Doncaster and District Family History SocietyComputer Group

Snippets 17/09/2020

One More Article About “How to go Paperless”Dick Eastman   · September 8, 2020 · Genealogy Basics · 3 Comments

I have written several times about the advantages of

going to a paperless lifestyle. While such a move is good

for most everyone, it should be especially appealing to

anyone who collects lots of photocopies and even some

original records. (I’m looking at YOU, genealogists!)

You can find my past paperless articles by starting at: https://duckduckgo.com/?

q=site%3Aeogn.com+paperless&atb=v132-2_j&ia=web.

Now a new article by Ganda Suthivarakom and Erica Ogg in the Wirecutter web site

(a service of the New York Times) supplies more information about the paperless

lifestyle, including some items I never covered in my earlier articles. Items covered

include:

Scan straight to the cloud

The ability to find your documents by keyword using optical characterrecognition (OCR)

Getting rid of any paper to reduce the chance of identity theft, which sawincreased fraud reports in 2018, according to Federal Trade Commissionfindings

Good quality paper shredders

Organizing and backing up your documents

Tracking invoices and spending via an app or two (theyrecommend Scanbot Pro for both Android and iOS.

You can read all this and more at: https://www.nytimes.com/wirecutter/blog/go-

paperless-home-office-taxes/.

Consider the Source: Original,Derivative, or CopyDick Eastman   · September 11, 2020 · Genealogy Basics · 16 Comments

Experienced genealogists are always aware that they must verify information by

looking at original documents or a microfilm or digital image of an original

document. We should know better than to believe a statement on a web site, in a

genealogy book, or a verbal statement from Aunt Tilley about the “facts” of our

family trees. However, what is the definition of an “original document?”

Let’s take one well-known claim of an original document that isn’t really accurate:

the U.S. Declaration of Independence. Almost all American schoolchildren are

familiar with this document; and, if we paid attention in class, we know that the

document is on display at the U.S. National Archives building in Washington, D.C. In

fact, millions of us, myself included, have visited that building to view the

document on display. However, how many of us were ever told that the document

displayed in Washington is not the original, hand-written document? Instead, it is

one of many copies that were produced on a printing press.

No, this isn’t a story plot from a Nicholas Cage movie. In fact, the document

displayed at the National Archives building in Washington, D.C. is a copy made by

Philadelphia printer John Dunlap, official printer to the Congress, during the

evening of July 4, 1776, after the original, hand-written document was given to him.

Admittedly, the original and the copies made by John Dunlap had no signatures.

The “copy” now on display at the National Archives is the only copy that was

actually signed by each delegate and therefore is the one that we can now refer to

as the real Declaration of Independence. However, it was produced on a printing

press and is not the original, hand-written piece of paper.

THE DUNLAP BROADSIDE WITH NO SIGNATURES

The original Declaration of Independence was written by hand by Thomas

Jefferson. After making alterations to his draft as suggested by Ben Franklin and

John Adams, Jefferson later recalled that, “I then wrote a fair copy, reported it to

the Committee, and from them, unaltered, to Congress.”

The committee sent the hand-written manuscript document, probably Thomas

Jefferson’s “fair copy” of his rough draft, to John Dunlap, official printer to the

Congress. Dunlap printed the copies on the night of July 4, 1776. It is unknown

exactly how many copies were printed, but the number is estimated at about 200.

On the morning of July 5, copies were dispatched by members of Congress to

various assemblies, conventions, and Committees of Safety as well as to the

commanders of Continental troops. Also on July 5, a copy of the printed version of

the approved Declaration was inserted into the “rough journal” of the Continental

Congress for July 4. The text was followed by the words, “Signed by Order and in

Behalf of the Congress, John Hancock, President. Attest. Charles Thomson,

Secretary.”

Twenty-six copies are known to exist today of what is commonly referred to as “the

Dunlap broadside,” 22 owned by American institutions, 3 by British institutions,

and 1 by an unknown private owner. A list of their present locations may be found

on Wikipedia at https://bit.ly/2ZqPFCM.

