the body of the message >

Thank you Ruth, I found your e-mail very interesting. Even though I have been researching my family history for some years now,it is always good to 'think again' about the various resources available and the pros and cons of each one. Sylvia

Hi Denise << Computers are helpful, but not the fun it is to go to the archives, churchyards and gather the evidence.>> How right you are! I recall a memorable event from years ago. An ancestral branch of mine leads back into Nottinghamshire. As a beginner, I was researching the 16th & 17thC Bishops Transcripts then held in Southwell Minster's Archives - up a spiral stone staircase into a lofty room lined with antiquarian books, ledgers, papers, map rolls, etc. and being handed an archival box containing slips of vellum - some rolled, some flat, some of them very small indeed - and marvelling that these scraps of information were IN MY HAND! They are now held in the Record Office in Nottingham and have been filmed, so are easily viewable there. They have also been transcribed by the LDS (now on IGI). However, no more handling. For many the computer becomes the only means of access. But, it just can't compare to that earlier thrill. I have been very fortunate in my researches. That occasion was very special. I started as many others will have done merely driven by mild curiosity which grew to an obsession. I've been given fantastic opportunities through my training, through working with other historians and through my ability to travel. I would urge everyone never to turn down an opportunity to visit record offices and archives - just to have that first-hand experience. Good luck! Ruth

My apologies for a belated reply. Peter, I was attempting to respond to your statement that you were struggling to understand 'why post 1837 people would look for baptisms rather than civil birth registrations'. You then gave your method of working. My response to that was not meant as a lecture - far from it - it was meant as an argument. It was an argument for rigour in research (and that goes for any branch of research). This is why, personally, I wouldn't suggest that people, and I have in mind those new to genealogy or family history, go to secondary or tertiary records FIRST when primary sources are easily available on websites. Of the two sources you recommended, the first is a tertiary source and the second is secondary. Both are limited and do not give complete transcriptions. All transcriptions are liable to error because they are carried out by human beings! We're flawed. The further away one is from the original document the more likely any errors are confounded. We've all been down those routes at times and can vouch for that as Denise does in her posting. Why do I look for both birth and baptismal certificates? I want to know as much as I can about my paper-thin ancestors in order to round them out, to begin to see them as 3-dimensional people. I also want confirmation of previously found evidence. Occasionally, doing this adds only confusion. But that I have to regard as par for the course. More often, I gain from seeing both. Thank you, Eric, for your question too. At risk of accusations of delivering another 'lecture' in genealogy, a primary source is defined as the earliest official or first-hand recording of an event. But, and it's a big sad 'but', a primary source may not necessarily be an accurate fact. You give a number of examples of why this happens and you show what can happen. However, it's the best we have and it's that we have to work with. But don't take my word for it. See here: http://genealogyqualitycode.org/primary-and-secondary-sources/ Ancestry gives very useful pages here: http://ancestry.org/primary-secondary-genealogy-sources/ http://www.progenealogists.com/sourcetypes.htm I agree completely with you, Peter, when you talk about using the LDS and FreeBMD websites during a general overview because they both can be excellent finding aids but as the first of the links above points out, 'It is important, therefore, when publishing your Tree or Family History to make quite clear which facts can be supported by PRIMARY sources; which facts are based on good SECONDARY sources; and which are based purely on SUPPOSITION or HEARSAY. It is no crime to include such conjectural material in your tree, but it is misleading and unhelpful not to distinguish between the relative reliability of the data you offer.' So checking post 1837 BMD certificates and pre 1837 church records, which is what your question was about, is very necessary. With luck they can be found on the web in the original so they don't have to be bought. But many people will want to buy because they are creating their own family archives - and I am one of those people. I hope this clarifies why I responded as I did. I was merely presenting another side to your argument - that's all. Ruth

