How much does documentary extend.

Question

Let us suppose you have a document from a Registry Office, recording the birth of a child.

This is accepted as proof, documentary evidence.

BUT, suppose that document shows both the parents, giving their names, does this not provide evidence of those adults ?

We know that child had parents, it was not spontaneously generated from thin air, and as their names are given, is this not documentary evidence ?

Comments

It is a source that shows their existence. But it doesn't have much else, like birth/death dates or places. So you could use it to show they were actually the parents of that particular child, but you will need to have additional sources for their own personal information.

---

It is considered to be secondary source of the existence of these persons  (parents) and a primary source of their parentage. The birth document was usually completed with information from one parent or the other, who provided the information at the time of the event. This may not hold true if the birth document was a delayed registration of birth requested by a third party.

---

Out of interest, why do you assume that only one parent was present at the registration, there is no evidence to support this opinion.

---

Hi! Tim: I stated that one parent or the other usually provided the registration information. I did not state how many people were present, so I did not assume anything. It is common on birth certificates to note the informant and their relationship to the subject person. Most often I find that it was the mother who provided the information, but there are exceptions to everything.

Answer 1

I certainly hope so, Tim!!!  Death certificates also provide names of parents and I use them ALL the time.  Hate to find out now it is not acceptable.

Comments

Tim, never thought about that.  I know parents have taken the responsiblity for a child's child, never thought about that when looking.  Never even considered it.  Good point.

---

In reality, no matter how many proofs and sources we quote, we are, at best, only proposing what is 'socially expedient', but not necessarily verifiable fact. Anybody can write a book, then others quote it. Anybody can make a claim or statement, and others will believe it. None of which can truly be said to be proven as factual. Simply put, people can be misled, some people deliberately tell falsehoods, and all we are left with is trust, and what is convenient to our particular beliefs.

---

As said earlier the information is only as good as the knowledge and truthfulness of the informant. It is certainly better to try to find other supporting sources rather than relying on just the one

 I have a death certificate that was corrected.  In addition to the original information it reads

For Clayton read Cleaton,

For 63 read 57 years

 For General Labourer read Gunmaker

Corrected on the 16th June 1893 by me George Shread registrar

On production of a statutory declaration by  Catherine Cleaton and Henry Walter Deeley.

The original informant was the master of the workhouse infirmary who probably made guesses as to the details. The certificate would not have been changed if his grandaughter and her fiancee hadn't bothered or hadn't realised that it could be changed. But were the changes accurate? Other sources support spelling of name and his age and he was a gunmaker in his youth  but the census shows that he was a labourer in latter years (a trade that had boomed then collapsed because of the  American Civil War )

---

Helen,

No, it is not the ONLY piece of information, but it helps with a direction to look and confirm.

Sometimes I forget, others take things too literally on the web.

Thanks for the lesson.

---

I  really didn't think my answer was anything other than  an example of where the original person to register a death may not have had a very good knowledge of the person  (but maybe I'm not reading your reply accurately)

---

Helen,

I think I misread your reply.  In fact, I am pretty sure I did. I thought you implied that it was the ONLY piece of information I had used.  (In that particular case).  Please forgive me.

---

I am concerned that we might be sidetracked by individual cases, rather that consider the wider implications.

Are we seeking the truth, as best we can, or a consensus approved deceit ?

My point was that there is nothing carved in tablets of stone, and if there were, they would have been written by someone that could well have been mistaken.

As I have said, at some point we have to trust.

---

We are seeking the truth Tim, but it is not always easy to figure out what that is. The best way of determining it is a combination of paper trail and DNA. After reading your various comments here I will admit to being very puzzled as to how you would answer your own question.

---

The honest answer, Lynda, is that I don't know, that is why I asked the question.

We all know how fake news, and false data is spread on the internet.

One person posts something, thousands copy it, and before you know, "It must be true, because everybody says so."

Original documentation, written at the time by contemporaries of the data subject, having first hand personal knowledge, is at times hard enough to accept, but when one gets into the realms of transcriptions, or quoting books written by individuals, however well respected, written decades after the event, I simply don't know how much credence we should attach to it.

---

There is no black & white answer, but rather shades of grey. Each situation and document needs to be evaluated on its own merits. However, there is a certain sense of satisfaction when the paper trail and the DNA results tie in with each other.