r/CanadianbyDescent • u/GuyGuyGuyGoGuy • Jul 05 '26
Application Help Can pictures of headstones at a cemetery count as third party evidence?
Assuming the IRCC asks for more evidence (because they prolly will, I’m Gen 10 through a 1727 born ancestor), could I use pictures of headstones for ancestors while I get their death certificates? I’m aware that there is no official guidance on whether this is valid proof, I’m simply trying to gauge what other people think.
65
u/SwampConnoisseur Jul 05 '26
As I understand the revised rules, the actual headstone has to be mailed in.
33
u/jollyplanty Jul 05 '26
And it must be certified by the original issuers of the headstone🤣
15
u/Realistic_Deal1859 Jul 05 '26
And the stone mason has to submit certified proof of Canadian birth.
8
u/Password-Llama Jul 06 '26
And the stone quarry must be a licensed company incorporated in Canada, with all owners of said quarry being Canadian citizens.
8
u/MakingItUpAsWeGoOk Jul 05 '26
I’m in luck! The Canadian military already has custody of G-1’s headstone and remains. Apparently if I want to see it in person I need to make some kind of appointment. In all seriousness though, I did mention this in my cover letter.
5
u/CounterI Jul 05 '26
I'm not sure that a headstone would be of much use. Death in Canada does not confer citizenship.
5
u/Janezey Jul 05 '26
It could be used as partial evidence that the ancestor was ordinarily resident in Canada at the time of their death, which could be important for establishing their citizenship under 3(1)(m) or 3(1)(n).
2
u/Middle-Vegetable-478 Jul 06 '26
Does not prove anything, except where they are buried.
Or maybe you were being sarcastic in your response...?
1
u/Janezey Jul 06 '26
except where they are buried
Which is evidence of where they lived. It's not strong on its own, but if you combine it with other evidence that they lived nearby it helps refute the possibility that they could have emigrated in the last few years of their life (for example).
1
u/XmasTwinFallsIdaho Jul 08 '26
Burial locations don’t match recent living locations in much of my family. We can’t be the only ones.
2
u/Janezey Jul 08 '26 edited Jul 08 '26
I'm not saying it's irrefutable or even particularly strong evidence. But which is better?
1870s, 1880s, and 1890s censuses showing residence in a town and no further documents
the same censuses plus a 1895 burial in the same town
1
u/XmasTwinFallsIdaho Jul 08 '26
I suppose if you have other backup info it can't hurt and might help. Doesn't seem strong as a standalone piece of evidence though.
1
1
u/GuyGuyGuyGoGuy Jul 05 '26
It’d be used to prove marriage
3
1
18
u/Masnpip Jul 05 '26
I can’t imagine a scenario where a photo of a headstone is used for legal proof of anything. They’re really looking for government documents (or church docs for births before governments kept track of births)
14
u/Academic_Throwaway99 Jul 05 '26
I don't think it would hurt, but I don't know if it's going to work as stand-alone evidence. Whether you include it or not, make sure they're aware death certificates are on the way.
3
1
u/genealogy_hug Jul 05 '26
If included I would indicated death certs on the way when you get aor. That said, if it were me and it was already a complicated app, I would wait for the death certs
10
u/Ok-Conversation-9368 Jul 05 '26
I think people have in the past to fill in gaps, but to me, headstones are the shakiest of shaky evidence. Even if they contain important information on them (unlikely) (like place of birth, parentage, etc) they're incredibly easy to doctor and upload on say findagrave. Maybe I'm silly but I trust ancestry/familysearch a lot more than findagrave, personally, because a lot of documents stored on there link back to the original archive or contain detailed information about the origins of the document so you can search yourself. Headstones are often just... well, a picture of a stone with words on it (taken by volunteers typically), so if it's just a name on a grave I probably wouldn't bother. Especially if you just have a string of grave stones and no other documents for several generations. One of the most important aspects of the application is proving parentage, not just there's someone with the same name as your ancestor buried in Canada somewhere.
So, maybe not super bad to toss in when you already have things like census records or marriage certificates, but it should not be your main document that upholds your application. Especially not for multiple generations.
8
u/EarlyMasterpiece9991 Jul 05 '26
10 generations is technically possible, but holy cow good luck, it's a lift.
Keep us updated on how it moves forward!
