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 >