> FamRSearch@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> JYoung6180@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> singhals@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> Well, we may be wrong, but at least we're agreed.
>
> (G)
>
> Cheryl
I think both what you said and what Mills said are correct. Mills
because she's the authority!
But I don't know anyone who considers DAR or any lineage record
copies "sources".
And while an applicant to the DAR might list another DAR application
in the source area, it is the do***entation that goes with that
record copy that is the proof.
The value of the DAR applications, and they are a gold mine of
materials, is what is on them, dates and places, and relation****ps,
and if they list proofs, a super gold mine.
However, if you say in your research that Mrs. Whoist joined the DAR
on Rev War solider, George the first, that tells you very little.
But if you give Mrs. Whoist's name and number then someone else can
obtain a copy of that paper and evaluate the material on it. It may
not say what you think it says and her proofs may not prove what you
want proven!
DAR applications are a mixed bag; a recent one may give only someone
else's application as proof and virtually tell you nothing without
tracing down, one or more previous papers. On the other hand a
paper from the 1950's or 1960's may have every bit of information
anyone would need to know to trace a line. However, in general, the
older the paper is, the less likely it is to be helpful. Early
ones had no proof, even much later ones did not have proof for the
first three generations, so their granddaughters are six generations
from any proof on the papers.
Virginia Green
VaGreen100@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
|