All of these copies were unsigned as they were printed before approval had been

granted by the 13 colonies. Each delegate had to await approval from his home

colony before being allowed to sign.

Contrary to popular belief, the U.S. Declaration of Independence was not signed on

July 4, 1776. While the document was APPROVED but not signed by the delegates

on July 4, several weeks were required for the document to be printed and

distributed to all 13 colonies for approval, and then some more time to re-

assemble all the delegates again in Philadelphia. Delegates were not authorized to

sign until after their home colony had approved the document and that required

some time back in the days before instant communications.

One of the “Dunlap broadside” copies was signed by all the delegates in

attendance on August 2, 1776, and that copy now is on display at the National

Archives in Washington, D.C. Therefore, the document that most people think of as

the U.S. Declaration of Independence is not the original, hand-written document. It

is a copy, although it is the only SIGNED copy. The copy on display in Washington

was printed on a printing press, but each delegate signed this one copy by hand.

If Thomas Jefferson’s memories were correct, and he indeed wrote out a fair copy

which was shown to the drafting committee and then submitted to Congress on

June 28, the original document has not been found. “If this manuscript still exists,”

wrote historian Ted Widmer, “it is the holy grail of American freedom.” (Source

citation for this statement: dozens of web sites. Start at https://bit.ly/3bOjLoG.)

PRESERVATION BY THE NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS IN 1951 OF

THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE (SHOWN) AND THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES

FOLLOWED YEAR’S OF RESEARCH ON THE PERMANENCE OF GOVERNMENTAL DOCUMENTS. LIGHT,

HEAT, HUMIDITY, AND MANY OTHER FACTORS WERE ASSESSED, BUT THE PRINCIPAL ENEMY OF

RECORDS PROVED TO BE THE COMMON AIR POLLUTANT, SULPHUR DIOXIDE.

What does this have to do with our searches for accurate genealogy

information? A lot.

In all cases, we should strive to look at original documents or a microfilm or digital

image of an original document. We then document our efforts by recording a

“source citation” that refers to the location of the original document. In recent

years, many genealogists also include a digital image of the appropriate part of the

original document.

Wikipedia defines a citation this way: “Broadly, a citation is a reference to a

published or unpublished source (not always the original source).”

Elizabeth Shown Mills, probably the leading expert of today when it comes to

recording genealogy source citations, has written no less than two books on the

subject for genealogists: Evidence Explained; Citing History Sources from Artifacts

to Cyberspace and Evidence! Citation & Analysis for the Family Historian. Mills

states that the best source is an original source, one created at the time an event

occurred. However, she also states that a source can be either an original or

derivative document. Let’s focus on the word “derivative.”

In the example of the Declaration of Independence, we note that the original, hand-

written document has been lost. For all we know, printer John Dunlap may have

tossed the original into a local trash can after he finished making his copies. Of

course, that is just a guess. Nobody knows what happened to the hand-written

original. However, the existing twenty-six copies still meet Elizabeth Shown Mills’

definition of an acceptable source citation. It is a “derivative document” that was

made at nearly the same time as the original, probably within a few hours, and

apparently is an exact copy of the original. Therefore, it is believable.

Of course, not all derivative documents are exact copies. For instance, let’s

consider the U.S. Census records. In most cases, the enumerators (census takers)

visited homes, asked questions, and wrote the answers in small notebooks or

something similar that they carried with them. We can only imagine what the

notebooks contained. Can you imagine the words written by an enumerator with

poor handwriting, traveling around the countryside on horseback or on a small

wagon in the 1800s and recording his words with a quill pen and ink of

questionable quality? Some of these enumerators traveled in rain or sleet or snow.

We have to assume that some of these pages got wet. Perhaps a few pages became

unreadable or were even lost.

At a later time, the enumerator went home or to an office or perhaps to a local

tavern, got out the official enumeration pages that we all know and love, and

transcribed his findings from the notebooks to the worksheets. He then sent the

worksheets to his superiors, where the worksheets became the official record. Most

of the worksheets have been preserved while most of the notebooks were

discarded.

