Evidence

Looking at recent messages here and on genealogy lists I've noticed people
confirm that "A is daughter of B" without reference to how the relationship is
known and it set me thinking as to what people here accept as sufficient
evidence of a link. Looking at trees on certain websites I get the impression
that an entry in the IGI that might fit within 10 years or so in the right
county is sufficient but, assuming that we're beyond that(!!), what *is*
sufficient evidence for our purposes?

Phil C....

I don't think it can ever be turned into a list of exact rules of
sufficient evidence. It's a question of degree of probability rising
to "beyond reasonable doubt" - rather like a criminal trial. We always
have to be critical and think laterally to come up with credible
alternative explanations.

With one of my lines, say, I've been lucky because although the
surname wasn't especially uncommon the surnames of female ancestors
were preserved as middle names in later generations. That helped
enormously.

The Marshall line I've been looking at recently is more difficult -
there seems to be a whole tribe of cattle-dealing Marshalls in the
Horncastle, Lincs area. The Francis (Frank) Marshall I'm looking for
was a cattle dealer and publican. So I was interested to discover
<coins: John Hill and his wife Ann of Lincoln, were caught in 1827, as
in 1854 were Francis Marshall and his wife Ann of the Horse & Groom
beerhouse in West Street, which was notorious for thieves and
smashers.>>

It would have been easy to leap to conclusions - but it's almost
certainly a different Francis Marshall. He may yet prove to be a
relative, though - I hope so but truth is always top priority.

squealing...

Take a look in the archives here - there have been several threads on "the
balance of probabilities".

.... snip.....

singhals...

I'd think that the difference between "evidence" and "proof" would make
the answer fairly clear. Evidence speaks to the issue; proof settles
the issue.

I try to gather together all the possibilties that I can find - and note that
the *right* person may not be included. With a census record I see that names
and ages of at least 3 family members 'fit' with a previous or subsequent and
checked census - or equivalent - with more checking needed should there be a
significant change (address, age, trade, &c).

singhals...

Well, yes. However, if you're dealing with Marmaduke Smedley
Cholomondeley who married Marguerita Isabella Featherstonehaugh you
probably need to do less cross-checking than you'd have to do for John
Smith who married Mary Jones.

Chris Dickinson...

Though there is a danger here. Exotic names don't necessarily indicate
uniqueness.

If the Chumleys have been fond of the Smedley name for generations, then
there could be any number of cousins named the same. OK, you've got the
right family, but not necessarily the right branch on the tree.

If the Chumleys and the Fanshawes have been kinship neighbours for
generations, any number of Marmadukes could have married any number of
Margueritas. Or, at least, consumed a few.

Smiths, on the other hand, conscious of their ordinariness, are more likely
to double-barrel and so be distinct from each other.

Derek Smith...

It was not until some years after she had died and I had spent many hours
searching for my grandmothers marriage that I discovered she had not known
her mothers name.It was Elizabeth Sidley Short.
I also know that I accidently gave my late fathers occupation incorrectly
on my own marriage certificate.
Two things that make me very suspicious of any written or oral information.
My name is Smith with no double barrel.
What chance have I got?

I have an example that I'd like to air but first - an introduction:

I have a an individual called Henry Cartmell who, being my great grandfather
is known from direct knowledge - parents, photographs, address (matching with
census), wife (full name), children - names, ages and spouses, grave deeds,
cemetery records and MI. ie there is no question of Henry's identity. His
mother - Elizabeth Cartmell (nee Thompson) is confirmed by the grave deed,
cemetery records, MI, and Henry's birth certificate. The problem is confirming
which Thomas Cartmell is Henry's father.

squealing...

In potentially ambiguous situations like this, if its a key ancestor, I
search around the families with that surname in the whole district or

C Rihan...

