Recent comments

 
 
 
  • Reply to: Citing AncestryDNA v Family Finder   1 hour 38 min ago

    Kristina, I'm "on the road" and this will be an "off the cuff" answer. How we cite a genetic test does not lie in the company from which we take the test. The difference lies in (1) how the test results are delivered--whether we're citing an online database, a certificate, etc.; and (2) and the specific details necessary to identify the test results. 

    With regard to (1): In either of your examples, you are using a database and a database follows the same form regardless of what database it is.  With regard to (2): QuickLesson21 goes into considerable more detail.

  • Reply to: Citing AncestryDNA v Family Finder   10 hours 6 min ago

    Thank you. I will review that QuickLesson.

  • Reply to: New York State Department of Health   11 hours 21 min ago

    Robyn, I'm travelling this week and am limited in the resources and tools I can use to respond, but the information you've provided raises several basic points:

    1. When we obtain a record from a local agency in New York, we are not obtain a record from the state government (i.e., a State of New York record). We're obtaining a local agency record. The state-level record we would obtain could be quite different (and in your case likely would be quite different)).
    2. What you are using is not a "certificate" in the sense of what is deemed a certificate today. Even though the part of the document that you posted today refers to "this certificate," it's using the term "certificate" in a way that is radically different from modern certificates.  (EE 7.24, even though it deals with church records, explains certificates also in a way that may help you clarify the difference between a certificate and the original.)
    3. As you continued to think thorough the issues you noticed the difference in signatures. That's because you have an original. Specifically, you have the marriage license on the right and the officiant's "return" on the left. (The passages of EE that I referenced last night also explain the difference between the license, the return, the certificate, etc. Each of these is a different record that calls for different information and carries different levels of proof. For example, the license, alone, would be no proof of the marriage. The return, alone does not give the same information that we get from the license, etc.  )
    4. What you are using is not a copy of an original that was sent to the state office, but a photocopy that the local office made from the original. The reference to "State of New York" that is printed across the top merely tells us that the local office is using an official form authorized by the state.
    5. The record that exists at Trinity Church would  not be an "original" of what is created by the local agency. It would be an entirely different record that could give supplemental or entirely different details.

    All for now. I'm off and running. ...

  • Reply to: New York State Department of Health   16 hours 12 min ago

    Editor, (hello)

    Thank you so much for taking the time to comment. It is greatly appreciated.

    I did previously upload a copy of the record received (obviously a photocopy), and it shows that it was issued by the "State of New York" and received ?? 4 1901 at the Bureau of Records (stamped).

    BUT you have definitely made me have a rethink.

    In regards to what you have mentioned, I am now "presuming" the marriage certicate I have is perhaps a copy of "the original" record, that was sent to the State of New York central registry?  As previously explained, I am not experienced in US records. It looks like a probable real certificate to the uneducated of these records (me!!).

    I have the "second part" (now attached) - is this part of the original record or not? The signatures for the witnesses "seem" to be different, so I guess I was thinking that it was an exact copy of an original record???

    As a background, an Andrew Somerville is a definite known son of John Somerville and Rebecca Chittick (his parents named on the record). Sarah Keys (aka Keyes) is a known daughter of Irvine Keys and Eliza (Elizabeth) Armstrong (her parents named on the record). I am fairly sure I have the "correct" people here, whilst knowing that NYC was a big place and there were many such persons of the same names (or varients) who married. But I have to "doubt" that there could be a couple of the same names who married in NYC who had the same parent names. Am I wrong to "assume" this ??

    But getting back to the origin of the record, is there somewhere else I should be looking for the "original" to confirm the details? I see they married in the Trinity Church, I have googled this one before, and somehow I don't think I will find anything else.

    As always, thank you EE, any further comments will be appreciated.

     

  • Reply to: New York State Department of Health   1 day 1 hour ago

    Robyn, 9.1 is a general overview of all types of registrations, in which we're told the two basic things to watch for: Are we using an original or a derivative? Are we using a certificate or a registration? 

    9.4 and subsequent passages deal with marriage records. 9.4 and 9.5 are particularly relevant. 9.4 also refers you to 9.41.

    After you read those passages, ask yourself three questions:

    • Who created the record? Was it a county office or a state office?
    • Do you have  a photocopy of the original registration or a certificate?
    • What is the local jurisidiction where the marriage took place? (There might me multiple same-name couples who marry in the same year in a state as populous as New York?)

    I suspect you'll then see other things you need to record or handle differently.