What do we see today when we look the census records online? Do we see the

enumerators’ hand-written notes from their workbooks, made at the time of each

visit? Or are we viewing the official forms that were filled out later, also hand-

written? You probably already know the answer: what we see online and in

microfilms are images of documents made within hours or days AFTER the original

visit. These are derivative documents.

There is nothing wrong with using a derivative document. In fact, it is all we have in

most cases. A derivative document was made at or shortly after the original event

by a person who had full knowledge of the facts involved. Genealogists will

generally accept a derivative document as a suitable “original” source citation.

You can find thousands more examples of citing “original” sources that are really

derivative documents. Most birth records made by town clerks prior to the

twentieth century were recorded by men or women who were not present at the

birth. They weren’t midwives; they were town clerks! They recorded what was told

to them by reliable witnesses, often the mother or father or perhaps the doctor or

midwife in attendance at the birth. Marriage records were often the same. Town

clerks may not have attended the marriage ceremony; but, in most cases, the clerks

recorded information given to them at a later date by the clergyman who

performed the ceremony.

The list goes on and on. Death records, military service records, and thousands of

other documents were not recorded at the event by the individuals involved and

often not within hours. Instead, these documents were recorded by clerks and

clergymen and others shortly after the event and were based upon information

provided by the principal(s) involved. In some cases the description was verbal

while in other cases the clerks transcribed written information created earlier.

Land transfer records recorded in deed books were rarely written by the individuals

who bought or sold land; the records were written by clerks who listened to the

descriptions provided by the principals involved. Probate records typically were

transcribed from original, often handwritten wills, often years after the will was

written and always after the person who perhaps wrote the will had died.

While these may be derivative records, we still accept them as primary source

citations.

NOTE: In contrast, secondary sources are generally those records created after a

passage of time. Examples include an elderly person recounting events in his or her

youth or an author of a genealogy book recording the life events of people who

have been dead for many years or other people whom he or she has never met.

Secondary sources are never as reliable as primary sources.

Now that we have examined both kinds of primary sources (original and derivative)

as well as secondary sources, a question arises: Just how reliable are derivative

(primary) sources?

Genealogists generally consider primary sources to be reliable, including derivative

sources. After all, these records were made at or shortly after the event and were

recorded by eyewitnesses or, in the case of derivative records, by transcribers who

were given information by eyewitnesses. Yes, we all know that eyewitness reports

occasionally contain errors, but are usually correct.

How about derivative records where the information was recorded by a third party,

using information provided by eyewitnesses? Can we really trust the enumerator’s

record made some hours or days or even a few weeks after visiting our ancestors?

Could he read his own writing, smudged from rain or melting snow? If he was

sitting at a fireplace in a warm and cozy tavern, already having consumed a few

drinks, can we believe his written recollection of a visit made a few days earlier?

Did the residents give him correct information? Or did he obtain his info from a

neighbor who may or may not have known all the correct answers?

When an eyewitness provided information to a clerk, can we always believe that

both parties understood clearly what was said and the information recorded by the

clerk is a true and faithful recording of the facts provided by the eyewitness?

For an example, I will offer the 1910 census record for my great-grandparents in a

small town in northern Maine. The enumerator lived in the same town and

recorded his own family on another page of the same census. (That is one record

that I would believe!) The enumerator wrote his own place of birth as “Scotland.”

Therefore, we can assume that he spoke with a Scottish accent, perhaps a very

strong accent.

My great-grandparents were Joe and Sophie Theriault. (My great-grandfather was

often listed in many records as Joe, but never listed as Joseph.) “Theriault” is a

common Acadian French-Canadian name. The enumerator recorded that neither of

them was able to speak English. Can you imagine that conversation? A Scotsman

with his accent trying to ask questions and obtain answers from someone who

could not speak English? It is no wonder that their last name was recorded as

“Tahrihult.”

