From roots-in@irc.rootsweb.com Wed Dec 26 12:14:31 2001 Received: from newmail.rootsweb.com (newmail.rootsweb.com [192.168.1.103]) by lists5.rootsweb.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id fBQJEVS02377; Wed, 26 Dec 2001 12:14:31 -0700 Received: from irc.rootsweb.com (irc.rootsweb.com [192.168.1.126]) by newmail.rootsweb.com (8.11.1/8.11.1) with ESMTP id fBQJEWB04908 for ; Wed, 26 Dec 2001 12:14:32 -0700 Received: (from roots-in@localhost) by irc.rootsweb.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA10806 for roots-approved@rootsweb.com; Wed, 26 Dec 2001 12:14:31 -0700 Received: from lists5.rootsweb.com (lists5.rootsweb.com [192.168.1.123]) by irc.rootsweb.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA10313 for ; Wed, 26 Dec 2001 08:02:48 -0700 Received: (from slist@localhost) by lists5.rootsweb.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) id fBQF2mb31431; Wed, 26 Dec 2001 08:02:48 -0700 X-Envelope-From: CharFive@aol.com Wed Dec 26 08:02:48 2001 Received: from newmail.rootsweb.com (newmail.rootsweb.com [192.168.1.103]) by lists5.rootsweb.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id fBQF2mS31417 for ; Wed, 26 Dec 2001 08:02:48 -0700 Received: from imo-d09.mx.aol.com (imo-d09.mx.aol.com [205.188.157.41]) by newmail.rootsweb.com (8.11.1/8.11.1) with ESMTP id fBQF2mB15618 for ; Wed, 26 Dec 2001 08:02:48 -0700 Received: from CharFive@aol.com by imo-d09.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v31_r1.9.) id e.a6.1ea7e9de (4006) for ; Wed, 26 Dec 2001 10:02:43 -0500 (EST) From: CharFive@aol.com Message-ID: Date: Wed, 26 Dec 2001 10:02:43 EST To: roots-l@rootsweb.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" X-Mailer: AOL 7.0 for Windows US sub 256 Sender: roots-in@irc.rootsweb.com Subject: [ROOTS-L] RE: VITAL RECORDS Dear John and listers: It is my opinion that if the "Special Directions" from the master of Genealogy, Charles Henry Pope, is followed there should be no problems. It is only when we start changing records to suit our own purpose that records then become unreliable. It should also be stated that the copy is from the already published records and not from the original records. Error in the copying is great. This is a huge task you have taken upon yourself and you are to be commended for your efforts. All the best to you. This is an exact copy, spelling and all. Hope it helps. Charlotte 1. Look for many variations of surnames; allow for phonetic spelling and carelessness. The diphthong ea was usually pronounced a long; consonants were often doubled after long vowels; ph and f were interchanged recklessly; and other alterations were loosely made, such as Hayward, Heywood, Howard and Hawoorth. The indexing of such matter is therefore difficult; and one must sometimes look on several pages before discovering a desired name. Not only did public recorders vary the orthography, but a man sometimes spelled his own name in two or more ways. 2. Always consult the index, and there exercise the same liberal method. 3. Fail not to guage the meaning of the Abbreviations employed, since many lines of original record have sometimes been compressed into one, in this volume. 4. The source from which a particular word or statement has been drawn can be inferred in most cases from its nature; as proprietorship and town office from town records; church membership, dismission, etc., from those of the churches; ourchase and sale of lands from county Records of Deeds; depositions, giving age, etc., from records or files of the Courts or Colonies; designations of trade, occupation or social position were usually given in deeds, but sometimes in records of admission to churches; wills and administrations of estate in Probate Records or those of the County or colony. when an item was found in an unusual place, the source has been noted. 5. The dates are given as they were recorded. March 25 was New Year's Day in England and her colonies in the seventeenth century. It is at once a blunder and a crime to alter such dates to suit a calendar which our Forefathers did not use. Their "style" was just exactly "old style," not at all "new". From January 1 to March 25, during which some other nations used the New Year number, they often wrote a double date; as "3 February, 1621-2"; but February was still "moneth 12," and even 24 March" was in the old year, although the month, by anticipation of "day 25," was "moneth 1. 6. The Author will be grateful for information of any error discovered in this volume, and for facts of definite importance respecting the Pioneers recorded in either American or English documents of that period.