On this particular batch that i am working on it lists both a license date and a marriage date, so i was wondering if i need to index both of them for example see US, Virginia—Marriage Records, 1730–1901 [Part A][MSB6-S2X]
I can't open your batch. I have worked on many of these batches. The Field Helps for the Marriage Date holds the answer that you would only index the marriage date.
Index the date that the marriage actually took place. If the actual marriage date was not recorded, index the marriage date based on the following priority:
I'm indexing Belgium records from the 1800's. From apparently the same volume/location, in different batches I'm getting 1st marriage bans, 2nd marriage bans, or the full marriage registration. Sometimes, the bans are in the same batch--other times, I'm simply recognizing the marriage as the final step of bans I've already indexed from other batches. That is, I believe I index each record as though they are complete--so 1st posting would have one date (and consider the posting date as the date of the marriage), second posting another date (and consider this posting date as the date of the marriage), and the actual marriage a third date for the same individuals. All three contain bride and groom names and their parents. Records of the actual marriage add in the age. There's no way to assume all three exist when I'm receiving various batches.
Am I doing it correctly?
You index the date on the image based on the project instructions and the field helps. These projects seem to want the latest date (or, in other words, the most recent date to present). So, if you are doing that, then you are correct and each image could have a different date for the same couple.
Thank you Melissa! I understand to use the latest date, and that has been relevant in some other records I've found in Belgium. In those cases, the single entry included the dates of both postings of bans and then of the actual marriage.
The records I'm currently indexing from Namur, though, list the bans seemingly as a separate section. Sometimes the first and second postings are entries 3 and 4 on the same image (for example); other times I only see the "Premier" posting of the ban--or the 2nd posting, not knowing if the originals still exist for the other. Or, one posting might be on image 1 and the second on image 4. But, in any event, they are totally separate entries.
My feeling is that since the entries about the posting of the bans gives all the pertinent marriage info (except ages of bride and groom), it may or may not be the only info about the marriage. I have no idea if the actual marriage record exists. So, in this case, I'm indexing each one separately. They do contain duplicate information (although occasionally with a different handwriting interpretation of a letter). However, if I were to recognize one entry as a duplicate and delete the information from a prior image, there would be no connection for a future researcher.
I'm thinking it's better to err with a duplication that an omission--but only maybe 1/3 of this type of entry has both postings within a given batch
I'm thinking I wish we were working on these together!
@VickyBush1, I tend to stay away from foreign language projects unless they are very basic French or Spanish. It has been quite a number of years (like 45) since I studied either language.
It is always difficult to answer a question, or understand an explanation when you can't see the batch. If you want to share another batch and hold on to it, I'm sure someone can come along to discuss it! I would also start it as a new discussion because this one is buried in a discussion about Virginia Birth Records.
But, if sounds like you are doing these correctly. We index every image unless the project instructions tell us not to do so. The project instructions for this are pretty clear:
The images you describe are not duplicates, but, simply different documents about the same marriage. So, each one would be indexed.
The only time we would not index something is if it were a true duplicate of a previous image in our batch, or if it was a continuation of a record that started on the previous image.
A duplicate image is an EXACT photographic duplicate of an image - like a paper from copy machine. Even if it is the same form, but a single word is changed, or something as simple as an edge folded down on the next image, it is not a duplicate.
Thank you. I'll be posting another question, too. The Belgium records are so full of information. For the actual marriage registrations, there are separate listings of the bride's and groom's birth dates and places. Also death dates and places for their parents. I've wondered if I should index a separate birth or death record--but so far have opted not because the actual record is a marriage. Hopefully a descendent would look at the original and add that info to the proper individuals. (Often it's even clearly stated that a certain witness is the brother of the groom or bride, etc.)
I started to stay away from indexing French records because I'm not a native speaker. But my mother's parents were from Belgium, I heard it as a child and studied for years in school/college. I'm not fluent, but it seems natural. I've discovered a cousin, who was born in Belgium, through family history efforts and introduced her to FamilySearch. She is now indexing, too, and helped me get started. Occasionally, we'll share batches with each other. One was an addition when a child was in his 20's, indicating that the original birth record had not been correct--that the parents had, indeed been married before his birth, so his recorded name (the mothers) was incorrect. In that case, I did add in a separate birth record for the son--since the one that would show up in the normal record was wrong. I've turned back one batch of the oldest records simply because someone who is from Belgium might be able to decipher the thick calligraphy to recognize the places of birth/death. But otherwise, my French is fairly strong and over time I'm gaining a familiarity with names and handwriting. If only a computer could interpret the scrawl of 18th and 19th century magistrates--the family tree of the entire country would be put together in seconds. Again, thank you for your incite and experience. It's so nice to have wise counsel when needed :)
So good to hear from you @VickyBush1 about your indexing experiences! It is wonderful that you have delved into the foreign language records. It takes a lot of determination to work through those sometimes! It sounds like you have mastered them and there is never any harm in returning a batch that is too difficult!
I think that while we have to follow the instructions, and only index the records that are required in the projects, we all have faced that urge to add a little more. But, it is important that we remove our family tree research sleuth cap and replace it with our indexing cap when looking at these documents to be indexed. The researcher who finds the record will see those additional life events that you mentioned and can use them in their family tree research. You could make the suggestion to index every life event on every project in the Ideas section of this site in the Indexing portion. There is currently one project that I know of where every type of event on an image is being recorded and the instructions clearly state this is different than General Indexing Guidelines.
I'm not clear on the situation you mentioned with a child in his 20's having a different name at his birth. But, if it was a marriage record that you were indexing for the young man, instead of creating a record of his birth with his corrected name, you should consider using the "or" command between his surnames. For instance if a record shows us that Johannes Smythe's name was later changed to John Smith, then he would be indexed as Given Name: Johannes or John Surname: Smythe or Smith. But, if there was no reason to index the son's name, a reviewer should delete the birth record since no birth record was found for him in the batch. Usually in the case of a name change from birth, there will be an Amended Birth Certificate, so that person would have another record with their current name somewhere.
Hope that helps, but, I do understand how sometimes we follow our hearts in indexing!
Thank you for your reply! These French records are incredible. I like your idea of adding in both names with "or". I'll do that the next time. Hopefully a researcher will find both records through the mother and figure out what happened when they look at the actual documents. In this case, I think I will still add in the revised birth document. The last one I did was a marriage registration. Apparently the groom did not have a birth certificate because his father was blind, and had not registered his birth. So, 20+ years later, a tribunal was had with 7 witnesses to document the the groom was indeed the legitimate son of his mother and father. His surname had been a bureaucratic result simply because his dad hadn't registered the birth. A 2 page insert to the journal was added to show the results of the tribunal--and the report from the mayor to the king--indicated that the surname should be shown to be his father's. It seemed that this might be the only official registration of his birth.
I pause sometimes, though, because it almost seems that the magistrate is officially creating the record of bride and groom's parents deaths. Without seeing the rest of the the record (since we only get 4 pages), it's difficult to know if the deaths were recorded elsewhere. I'm not doing separate entries for them at this point--but hopefully a reviewer or someone with more experience than I have will correct and add them in if they're important!
Needless to say, if some computer program of the future were able to sort through the penmanship and index all French Belgium records-- All of Belgium would have nearly instant and complete family history for generations! I do wish we could get feedback from the reviewers. I would learn so much to see my mistakes :)