To make matters worse, there was another married couple in the same small town

with the same names: Joseph and Sophie Theriault. However, they were listed with

different children and different dates of birth and marriage. The same enumerator

then spelled their last name correctly! I assume the correct information was

recorded for them because the enumerator listed them as being able to speak

English. That should have been an easier, and probably more complete,

conversation. Yet all of these are derivative records, written by the same

enumerator a few hours or days after his interview and assisted by the notes he

made in his notebook.

Similar errors have been repeated thousands of times in census records and

probably elsewhere as well.

Let’s return to the original question: How accurate are derivative records

where the information was recorded by a third party, using information

provided by eyewitnesses?

I believe the only correct answer is: Derivative records made at or shortly after the

event are generally correct, but we should always be aware that there are

exceptions. All derivative records should be treated as “probably correct”–with a

strong emphasis on the word PROBABLY.

https://blogs.ancestry.com/ancestry/2020/09/10/5-things-everyone-should-know-

about-consumer-dna-tests/

5 Things Everyone Should Know About Consumer DNA TestsSeptember 10, 2020

Millions of people have taken consumer DNA tests and received their results online.

In fact, this summer Ancestry® surpassed 18 million members, building on the

world’s largest consumer DNA network.

These simple-to-take, saliva-based tests reveal your possible ethnic origins, connect you to distant relatives, help you find ancestors, and uncover new details about your family history.

But how much do you know about these tests?

Barry Starr, Ph.D., and Director of Scientific Communications at Ancestry, the global leader in family history and consumer genomics, shares 5 things every consumer should know about DNA tests:

1. Your DNA is different from your brothers’ and sisters’, even though you have the same parents.

The particular mix of. DNA you inherit is unique to you. You get half of your DNA. from each of your biological parents, as did each of your brothers and sisters, but all your siblings don’t get the same half.  This means your brother or sister will have different DNA than you, most likely resulting in their own unique ethnicity estimate. Their DNA can reveal unique parts of your family’s story.  This is why it is so useful to have your brothers and sisters tested — you get a more complete picture of your family’s history with each added sibling.

2. Your DNA results don’t always fall within modern country borders.

Because of changes in country boundaries and migration patterns throughout history, people’s ethnicity results do not always line up with modern-day countries. For example, people from modern-day Austria may have DNA from our Eastern Europe & Russia region because of the Austrian-Hungarian Empire that split in the early 1900s. Similarly people with roots in northern England mayhave a surprising amount of Scotland in their results because of close ties these regions have had over the centuries. This means that even if you trace your

family history back to a specific, current country, your DNA results may show you’re connected to a region outside that country’s current borders.

3. Your DNA. doesn’t change, but the methods used to analyze it do.

Consumer genomics is a new and evolving industry, and scientists are constantly revealing new ways to learn about your history through DNA. Like many other companies, Ancestry analyzes your DNA by comparing it to the DNA of groups of people whose families have a long history in a particular region. These people make up the AncestryDNA reference panel. Updates to your results come from advances in the algorithms used to analyze your DNA and/or increases in the size of the reference panel itself. For example, in 2018 Ancestry® added new samples to its reference panel making it 5X larger. This ledto a new update which allowed members to connect to even more regions around the world. As consumer DNA networks grow and science advances, consumers can expect many companies to add to and update their reference panels, resulting in more comprehensive and precise results.

4. You own your personal genetic data.

Consumer DNA companies are at the cutting edge of genomic science and have a responsibility to set the bar for industry innovation. For that reason, Ancestry, along with several other companies, partnered with the Future of Privacy Forumto release the Privacy Best Practices for Consumer Genetic Testing Services in 2018. These guidelines are the first of their kind for the industry and set a self-governed policy framework for the collection, protection, sharing and use of data collected by consumer genomics companies. You should read the privacy policy of any company you test with to understand how your data is being protected — as well as how the policy aligns with the FPF Best Practices.