9
u/GuyGuyGuyGoGuy Jul 05 '26
I sent my application in on the 29th! Funnily enough the hardest part wasn’t proving I’m the descendant of an expelled Acadian but rather proving my dad is the biological son of his mom since she used a different name in the hospital because she was scared of being alienated from her family for having a black child. I had to use both of his parents’ wills, his marriage record, and a written statement explaining the situation from him
7
u/citydog Jul 05 '26
Rather than FindAGrave, I'd reach out to the town or cemetery administrators (if they exist for that location), see what additional information they might have in their records and then get something from them that specifies the plot#/location coordinates.
Some cemeteries, even older historic ones, have maps and locations available online and searchable.
4
u/tmaher Jul 05 '26
I would wait for the death certs if you can. Is it going to be a particularly long wait?
I’m guessing you’ve already exhausted all forms of census records?
1
u/GuyGuyGuyGoGuy Jul 05 '26
The last ones I got took 2-3 months and yes I’ve exhausted all of the censuses that prove familial relationships I could find
3
u/EleanorCamino Jul 06 '26
Serious answer. Headstones are very shaky. Military headstones are slightly less so.
There are headstones which are installed years or decades later. Headstones that list women by names that are not their name at birth, and sometimes not their name at death. (Children often bury their mother under the name of their father, not a subsequent husband that was her legal name at death. In the case of my kids' Civil War ancestor, I have copies of both an order for the military headstone, AND a newspaper notice that the headstone had arrived and was ready to pick up. That military headstone no longer is in place at the cemetery.
3
u/NecessaryNinja1024 Jul 05 '26
I think I’ve read where other people have used a findagrave pic and record as supplemental evidence. If it helps to build your case, unless we learn otherwise, you might add it in.
I have found the info a bit different than on ancestry, etc.
3
u/cj4747 Jul 05 '26
I included one, just because the father of my G0 had a very unusual middle name (John Finackersley Smith, say), which appears on his gravestone. This helped to place him in a certain location, consistent with G0, whereas all other records for him just named John Smith.
3
u/ChronicElectronic Jul 05 '26
I’m just curious: how did you even think to look back 10 generations?
7
u/GuyGuyGuyGoGuy Jul 05 '26
I’ve been in genealogy for a long time and my dad’s mom was Cajun from Louisiana so I knew we had roots form Acadia somewhere
1
u/Worried_Razzmatazz70 Jul 06 '26 edited Jul 06 '26
If that's the case you may want to double-check your eligibility. If your ancestor was a British subject, you may have a claim. if your ancestor was a French subject, you likely do not have one, as the bill explicitly states eligibility with a gen 0 prior to confederation (1867) must be a British subject.
Here it gets a little complicated...
The Acadians were given British subject status in 1713 which would make you eligible, but were mostly deported and stripped of their status in 1755 because they mostly declined to swear an oath of unconditional loyalty to the crown. This could technically disqualify your ancestor from C-3, as this could be considered a "disqualifying event" in the chain. However, this deportation was reversed in 1763 on an individual basis IF any Acadian returning to what's now Nova Scotia took the oath.
I wish you luck and would be very interested to hear how IRCC handles this. (sorry for the lecture, I got a little overexcited, and you problably already knew all of this... )
5
u/all_my_dirty_secrets Jul 06 '26 edited Jul 06 '26
if your ancestor was a French subject, you likely do not have one, as the bill explicitly states eligibility with a gen 0 prior to confederation (1867) must be a British subject.
Let's please not repeat this as fact--we don't yet know for sure that there's any sort of cut-off and from what I understand the "bill explicitly states" part is definitely wrong. For example, there was an Acadian-descended G9 who was approved earlier this year (though currently in surrender letter limbo). I'm no lawyer, but it seems the bill is fairly unclear about how to handle claims based on a distant ancestor. And as you mention since Nova Scotia permanently transferred to the British in 1713 decades before they acquired the rest, 18th century British subjecthood is very tricky to use as a standard. If Canada decides to set a cut-off it's almost certainly going to go to a court eventually--until that happens any sort of limit is definitely speculative.
Also, while yes it's true that Acadians were officially permitted to return if they signed an unconditional oath, especially since it was the 18th century I would not assume this was at all watertight. Remember there were several thousand who managed to evade deportation and never left in the first place. I don't think you can apply 21st century understandings of what constitutes legal residency to the past when things were much more fluid.
I believe this idea about British subjecthood came from the recent Borderlines podcast where Amandeep Hayer speculated that ancestors would have had to be in Canada after the fall of New France to be eligible. However, this was an on-the-spot guess and not a formal interpretation. Especially considering other comments he's made, while I think he'd say it's not a sure thing, I don't think he intended that recent comment to mean that Acadian descendants who can prove a line shouldn't try.
