België, Namur—Registres Civils, 1791–1920
In French language records in Belgium, I have come across marriage entries that are duplicates. I am thinking one is in reference to the banns and the other the actual marriage. Which, or both, should I index? The project instructions indicate that I should index marriage intentions as a marriage. If I do that I will have 2 duplicate marriage entries but with different dates. That seems confusing.
Answers
-
If you post a batch ID to illustrate your question on these projects we would be able to answer your question.
0 -
België, Namur—Registres Civils, 1791–1920 [Partie A][MSYC-WC1]
I hope this is what you were asking for.
1 -
We index each unique record. Banns and the actual marriage are not duplicates. They would need to be 100% the same - like when we took our film in and got double prints. But if they are on the same image, then we need to make only one record and use the actual marriage date.
0 -
If I understand you correctly, I would only do the marriage record since it is on the same image. In each case, the marriage record follows the Banns or intention to marry record.
0 -
Yes - you need to index only one event per couple. Use the actual marriage date . But if the banns contain any information needed to index the required fields, you would include that.
If Banns are the only event, index that as a marriage record, using the latest date. (If a marriage does not follow banns, we still want to get researchers to the record of banns.)
0 -
Just to make sure, I thought I should run this by you.
Whereas the first batch I indexed, had the banns and marriage entries on the same image, now the banns are on one image and the marriage the next one. Should I continue just indexing the marriage entry?
0 -
Is there anything in the Project Instructions which tells you what to do when a record spans 2 images? (such as combine them) Otherwise, personally, I would index each record separately.
0 -
No instructions about this. Each entry is 7 days a part. I guess I will index them separately.
Thanks
1