5. You must go beyond DNA to get the complete picture of your family history and origins.

Your DNA tells only part of your story, because we inherit only half of each parent’s DNA. This means that not all your family’s details can be read in your DNA. To fill in the gaps, you can build a family tree and use historical records to discover family photos, documents with original signatures, and census information collected at your ancestor’s doorsteps. Going beyond DNA can reveal rich context and give a fuller picture of your family history.

LostCousinsNewsletter – 14th September 2020

Fire at Worcester Archives - something to think about

On September 3rd there was a fire at Worcester Archives, which resulted in the temporary

closure of The Hive. Fortunately no documents were lost or damaged, but as so many

records have been destroyed by fire in the past – including the 1931 England & Wales

census, millions of Great War personnel files, countless Irish records, and centuries of Devon

wills – it's an ever-present danger, especially since so many documents have never been

microfilmed or scanned.

The scandal of the missing registersI've long been aware that some registers are missing from apparently complete online collections, but this blog article by Dave Annal of Lifelines Research really puts the cat amongst the pigeons. The only question is are they going to do something about it, or are they going to hide their heads in the sand like ostriches?

Time to order PDF 'certificates'

The General Register Office website still has a warning message about delays in fulfilling orders – but it seems that this only relates to paper certificates, and not uncertified copies of entries in PDF format. When I placed an order for a PDF birth entry on the morning of Saturday 5th September I was quoted a delivery date of Friday 11th September – but on the Monday afternoon I received an email to let me know that the file was already in my box. Other members have reported waiting less than 36 hours. So if you've been holding off ordering PDFs, perhaps now is the time to place your order? Note: I recently wrote about a similar improvement in the delivery time for England & Wales wills.

Whatever happened to baby Doris?The PDF that arrived so quickly was this birth entry for Doris Wells Gregory:

It was a speculative purchase – I don't have any known relatives with the surname Gregory, but my grandfather Frederick Wells is thought to have fathered an illegitimate child between the death of his first wife in 1907 and his marriage to my grandmother in 1915. Intriguingly I couldn't find the child on the 1911 Census, nor was there a death record that fitted. Was Doris privately adopted, I wonder? If you spot something I've missed please post your findings on the LostCousins Forum (see above for details of how you can join).

The widest marriage certificate I've seenWe're used to seeing marriage certificates issued by the General Register Office, or the local register office for the district where the marriage took place, but certificates could also be issued by the church where the couple married as in the example below:

The parish church of St Luke, Miles Platting, Lancashire (shown in the picture accompanying the certificate) is no longer standing, but this c1963 photograph from the Local Image Collection of Manchester City Council shows the church from a similar angle. Do you have any similar marriage certificates in your collection?

A marriage of MetcalvesI'm very grateful to Ruth for pointing out this 1789 marriage in the chapelry of Stalling Busk in North Yorkshire – everyone who took part bore the surname Metcalfe, including the witnesses and the curate who performed the ceremony!

© North Yorkshire County Record Office, used by kind permission of Findmypast

Just 8 days later an angry mob stormed the Bastille – let's hope the couple didn't choose Paris for their honeymoon! Six years ago I came across an even more spectacular marriage register entry, but I'm still waiting for permission to publish it…..

Can a marriage register entry be corrected?Marriage certificates are certified copies of marriage register entries. Sometimes mistakes are made during the copying process – signatures can be very difficult to decipher – and in this case you can request an accurate copy. But what if the marriage register entry is wrong in some respect – can it be corrected? Experienced family historians know that the majority of historic marriage register entries contain at least one error - however the General Register Office won't even consider makingchanges unless at least one of the couple is still living, so whether historic entries are right or wrong, there's nothing that can be done to change them. This page on the GOV.UK website explains how to make an application to change the information in the marriage register; section 8 in this PDF guide prepared by the Oxford Diocesan Registry Clerk explains when and how changes can be made by the church. Note: section 2 of another useful guide from the same source explains how to establish the identity of the persons who wish to marry. Of course, in the 19th century no such evidence was required, which is probably why there are so many errors!