Name for a type of record

+4 votes

A profile of an individual is genealogically defined if there is a source that will lead to the identification of his/her parents, a source for each spouse, and a source for each child.

In practice, you may be looking at a profile of Jane who married John Doe. You may think Jane was the child of Alice and Bob Smith. Suppose you even have a birth record showing Alice and Bob had a daughter Jane Smith born in 1700, another record showing *some* Jane Smith married John Doe in 1720, and a gravestone of Jane Doe right next to John Doe's from which you can infer her birth year was 1700.  If you're in this position, you're lucky, but this doesn't prove that John Doe's wife was the Jane born to Alice and Bob.

On the other hand, if you find a land record signed by both Alice and Bob Smith at a reasonable time and place in which they convey land to their daughter Jane Doe, wife of John Doe, out of love for their daughter, that is, in my opinion, stronger evidence of the connection than the combination of the birth and marriage records and gravestone I mentioned above.

Is there a word used for these "connecting" records that name an individual and at least two of either their parents, spouses, or children?

in The Tree House by Barry Smith G2G6 Mach 8 (87k points)

laughWell, mostly I use "hopeful" or "possible" ("possibly") and it's going to take a tad more research (or lots more) ... in the case of the possible father I'd have to see if I can find more marriages for him. Check his wife, did she marry his brother or uncle after HE died? IS there an extant death record for this possible child and does it give any particulars on her / his parents? What do the cemetery surveys tell me? Can I find out anything ELSE from familysearch, find a grave, usgenweb, and other online sites? I keep hunting until "hopeful" or "possible" becomes more like "probably, if not 100%" 

2 Answers

+2 votes
Thanks Barry, that's a great question, but for me it's more about looking at all the evidence/sources I have and making a judgement.

For instance if there is a record for the birth of Jane the daughter of Alice and Bob Smith and its in the same parish in which a Jane Smith married a John Doe, 20 years later, and JohnDoe comes from the same or a neighbouring parish, then that's a bit more of a probability that I have the correct people.

I would also try to check other records, e.g. burial records to see if the Jane, daughter of Alice and Bob Smith actually died as a child, or the names Jane Smith and John Doe are common in their respective parishes and there are several born within the time frame I'm checking.

That's where unfortunately FamilySearch and similar databases can be a problem. We find the records we expect to find but don't really check beyond those records.
by John Atkinson G2G6 Pilot (386k points)
For me, it's more like a pipe dream if not outright fantasy.  I'm thrilled on the rare occasions when I find the records I expect to find.  It seems like such a lucky break that I wouldn't look the gift horse in the mouth to even think about checking beyond those records.

laughWhat with one thing and the other, it pays to locate any and all records of marriage(s), birth(s), death(s) for the parents as individuals. Baptisms and any other area that might be recorded. 

Ran into a case 20+ yrs ago where a man had a wife Mary. This was in upper New England area, 1700's. 21 children. The querent had a question about the D.A.R. and I rooted around and found "John" had a wife "Mary", each of his three wives had been "Mary" and x number of children for each wife, and sadly, our querent was not desc of the particular wife who would have entitled him to apply for a S.A.R. / D.A.R. whatever it was. 

Another case where the woman is said to have m. "Barnabus the older" [I don't recall his actual name now] (spoken of as Sr by later researchers) and etc and as it turned out she not only married the older she married the younger, and the two men were not immediately related as blood kin seemingly, although nowadays that would be a point explored more fully. 

Coincidence occurs. 2 or 3 or 5 men born as John Ridges (for instance) within the same time-frame (1780 to 1790) and who married and begat and lived and died in the same general area? You really really want to sort out one family from the other very carefully. 

I have a 5th(?) great-grandfather Samuel Hegedüs who is a dead end because of this birth register page:

(It's in Slovak, which I Don't Really Do, but the names are clear enough.) Bottom of first page: April 10, baptism of Samuel, son of Sigismund Hegedüs and Maria. Top of second page: April 10, baptism of Samuel, son of Samuel Hegedüs and Anna.

I have "my" Samuel's marriage record, but it is not the kind of linking record being asked about here: it does not name any parents.

I wonder: if the right-hand page (say) had gone missing in the intervening centuries, would I have happily concluded that Sigismund and Maria were my 6th great grandparents?
+1 vote
A deed falls within the definition of primary evidence. I would not judge it to be better than bdm evidence but surely of equal status.
by George Churchill G2G6 Mach 8 (84.4k points)

Related questions

+1 vote
2 answers
56 views asked Dec 5, 2019 in Genealogy Help by Barry Smith G2G6 Mach 8 (87k points)
+13 votes
17 answers
177 views asked Nov 9, 2017 in The Tree House by Anonymous Przybylek G2G2 (2.3k points)
+3 votes
2 answers
147 views asked May 7, 2016 in WikiTree Tech by Anonymous Barnes G2G6 Mach 3 (32.4k points)
+8 votes
1 answer
153 views asked Dec 13, 2014 in WikiTree Tech by Jacqueline Girouard G2G6 Mach 5 (53.5k points)
+2 votes
1 answer

WikiTree  ~  About  ~  Help Help  ~  Search Person Search  ~  Surname:

disclaimer - terms - copyright