Citing an England & Wales, National Probate Calendar entry

By History-Hunter on Tue, 10/15/2019 - 10:00

Forums

Dear Editor;

I reviewed section 11.60 of the 3rd. ed. of Evidence Explained, then tried to cast an English Probate calendar entry in a similar format (see below). Unfortunately; the ordering of the clauses in the first reference note example did not flow logically for me. I was trying to achieve 3 distinct levels; record data (what we see), source and source-of-the-source. So, I re-order things a bit. Call it exercising "artistic licence," if you will.

Could you give me your opinion as to whether this is a reasonable citation for the record?

Source List Entry

“England & Wales, National Probate Calendar (Index of Wills and Administrations), 1858-1995. ”Database with images. Ancestryhttps://search.ancestry.com/search/db.aspx?dbid=1904: 2019.

First Reference Note

Anita Organ probate, Headington, Oxon, 1979, page 6178 (microgen grid index F 18); imaged in “England & Wales, National Probate Calendar (Index of Wills and Administrations), 1858-1995,” database, Ancestry (https://search.ancestry.com/search/db.aspx?dbid=1904 : accessed 13 October 2019) > 1979 > Mullany-Osborn, image 260 of 270; citing “Calendar of the Grants of Probate and Letters of Administration ... Probate Registries of the High Court of Justice in England,” Principal Probate Registry, London, England. This is the entry for Anita Organ (died 1 July 1979), referenced from “Organ, Jessie Violet see ORGAN, Anita 790122130U” found on the same page.

Subsequent Note

Anita Organ probate, Headington, Oxon, 1979.

SIDE-NOTE: I was very fortunate to discover this record. It confirms that the aunt that my mother called "Anita" was, in fact, the "Jessie Violet Organ" contained in some of my mothers' papers.

Submitted byEEon Tue, 10/15/2019 - 20:09

History-Hunter, what a gem. Proof of informal name changes is so hard to come by. You've had a stroke of luck.

Re the citation ... EE 11.60 illustrates two ways of citing probate material  held by UK's The National Archives. Both approaches focus on TNA's website, which offers different types of material and treats records in its own possession. Specifically:

  1. A database with abstracts from probate records, but no image of the actual record. That database created by TNA itself thoroughly and authoritatively identifies the underlying sources for its database abstracts by citing its own record group name and number, series number, and piece number.
  2. A database with images of probate records at TNA. Also thoroughly sourced to original documents with the specific record group name and number, series number, and piece number.

Your situation is one in which Ancestry has imaged some publication that essentially provides index entries. I'm sure you didn't intend this, but when your Layer 1 leads with the words “Anita Organ Probate,” it misleads because you have not used or viewed the actual probate records to which the publication refers.

Looking at the image to which you direct us, we find no identification of the source other than Ancestry's database title and path. If we go back to image 1 of that database, we still find no identification of what we're using. If we go back to Ancestry's own database entry for Anita Organ, we find a description of the source that states: "Principal Probate Registry. Calendar of the Grants of Probate and Letters of Administration made in the Probate Registries of the High Court of Justice in England. London, England © Crown copyright." No date is provided for the publication. And we certainly don't have the ability to verify, from Ancestry images, that the cited source is correctly identified.

The bottom line is that you haven’t used the original and should not cite it as though you have. This is why 11.60 gives two different types of examples: one when the database does not provide images of the original records; and one for a database that does provide images of the original records. 

Your citation would be more accurate if Layer 1 identified “Database,” Website (URL : access date) and specific item (i.e., image 260, “Page 6173,” entry for Anita Organ, aka Jessie Violet Organ); Layer 2 would then cite your provider’s source (the book) using the source-of-the-source details that Ancestry provides.

