Forums
I hold such things as: birth, marriage, death certificates; military personnel documents; and divorce filings. I consider these as original sources and as "unrecorded family copies," even though in most cases there is a filed copy and I know where it is filed and could probably get access (a photocopy). I have 3 questions: 1) am I correct to consider such items as "legal documents unrecorded family copies"? 2) when I cite them, should I also cite where they are filed officially, if known? and 3) is this the best source, or should the filed source be considered superior, even if what I would see if I requested it is just a photocopy?
Excellent questions, Sharon.
Excellent questions, Sharon.
1. If the documents are "originals" in family possession, as opposed to being photocopies of recorded documents, then you are right to treat them as "unrecorded family copies."
2. When you cite this type of document and you know where it is recorded—and you have actually compared the two versions to ensure that what is recorded is exactly the same—then it would be helpful to add a notation identifying the location of the more-accessible public copy. However, EE has never seen any research standard that would fault you for not including the additional citation.
3. As a rule of thumb, a true original would be more reliable than a recorded copy because the latter could have copying errors. On the other hand, handwritten records in private possession lack a legal chain of authority to verify authenticity. The cautious approach would be to obtain a copy of the recorded document, make a careful comparison of the two, then make your own informed decision.