That sounds as though there might be a few to choose from. If there are
some of those who have also married an Elizabeth/ Betty etc then
that's more of a problem.

county to whittle down the list of possibles. You can probably do that with
a surname like Cartmell, but not Thompson.
(do a count of surnames in the census, or try it out on

Thomas is confirmed as Henry's father on Henry's birth cert (May 1856) and
there is a marriage cert for Thomas Cartmell age 20 with Elizabeth Thompson
(and her details match the details of the Elizabeth that I know from the
evidence above). One problem is that the marriage is dated March 1856 (so
maybe they left that a touch late?)!

squealing...

Hey, at least they got there... many didn't make it in time - or at all !!
This seems to have been more of a problem with the upper classes...

There is a baptismal entry for a Thomas Cartmell (dated 1836) that matches the
marriage cert for age and the mother is a Norcross. One of the witnesses at
Thomas and Elizabeth's wedding is Richard Norcross.

CWatters...

The 1881 lists several born around 1836. The one in Longridge and others
some distance away (but still within range). None married to an Elizabeth
though..

1. Thomas CARTMELL - 1881 British Census / Lancashire
Head Gender: Male Birth: <1834> Moss Side, Lancashire, England

2. Thomas CARTMELL - 1881 British Census / Lancashire
Head Gender: Male Birth: <1834> Bispham, Lancashire, England

3. Thomas CARTMEL - 1881 British Census / Lancashire
Head Gender: Male Birth: <1836> Carleton, Lancashire, England

4. Thomas CARTMELL - 1881 British Census / Lancashire
Head Gender: Male Birth: <1836> Longridge, Lancashire, England

squealing...

Elizabeth was a very, very common name, and Thomas too, for some families.
If this was the case with the Cartmells, I would stop trying to go further
back in time and try to look for more corroboration.

Is that sufficient evidence to say that that Thomas (born 1836) is the father
of Henry?
What more evidence would you require?

squealing...

Were any siblings born & registered after 1837?
Can you find a visitor staying with them in census records who you can pin
down as an in-law?
Did those families use distinctive middle names?

And post your details on pertinent regional websites/lists and wait...
Just this month I was contacted by a far, far distant cousin whose new
ideas and knowledge of the way that one surname was (mis)spelt broke down a
wall that's been bothering me for 5 years 8-)

singhals...

The answer sort of depends on what you intend to DO with it. If you're
filling in slots on a wall chart, or writing a book to entertain the
grandkids, I don't see that more evidence is required -- a bit of
long-winded explanation after painful thought and coin-flipping, maybe,
not more evidence. OTOH, if you're in hot pursuit of some financial
bennie (free tuition, a cut of the pie) or snob value -- you need a
piece of paper that says Miss Norcross and Miss Thompson share a common

C Rihan...

Sometimes people did marry a little later than might be expected, so
a late marriage would not necessarily make it the wrong one.

Some questions to check that it is the marriage you want:-
Does Thomas have the same occupation on the marriage and the birth
certificate?
Does the address match?
Is that address where they are in 1861?
Did you follow your Henry back through the census to match him
with the 1861 Henry?
Were there other Henrys to cause confusion?
How far back did you check through the marriage index?

descendant, and names Henry Cartmell as that descendant. Even that
might not everyone's definition of proof-positive.

NB Yes there *is* a punchline but I'd like to see the responses and
suggestions first - and as I'm busy off computer for the weekend you'll have a
few days to mull over the evidence. ;-)

NB2 This all happens in Preston (+ Ribchester & Longridge) and Blackburn - so
far - for those who want to check for themselves.

Next time: horrible scene in Preston Cemetery! ...

Graeme Wall...

Preston Cemetery is enormous, there's a whole lost tribe of genealogists
wandering round searching for the fabled grave of great aunt Ethel.

C Rihan...

That looks hopeful....but was Richard Norcross a witness for lots of
weddings?

C Rihan...

I would try to follow him through the census too, and to confirm that
I had found the right one on the census, I would try to get the birth
certificate of a younger brother or sister to confirm the parents' names.

Best wishes
C.Rihan