Submitted byHistory-Hunteron Wed, 10/16/2019 - 13:43

Dear Editor;

I believe I understand what you are suggesting I do. I do have a concern, though. Until one looks at the image of the index, one doesn't see the explicit re-direct from Jessie Violet Organ to Anita Organ. This is why I referenced the image. Believe me, I did try to figure out how to utilize the database example. I'm just concerned that the alternate name in square brackets (in the database screen) is just someone's attempt at correcting the entry and that it may disappear in the future. That could leave little justification for the "aka." Then again, perhaps my added sentence about the redirected entry is sufficient to make the point clear.

I suspect that this could be a candidate for embedding a proof argument in a citation. This is something about which I've heard, but never seen used. Is that what my added sentence essentially does?

Submitted byHistory-Hunteron Wed, 10/16/2019 - 14:16

Dear Editor;

I tried following your advice, resulting in this.

First Reference Note

“England & Wales, National Probate Calendar (Index of Wills and Administrations), 1858-1995,” database, Ancestry (https://search.ancestry.com/search/db.aspx?dbid=1904 : accessed 13 October 2019) > 1979 > Mullany-Osborn, image 260 of 270, “Page 6173,” entry for Anita Organ, aka Jessie Violet Organ; citing “Principal Probate Registry. Calendar of the Grants of Probate and Letters of Administration made in the Probate Registries of the High Court of Justice in England. London, England.” This is the entry for Anita Organ (died 1 July 1979), referenced from “Organ, Jessie Violet see ORGAN, Anita 790122130U” found on the same page.

However, I am still confused. I'm not sure why this (if I've done it correctly) is more correct. The image for the index page has the same source information as the database search results page.

Maybe, I'm misunderstanding the way Ancestry has stated things when one views the image (see below). Are they saying that their online database contains original data from the noted source, but they don't know where they sourced the image??? If so, many, many, many of their images would appear somewhat useless.

Source Citation

[blank]

Description

Surname Range: Mullany-Osborn

Source Information

Ancestry.com. England & Wales, National Probate Calendar (Index of Wills and Administrations), 1858-1995 [database on-line]. Provo, UT, USA: Ancestry.com Operations, Inc., 2010.
Original data: Principal Probate Registry. Calendar of the Grants of Probate and Letters of Administration made in the Probate Registries of the High Court of Justice in England. London, England © Crown copyright. 

Submitted byEEon Wed, 10/16/2019 - 15:09

H-H,

We would tweak it one more way. Ancestry cites its source as though it were a book--with italics that indicate a book-length, standalone publication, as well as two of the three essentials for publication data. It would improve your citation if you preserved that nuance for those who may wish to find the publication itself (or for yo:

“England & Wales, National Probate Calendar (Index of Wills and Administrations), 1858-1995,” database, Ancestry (https://search.ancestry.com/search/db.aspx?dbid=1904 : accessed 13 October 2019) > 1979 > Mullany-Osborn, image 260 of 270, “Page 6173,” entry for Anita Organ, aka Jessie Violet Organ; citing Principal Probate Registry. Calendar of the Grants of Probate and Letters of Administration made in the Probate Registries of the High Court of Justice in England (London, England: n.p., n.d.), volume number not cited; attributed to "Crown Copyright." This is the entry for Anita Organ (died 1 July 1979), referenced from “Organ, Jessie Violet see ORGAN, Anita 790122130U” found on the same page.

Adding an explanation about Anita's name is the kind of choice we make when we feel the original may not be understood.

Thank you. I now see what you were trying to achieve. However; this way makes more sense to me. It highlights that it was Ancestry that didn't give full details, rather than me having forgotten to include them.

Submitted byHistory-Hunteron Wed, 10/16/2019 - 15:29

Just a brief note that may be helpful to others...

The official government site; https://probatesearch.service.gov.uk/#wills allows one to search for a person in their index, has images of their index sheets, and one can purchase a downloadable copy of a specific will. The information from this website might be less confusing to cite and the ability to get a copy of the actual document, rather than depend on the index, may actually more fully solve the issue.