One of the key questions we should always ask ourselves when we’re researching our ancestry is, ‘What constitutes proof?’. How do we know for certain that Person A is our ancestor as opposed to Person B? In practical research terms, the question might look more like, ‘How can I be sure that that’s my ancestor in the 1891 Census?’ or ‘How can I tell whether this birth certificate relates to my great-grandfather or not?’.
It’s a complex question (or set of questions) and there are no easy answers. To help address the issue, the Genealogical Proof Standard (GPS) was developed in the early part of this century by the American genealogist Christine Rose. It aims to encourage researchers to take a critical approach to their research and, in particular, to consider their conclusions carefully, and it’s used by most US-based professional researchers.
Personally, while I think it’s a well-structured method with much to be said in its favour, I find it somewhat restrictive and in some respects, perhaps too proscriptive. The problem is that each case we encounter is fundamentally different and by attempting to establish a process that works in every eventuality, we’re inevitably going to end up with something that doesn’t quite have the impact that we need.
Proof positive?
Take that birth certificate that I mentioned before. While the documents themselves might have the words ‘Warning: a certificate is not proof of identity’ printed on them in bold capital letters, birth certificates have (since 1837) been considered legal documents and would routinely be admissible as evidence in a court