Hi, Have filled the burial registrars in at the church and least nowadays you should look at the burial certificate and take the spelling of the name from there, but I know from experience  the burial registrars could have been spelt different, when receiving the messages there was a forecoming funeral and the names have been spelt how they thought it should have been spelt.  I do not know if I was more aware of this with researching family history or not. Denise ________________________________ From: Eric Harrison <eric.harrison@btinternet.com> To: staffordshire@rootsweb.com; Peter R Booth <pbo08596@bigpond.net.au> Sent: Monday, 18 March 2013, 12:52 Subject: Re: [STAFFORDSHIRE] (Rugeley RC Baptism) Research Hi Ruth, can't disagree with what you have said, but what is the primary source? We can only ever get back to the 'Document'  that was recorded at the time, and that only contains what 'someone told someone else' and that person put down his/her interpretation of the conversation. And as many people were illiterate they could not question it. We tend to think that when a baptism took place the priest entered the information directly into the register, from my experience of transcribing many of them what seems to have happened is it was put down on a slip of paper (had some of them with the registers), which was then put in the vestry desk draw - to be entered later. That was providing it did not get mislaid etc. Many of the registers I have done have entries which are 'way out of date order' with a margin note saying - 'Missed or late entry' Marriages, "the couple are now going to sign the register"!! how many times have you heard that said at a wedding? I have seen many (some of mine included) for weddings that were taking place on the same day had information copied onto another couples certificate (as you know there was more than one register), and yes, they were filled in prior to the marriage taking place. We have had many examples of certificates crossed out and canceled entered across them while working on the Staffs BMD transcriptions. Also beware on Birth Certificates, simple things can be incorrect, "Registrar to Informant" - Mother's name?, the answer sometimes results in the informant giving the name of their Mother not the child's mother (had quite a few of these). So again - What really is the "Primary Source" We all need to be a bit of a 'Sherlock HOLMES' Eric ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ruth J" <ruthgenda@btinternet.com> To: <staffordshire@rootsweb.com>; "Peter R Booth" <pbo08596@bigpond.net.au> Sent: Sunday, March 17, 2013 11:20 AM Subject: [STAFFORDSHIRE] (Rugeley RC Baptism) Research > Hi Peter > > You say > > "For me the simple rule is > pre  1837  church records on FamilySearch > post 1837    civil registrations on FreeBMD" > > > Whoops!  We have to be careful here. > > The Golden Rule for authenticity in historical/genealogical research is > that sources must be Primary, not Secondary, or Tertiary as was and still > is the case with many LDS records.  The LDS transcripts/information > initially was taken from the Bishops Transcripts of Parish Registers. BTs > are Secondary Sources.  Each time you get a stage further away from the > Primary Source there are greater chances of errors. > > Free BMD is also a Secondary Source.  ANY transcription is a Secondary (or > more distant) Source and should always be verified; otherwise it should be > treated with caution. > > Research is not a casual business - it's very meticulous.  People will > want copies of actual records because they are the confirming evidence of > an event and often tell more about their ancestor than the partial > transcription.  They help to round them out - 3 dimensions instead of two. > That is very easy to understand. > > We are all, and I'm as guilty of this as anyone else, in too much of a > hurry to 'get back' to wherever we think we want to be, when what we > should be doing is confirming and cross-checking and taking time to do the > best job we can with the evidence that is available to us.  What is needed > is less 'might be', 'probably', 'likely', 'it's possible that' (my usual > cry), and more solid scientific practice. > > I'm very aware that it's difficult/impossible for people to research > original documents who are not living in the area in which they are > researching.  But that should not be used as an excuse.  As more and more > material is placed on websites the task is getting easier.  Sometimes I > think genealogy doesn't fit well with modern life.  Genealogy requires a > lot of patience and, as with much of Life, we can't have it all and we > certainly can't have it NOW.  But let's try to do it right. > > Ruth > ****************************** > ATTENTION TO ALL:- When replying please remove the details that do not > apply to your mail and change the SUBJECT LINE for best useage of ARCHIVED > MATERIALS. > ****************************** > PLEASE keep your Anti-Virus and Anti-Malware software up to date. BEWARE > of messages making it onto the List with a single URL. NEVER follow the > link. It's usually from an infected source! > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > STAFFORDSHIRE-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the > quotes in the subject and the body of the message ****************************** ATTENTION TO ALL:- When replying please remove the details that do not apply to your mail and change the SUBJECT LINE for best useage of ARCHIVED MATERIALS. ****************************** PLEASE keep your Anti-Virus and Anti-Malware software up to date. BEWARE of messages making it onto the List with a single URL. NEVER follow the link. It's usually from an infected source! ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to STAFFORDSHIRE-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Hi Ruth, can't disagree with what you have said, but what is the primary source? We can only ever get back to the 'Document' that was recorded at the time, and that only contains what 'someone told someone else' and that person put down his/her interpretation of the conversation. And as many people were illiterate they could not question it. We tend to think that when a baptism took place the priest entered the information directly into the register, from my experience of transcribing many of them what seems to have happened is it was put down on a slip of paper (had some of them with the registers), which was then put in the vestry desk draw - to be entered later. That was providing it did not get mislaid etc. Many of the registers I have done have entries which are 'way out of date order' with a margin note saying - 'Missed or late entry' Marriages, "the couple are now going to sign the register"!! how many times have you heard that said at a wedding? I have seen many (some of mine included) for weddings that were taking place on the same day had information copied onto another couples certificate (as you know there was more than one register), and yes, they were filled in prior to the marriage taking place. We have had many examples of certificates crossed out and canceled entered across them while working on the Staffs BMD transcriptions. Also beware on Birth Certificates, simple things can be incorrect, "Registrar to Informant" - Mother's name?, the answer sometimes results in the informant giving the name of their Mother not the child's mother (had quite a few of these). So again - What really is the "Primary Source" We all need to be a bit of a 'Sherlock HOLMES' Eric ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ruth J" <ruthgenda@btinternet.com> To: <staffordshire@rootsweb.com>; "Peter R Booth" <pbo08596@bigpond.net.au> Sent: Sunday, March 17, 2013 11:20 AM Subject: [STAFFORDSHIRE] (Rugeley RC Baptism) Research > Hi Peter > > You say > > "For me the simple rule is > pre 1837 church records on FamilySearch > post 1837 civil registrations on FreeBMD" > > > Whoops! We have to be careful here. > > The Golden Rule for authenticity in historical/genealogical research is > that sources must be Primary, not Secondary, or Tertiary as was and still > is the case with many LDS records. The LDS transcripts/information > initially was taken from the Bishops Transcripts of Parish Registers. BTs > are Secondary Sources. Each time you get a stage further away from the > Primary Source there are greater chances of errors. > > Free BMD is also a Secondary Source. ANY transcription is a Secondary (or > more distant) Source and should always be verified; otherwise it should be > treated with caution. > > Research is not a casual business - it's very meticulous. People will > want copies of actual records because they are the confirming evidence of > an event and often tell more about their ancestor than the partial > transcription. They help to round them out - 3 dimensions instead of two. > That is very easy to understand. > > We are all, and I'm as guilty of this as anyone else, in too much of a > hurry to 'get back' to wherever we think we want to be, when what we > should be doing is confirming and cross-checking and taking time to do the > best job we can with the evidence that is available to us. What is needed > is less 'might be', 'probably', 'likely', 'it's possible that' (my usual > cry), and more solid scientific practice. > > I'm very aware that it's difficult/impossible for people to research > original documents who are not living in the area in which they are > researching. But that should not be used as an excuse. As more and more > material is placed on websites the task is getting easier. Sometimes I > think genealogy doesn't fit well with modern life. Genealogy requires a > lot of patience and, as with much of Life, we can't have it all and we > certainly can't have it NOW. But let's try to do it right. > > Ruth > ****************************** > ATTENTION TO ALL:- When replying please remove the details that do not > apply to your mail and change the SUBJECT LINE for best useage of ARCHIVED > MATERIALS. > ****************************** > PLEASE keep your Anti-Virus and Anti-Malware software up to date. BEWARE > of messages making it onto the List with a single URL. NEVER follow the > link. It's usually from an infected source! > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > STAFFORDSHIRE-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the > quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Many thanks John. I wonder why they ended up in Switzerland for a while, although it is possible the two girls born in Switzerland were not theirs. This particular family apparently left Ireland, several brothers, who all went to different places. Liz x On 17 March 2013 19:52, Bennett John <john-bennett@ntlworld.com> wrote: > > > I have enquired of friends who have done Rugeley transcriptions. They have not done the St Joseph & Ethedreda RC records but took the trouble to respond with this. > > I will keep the query in mind and look it up next time I go to Stafford. > > John > > > > Yes we think you are correct that the RC hold their records, but I have just found that Staffordshire Records Office hold the following: > Rugeley > > 1836-1873, 1845-1914 general register > > 1853-1861 Marriages > > > So these details might be useful to them. > > Ken looked for the family in the 1861 census and they were living at Kington, Herefordshire – details: > William Hannan 45 Railway Porter Dublin > Catherine Hannan 37 Dublin > Ellen Hannan 10 Rugeley > Sophia Hannan 5 Switzerland > Eliza Hanna 3 Switzerland > > So the family have certainly travelled about > > > > Sent from my iPad > ****************************** > ATTENTION TO ALL:- When replying please remove the details that do not apply to your mail and change the SUBJECT LINE for best useage of ARCHIVED MATERIALS. > ****************************** > PLEASE keep your Anti-Virus and Anti-Malware software up to date. BEWARE of messages making it onto the List with a single URL. NEVER follow the link. It's usually from an infected source! > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to STAFFORDSHIRE-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Ruth, Thanks for the lecture. I'm talking in general overview. I've been doing this for 30 years. I know all the pitfalls. And I've been teaching Genealogy for the last 10 years. Peter

