Does FamilySearch understand the process around registration of marriages in England & Wales?
There have been previous questions about Registration of Births and Deaths in England & Wales. Now it appears the same misconceptions are spreading to marriages.
Take this example that I've just been dealing with - https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:QVZP-XWRW
It's an example from the "England and Wales Marriage Registration Index, 1837-2005" collection. As you will see from that URL, the Source record sets up an Event of "Event Type - Marriage Registration".
The source, when attached to the parties, sets up a Custom Event of "Marriage Registration" on the Individual's profile.
Why? Why "Marriage Registration" and not "Marriage"?
Does FamilySearch not understand that the marriage registration is an integral part of the marriage ceremony in England & Wales and cannot be separated from the marriage event?
If this incorrect recording goes on, we will have people carrying on looking for evidence of the marriage, under the impression that Marriage Registration is something different, on a different day, and an inferior source. All of which will be pointless as it is one and the same event in England & Wales from 1837 onwards…
Who did FamilySearch consult when it decided that the records from the "England and Wales Marriage Registration Index, 1837-2005" collection should set up a Custom Event of "Marriage Registration"?
NB - I have tested setting up a Custom Event of "Marriage" on the individual's profile and it seemed to work.
Answers
-
Afraid I can't go along with you on this one, Adrian. I have reservations even concerning a Death Registration event now being classed (consistently) as a Death, but there are different issues when it comes to a marriage.
Currently, the way things work with the Couple Relationship section is the key factor, With a birth or death, if these fields are already completed on the Details page, when one adds a source the detail it contains does not replace the existing entry in the Vitals section. However, multiple sets of data can be carried over to the Couple Relationship area, and if the date on a newly added source is earlier than the existing entry, the new detail immediately replaces that already on the Details page - which is often far more precise / accurate.
As an example: if I have displayed on a Details page a 22 December 1845 Middlesbrough, Yorkshire marriage for my relative, the "1845 Stockton, Durham, December Quarter" marriage registration detail would replace this ** - leading to a displayed event that is not only more vague, but misleading (the impression being given that my relative married in County Durham and not Yorkshire).
So, until FamilySearch carry out long-overdue enhancements to the way the Couple Relationship area functions, I don't think this would provide any benefits - certainly not that would outweigh the negative result. As things stand, I am often surprised to find there is a more detailed, hidden event hidden away in the Couple Relationship area: perhaps a user has added a marriage licence event which - indexed as a "marriage" - has knocked the details of the actual ceremony off the Details page. It seems banns and licence records are now generally being indexed as just that - rather than as actual marriages - so I would be unhappy if your suggestion were to be implemented, given the present state of affairs (with the way marriages are currently dealt with within the Couple Relationship area).
** I believe a source with just a year for the date (1845, or even December 1845, in this example) will always cause one with an exact date (say 22 December 1845) to be automatically replaced on the Details page, after added via the Source Linker.
0 -
This discussion probably belongs over in the New Source Linker group, because what Adrian is really asking is for Source Linker to stop being so literal-minded. It has been implied and partially demonstrated that they're working on it: baptisms are no longer being misfiled based on the (random) choice of translation in the indexing project.
However, as Paul says, there's a more fundamental obstacle for marriages: relationship information and documentation is carefully segregated and made effectively invisible. Even people like us, who have a good understanding of both the source documents and the target structure, often end up with messy or incomplete relationship popups, simply because it's so much extra work to get them right.
Perhaps what we need to suggest (in the Source Linker group) is some visibility into the relationship section from Source Linker, instead of the current mystery process by which a newly-attached source sometimes shows up there, and sometimes doesn't, with no indication to be seen either way during the attachment.
(Re: dates — unless specified otherwise, all time periods sort as the beginning of the period. "1845" sorts as 1 January 1845; "December 1845" sorts as "1 December 1845".)
0 -
@Paul W - I had similar thoughts but I don't think the software is going close to there. At least, not now. I've just experimented with my parents' profiles (in production because if I tried it in Beta I'd have no confidence that Source Linker was behaving like production).
If I do a query from either of them, I can find their "England and Wales Marriage Registration Index, 1837-2005" entries. If I attach those sources to their profiles, they are attached to their individual profiles and not to the relationship. At least, that's what happened this time…
They created Custom Events of "Marriage Registration" on the Individual's profile. This time.
After their creation, I swapped the Custom Events from "Marriage Registration" to "Marriage" - the Custom Events stayed on the Individual profiles - nothing happened to the Relationship. So, based on that trial, an accurate marriage date on the relationship is not going to be disturbed by a Custom Event of either "Marriage Registration" or "Marriage" on the Individuals.
Two things:
Firstly, I actually quite like the creation of a Marriage Custom Event on the individual's profile - it's a standardised way of attaching marriage source to the profile - it's always been flakey in the past.
Secondly, I'm actually a bit baffled how "England and Wales Marriage Registration Index, 1837-2005" can get attached to the relationship. There's no enquiry that I can do (unless I'm missing something obvious) to pull up that entry. I'm reduced to copying the URL. So - have I ever been able to attach such an index record?
0 -
@Julia Szent-Györgyi suggested:
"… Perhaps what we need to suggest (in the Source Linker group) is some visibility into the relationship section from Source Linker, instead of the current mystery process by which a newly-attached source sometimes shows up there, and sometimes doesn't, with no indication to be seen either way during the attachment. … "
Sometimes it does and sometimes it doesn't? Hmmm. As indicated above, I'm not wholly sure how - or even if - I've attached sources to the relationship. Your indication of a mystery doesn't help me understand but might explain why I'm confused about attaching sources to the relationship.
0