Priority of Sources

[JohnS]

Like everyone else I am stuck in the minefield, never knowing when my information is accurate or not.
Birth, marriage and death certificates record the date of the event but sometimes the info on them can be innacurate (ages, occupations, etc) for whatever reason.
BMD indexes record the quarter when an event was registered (although it may have occurred in the previous quarter).
LDS records - say no more.
etc., etc., etc.
It started me thinking as to what order should confidence be given to source material? I'd be interested to hear other's opinions, from which it may be possible to compile a list to use as a guideline.

[JBee]

All I can say is that you should try and prove each fact by whatever means possible - hopefully using more than one source.

[Olde Crone]

John

I call primary sources reliable, in as much as it was the first time an event was reported and therefore any mistakes and lies are original, lol.

So, a bmd cert issued by the LOCAL office would be a primary source, except for a marriage cert, where the church record would be a primary source.

Census entries are at best secondary sources and if they are accurate reports of information then that is entirely luck.

Any transcribed record is a secondary source and has to be taken back to a primary record really.

Most unreliable sources of all are family memories, at least in MY family, the family that "forgot" that a great uncle married and produced twins before dying and "forgot" that a grandmother was actually a step grandmother.

EDIT - JBee's post has reminded me - the SoG say that three pieces of evidence should be sought to prove an event, one at least to be a primary source. Not always possible but the more evidence you collect, the more likely you are to get the right picture.

OC

[ElizabethHerts]

John, OC is correct (as usual!). Three pieces of evidence is fantastic, but when you get back before civil registration these can become much harder to find. With some of my families, I have a gut feeling that I have the right parents or marriage, etc., but I'm always open to the possibility I could be wrong.

However, with some lines I'm much more certain. Just last week I got the will of a third brother, one of the brothers being my direct ancestor. Taking them all together and the parish register (transcribed) I can see very well how the family fit together and the inter-relationships. I wish that were the case for all my other lines. I have searched for and found numerous wills over the past two years, but I do know that for some lines I won't find any wills at all.

[Merry]

I think it's difficult to put potential sources into an order of confidence as each and every family scenario is different. What is important (or even vital) in one instance may be little or no proof at all in another. It may be the particular combination of source material that clinches the deal.

I like to think of my proof of events being a bit like a jigsaw puzzle; If you have a plain section of puzzle it's quite easy to attach a single piece by one edge only and think it fits....it's only when you put in the pieces each side etc that you may find your first piece was the wrong one - this is a lot less likely to happen if the first piece has a particular image or design on it making it unique.....so the less unique the piece the more care has to be taken to ensure it's in the right place!

I should know as I'm busy with a what feels like a 1000 piece jigsaw (all the pieces being the same plain colour!) of 18thC Smiths as we speak! :D

[ElizabethHerts]

Merry, I like your jigsaw analogy, that's exactly how it is! This probably explains a lot, because I have always loved doing jigsaws since I was little. My great-aunt even left me one in her will!

[Phoenix]

The more torches you shine upon a subject, the more illumination you get.

But....

[Phoenix]

I have one guy. Baptised Edgefield 1830s

Edgefield birth place 1851, 61, 71, 81.

Pre Ancestry, no sign of the family in 1841.

When 1891 census came out, he gave birthplace as Gimmingham.


Gimmingham?!!!!

Went back to the 1841 census, and sure enough, there was all the family.... in Gimmingham workhouse.


But was he born there? He might have been born there and baptised at the church or just been there in the early years.

The extra bit of information illuminates what his life would have been like. It doesn't give definitive answers to the question of his birthplace.

[ElizabethHerts]

Perhaps there was no Workhouse at Edgefield or it was full, so the family had to go to Gimmingham??

[Phoenix]

It was "the" workhouse then, Elizabeth. But it was I gather about 15 miles from Edgefield. Another relative incurred the wrath of the authorities by admitting himself and his son, but leaving his heavily pregnant wife in the village because he felt it was too far to walk. It operated under the Old Poor Law system. There are entries for bodies being trundled back to their parishes for burial.

In theory, a parish register would say "buried x from the Workhouse" or give abode for baptism as the workhouse. It's just one of those irritating instances where you think you know where you stand.... but you don't.

[JohnS]

Most unreliable sources of all are family memories, at least in MY family, the family that "forgot" that a great uncle married and produced twins before dying and "forgot" that a grandmother was actually a step grandmother.

Yeah. A great example. When my dad died in 1974 and we were sorting things out we asked our mum if he had any other names apart from John. She told us that she thought his middle name was Clifford as he often mentioned it. We duly registered the death as John Clifford and, to this day, his headstone also reads John Clifford - only to find out later that he had no middle name! This was done before I got in to researching, otherwise I would have known!
Even stranger, several years later we were talking to his younger brother about this and he replied 'No, my middle name is Clifford' and sure enough we later found out that he had no middle name either!!!

[HarrysMum]

Yeah. A great example. When my dad died in 1974 and we were sorting things out we asked our mum if he had any other names apart from John. She told us that she thought his middle name was Clifford as he often mentioned it. We duly registered the death as John Clifford and, to this day, his headstone also reads John Clifford - only to find out later that he had no middle name! This was done before I got in to researching, otherwise I would have known!
Even stranger, several years later we were talking to his younger brother about this and he replied 'No, my middle name is Clifford' and sure enough we later found out that he had no middle name either!!!



What is it with Clifford??????????
I spent ages trying to find my son in law's grandfather in (strangely) Warrington area.
We went through every comgination of names that contained Clifford...first as his first name, then second, etc. Never actually found him and still to this day not sure if Clifford was any part of his name....lol

[anne fraser]

Avoid Clifford. I have an ancestor Rebecca Clifford and so am part of the Clifford family tree which is being extensively researched. I think our branch has a couple of thousand names now. It can be completely mindnumbing.

I try to find contemporary sources where possible old newspapers or local records such as settlement agreements or tennancy agreements. I think wills are usually pretty accurate where they exist.