I have enquired of friends who have done Rugeley transcriptions. They have not done the St Joseph & Ethedreda RC records but took the trouble to respond with this. I will keep the query in mind and look it up next time I go to Stafford. John Yes we think you are correct that the RC hold their records, but I have just found that Staffordshire Records Office hold the following: Rugeley 1836-1873, 1845-1914 general register 1853-1861 Marriages So these details might be useful to them. Ken looked for the family in the 1861 census and they were living at Kington, Herefordshire – details: William Hannan 45 Railway Porter Dublin Catherine Hannan 37 Dublin Ellen Hannan 10 Rugeley Sophia Hannan 5 Switzerland Eliza Hanna 3 Switzerland So the family have certainly travelled about Sent from my iPad

Here here Ruth, There is to much wrong information on the family tree web pages, not naming any sites.  I now do not bother wirh those people who have to much wrong information on.  Computers are helpful, but not the fun it is to go to the archives, churchyards and gather the evidence.  I do have a maybe if not proven,  until  such times it is proven on way or the other.  Denise     ________________________________ From: Ruth J <ruthgenda@btinternet.com> To: staffordshire@rootsweb.com; Peter R Booth <pbo08596@bigpond.net.au> Sent: Sunday, 17 March 2013, 11:20 Subject: [STAFFORDSHIRE] (Rugeley RC Baptism) Research Hi Peter You say "For me the simple rule is pre  1837  church records on FamilySearch post 1837    civil registrations on FreeBMD" Whoops!  We have to be careful here.  The Golden Rule for authenticity in historical/genealogical research is that sources must be Primary, not Secondary, or Tertiary as was and still is the case with many LDS records.  The LDS transcripts/information initially was taken from the Bishops Transcripts of Parish Registers. BTs are Secondary Sources.  Each time you get a stage further away from the Primary Source there are greater chances of errors. Free BMD is also a Secondary Source.  ANY transcription is a Secondary (or more distant) Source and should always be verified; otherwise it should be treated with caution. Research is not a casual business - it's very meticulous.  People will want copies of actual records because they are the confirming evidence of an event and often tell more about their ancestor than the partial transcription.  They help to round them out - 3 dimensions instead of two.  That is very easy to understand. We are all, and I'm as guilty of this as anyone else, in too much of a hurry to 'get back' to wherever we think we want to be, when what we should be doing is confirming and cross-checking and taking time to do the best job we can with the evidence that is available to us.  What is needed is less 'might be', 'probably', 'likely', 'it's possible that' (my usual cry), and more solid scientific practice. I'm very aware that it's difficult/impossible for people to research original documents who are not living in the area in which they are researching.  But that should not be used as an excuse.  As more and more material is placed on websites the task is getting easier.  Sometimes I think genealogy doesn't fit well with modern life.  Genealogy requires a lot of patience and, as with much of Life, we can't have it all and we certainly can't have it NOW.  But let's try to do it right. Ruth ****************************** ATTENTION TO ALL:- When replying please remove the details that do not apply to your mail and change the SUBJECT LINE for best useage of ARCHIVED MATERIALS. ****************************** PLEASE keep your Anti-Virus and Anti-Malware software up to date. BEWARE of messages making it onto the List with a single URL. NEVER follow the link. It's usually from an infected source! ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to STAFFORDSHIRE-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

I know for certain they were RC, later generation were baptised RC and the discovery of that caused a lot of upset when it became known. I believe that some records which appear to have been destroyed by a family member showed that the family's route down the country could be seen via the bapstisms of their children, and it followed a railway line. Liz P x On 17 March 2013 10:37, Ooooppss <Ooooppss@btinternet.com> wrote: > Liz Parkinson wrote, Sat, 16 Mar 2013 18:09:41 +0000 > >> William was a navvy apparently > > That was probably at the height of the railway building boom, when > lots of Irish navvies came to work in England (also due to the Irish > famine). So he may well have followed the work. > > It may be useful to see what railway was being built near where and > when you have found him, and then follow that railway (as he did) and > you may find other evidence of him & his family. > > Irish then implies a strong probability of being RC. > > ****************************** > ATTENTION TO ALL:- When replying please remove the details that do not apply to your mail and change the SUBJECT LINE for best useage of ARCHIVED MATERIALS. > ****************************** > PLEASE keep your Anti-Virus and Anti-Malware software up to date. BEWARE of messages making it onto the List with a single URL. NEVER follow the link. It's usually from an infected source! > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to STAFFORDSHIRE-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

