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 >