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