This is almost certainly the right one, many many thanks Frank. Some years ago I was at the home of an elderly aunt who had a lot of information including original certificates. When she died and my husband and I came to clear her house, they had gone. Long story, but I suspect that they were destroyed due to family feuding/jealously etc. But as soon as I saw this it rang huge bells for me, as being correct. Liz P On 17 March 2013 09:47, FrankLockley <franklockley@sky.com> wrote: > Hi Liz > > Could this be your Ellen, found on Family search. > > > - parents: Gulielmi Hannon, Catharina Macdonald Hannon > > > - name Helena Hannon > - gender Female > - christening date 30 Jul 1850 > - christening place Joseph and Etheldreda, Rugeley, Stafford, England > - father's name Gulielmi Hannon > - mother's name Catharina Macdonald Hannon > - > - indexing project (batch) numbe rI04384-0 > - system origin England-EASy > - gs film number1999441 > - reference idItem 4 > > Frank > > On 16 March 2013 18:09, Liz Parkinson <nosnikrapzil@googlemail.com> wrote: > >> Hi >> >> Does anyone have access to Roman Catholic Baptism records for Rugeley >> please >> >> I am looking for baptism for Ellen HANNAN in around 1850/53 - sorry to be >> unclear, records seem to vary somewhat! >> >> her father was William HANNAN. >> >> I cannot find a birth record for this lady, but recrods I can find all say >> she was born in Rugeley (or Bugley!) >> >> The Hannan family were from Ireland, and William was a navvy apparently >> >> TIA >> >> Liz Parkinson >> ****************************** >> ATTENTION TO ALL:- When replying please remove the details that do not >> apply to your mail and change the SUBJECT LINE for best useage of ARCHIVED >> MATERIALS. >> ****************************** >> PLEASE keep your Anti-Virus and Anti-Malware software up to date. BEWARE >> of messages making it onto the List with a single URL. NEVER follow the >> link. It's usually from an infected source! >> ------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to >> STAFFORDSHIRE-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without >> the quotes in the subject and the body of the message >> > ****************************** > ATTENTION TO ALL:- When replying please remove the details that do not apply to your mail and change the SUBJECT LINE for best useage of ARCHIVED MATERIALS. > ****************************** > PLEASE keep your Anti-Virus and Anti-Malware software up to date. BEWARE of messages making it onto the List with a single URL. NEVER follow the link. It's usually from an infected source! > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to STAFFORDSHIRE-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Hi Peter You say "For me the simple rule is pre 1837 church records on FamilySearch post 1837 civil registrations on FreeBMD" Whoops! We have to be careful here. The Golden Rule for authenticity in historical/genealogical research is that sources must be Primary, not Secondary, or Tertiary as was and still is the case with many LDS records. The LDS transcripts/information initially was taken from the Bishops Transcripts of Parish Registers. BTs are Secondary Sources. Each time you get a stage further away from the Primary Source there are greater chances of errors. Free BMD is also a Secondary Source. ANY transcription is a Secondary (or more distant) Source and should always be verified; otherwise it should be treated with caution. Research is not a casual business - it's very meticulous. People will want copies of actual records because they are the confirming evidence of an event and often tell more about their ancestor than the partial transcription. They help to round them out - 3 dimensions instead of two. That is very easy to understand. We are all, and I'm as guilty of this as anyone else, in too much of a hurry to 'get back' to wherever we think we want to be, when what we should be doing is confirming and cross-checking and taking time to do the best job we can with the evidence that is available to us. What is needed is less 'might be', 'probably', 'likely', 'it's possible that' (my usual cry), and more solid scientific practice. I'm very aware that it's difficult/impossible for people to research original documents who are not living in the area in which they are researching. But that should not be used as an excuse. As more and more material is placed on websites the task is getting easier. Sometimes I think genealogy doesn't fit well with modern life. Genealogy requires a lot of patience and, as with much of Life, we can't have it all and we certainly can't have it NOW. But let's try to do it right. Ruth

I struggle to understand why post 1837 people would look for baptisms rather than civil birth registrations. For me the simple rule is pre 1837 church records on FamilySearch post 1837 civil registrations on FreeBMD The LDS were unlikely to be given Catholic records and a lot of the time they ceased filming at 1837. And you shouldn't need to go purchasing certificates in most cases For the case in question, I would be happy to find them in 1861 census and accept the parents. I'd then go back and see if there is BDM data to confirm census records, but I wouldn't stress over it. I'd also try a look at later censuses or find births of siblings to get some confirmation. The problem could be anything from a missed entry, to a surname variant like Hanna or Hannah, or a recollection of birthplace. I know in Sydney for example, a lot of women came form the suburbs to large city maternity hospital. All those births have city registrations not where they lived. As children we mostly remember where we were raised, not where we were born. Peter in Sydney