for the 10th can be said to be
independent sources. Back to square one. Thanks! --Paula
From: Cathy Pinner genea...@gmail.com
To: legacyusergroup@LegacyUsers.com
Sent: Sunday, August 10, 2014 7:27 PM
Subject: Re: [LegacyUG] Source Quality questions
I don't
at the primary document!
CE
Date: Sat, 23 Aug 2014 13:20:56 -0700
From: paula.ryb...@sbcglobal.net
Subject: Re: [LegacyUG] Source Quality questions
To: legacyusergroup@LegacyUsers.com
Cathy, The document was filled out by the father (my great-grandfather)--he was
the 'informant' I guess
CE WOOD said the following on 24/08/2014 09:33:
In your case, the informant was not the person who was born, as Cathy
mistakenly assumed, but the father of the person. It is more likely
that he was correct about the birth date of his daughter!
Yeah, right. As they say around here!
My
Yes, The document itself is original, however, the fact of her birth you would
have to go by who supplied the data for the birth date to determine if it is
Primary or Secondary evidence. If the provider of the info was not your
grandmother or her parents then the data is not Primary source.
I don't think a person is a primary source for their own birth date. They
weren't consciously there and only know what they have been told or gleaned
from birth certificate.
Paula, the document you speak of is the original but has primary and secondary
information on it if I've understood you
5 matches
Mail list logo