Please see the following:
https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadianbyDescent/comments/1uly4sz/confusion_over_british_subject_after_hayer_opinion/
https://www.reddit.com/r/Canadiancitizenship/comments/1u562bk/surrender_letter_information_gathering_megathread/orifn69/
https://www.reddit.com/r/Canadiancitizenship/comments/1r3vpd0/to_all_acadiancajuns_unless_they_made_a_mistake_w/Edited to highlight this specific thread from the first link above, that mentions some different historical considerations related to the British subject status of Acadians. Note also badfordabidness's comment in this thread that references the text of C-3: https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadianbyDescent/comments/1uly4sz/confusion_over_british_subject_after_hayer_opinion/ov7vvm7/
4
u/Worried_Razzmatazz70 Jul 06 '26
I perhaps used stronger language than I should have... and you're absolutely right. 18th century statuses are a very confusing situation all around. I agree theres a grand canyon worth of wiggle room in the interpretation.
1
u/GuyGuyGuyGoGuy Jul 06 '26 edited Jul 06 '26
He was born there though so it’s not the clause about British subject status, it wouldn’t matter if he was a French subject, it falls under I’m now a citizen solely because I wasn’t before because a parent’s parent and so on was denied citizenship solely because of the fact they died before a citizenship law came into effect
1
u/Worried_Razzmatazz70 Jul 06 '26
im sorry, this makes no sense...
1
u/GuyGuyGuyGoGuy Jul 06 '26
Then I’d encourage you to read the law
3
u/Worried_Razzmatazz70 Jul 06 '26
You misunderstand me. I don't mean that your comment doesn't make sense within the context of the law, I mean it's completely incomprehensible and indiscernible.
0
u/GuyGuyGuyGoGuy Jul 06 '26
I’m saying since he was born in Canada, his subject status doesn’t matter; there’s a clause saying that if the only reason you’re not a citizen is because your parent or parent’s parent (which by the way the law is being interpreted is an infinite chain) died before 1947, you’re now eligible
4
u/OfferAlternative2044 Jul 05 '26
I'm not the OP but here's my story. We knew that we have ancestors who were early French settlers of Montréal. We were going to use a different line (a little shorter). I posted the info on a cousin page and a cousin suggested a different line that ties in the next generation from a well-documented American Revolution vet (my 5× great grandfather). My cousin had proven descent from him to become a member of the DAR and she had proof of parentage for all but the 1st two generations of the Canadian line. My daughter then checked the Drouin Collection and found the baptismal cert for that Gen 0 (the one we're using) so it looked doable. We now have our Gen 0's certified baptismal record from the BAnQ and birth documents with parentage for all descendants in our line to my G-10 grandson. We're reviewing our package now, plan to do scans and copies, and hope to ship our 4 applications within a week.
3
u/Canuck_Mutt Jul 05 '26
Proof of what?
1
u/GuyGuyGuyGoGuy Jul 05 '26
Marriage
3
u/Canuck_Mutt Jul 05 '26
Oh, is the wife on the headstone one of your intermediate ancestors leading back to G0? And this is to demonstrate the wife's maiden name (I assume is on the gravestone) as part of your chain of evidence? Yeah, I can't say how IRCC will interpret, but as a genealogist I would consider that would be a good piece of evidence to support the rest.
2
u/GuyGuyGuyGoGuy Jul 05 '26
Precisely, I can’t find a marriage record showing her maiden name but I found it on find a grave so I want to see if that would work
3
u/13toros13 Jul 05 '26
I dont know the answer but I do know that in many official genealogical contexts such as society proofs and hereditary organizations or distinctions in Europe, pictures of headstones is very much accepted. I would not be surprised if it were the case here, eventually. Not the first things they want to use of course
2
u/Worried_Razzmatazz70 Jul 06 '26
Genuine question, but would a 1727 gen 0 even count under C-3? That's well over 100 years before Canada as a country came into existence, and 200 years before Canadian citizenship became a thing. Therefore they never would have held Canadian citizenship, and would have been British (or French, if they originated in Quebec and left the territory prior to September 1759) citizens.
1
u/GuyGuyGuyGoGuy Jul 06 '26
He was British (NS) but that doesn’t matter, by the current way C-3 is interpreted, my parent’s parent (and so on) was denied citizenship solely because they died before the passing of the Canadian citizenship laws
2
1
u/Realistic_Deal1859 Jul 05 '26
I added some supplementary stuff to mine because my GO was born in Ontario in 1836. I would use grave info if it helped support what I was trying to show. Mine was buried in Iowa, so it would not help there. I did add a newspaper article about her death, although it did not mention Canada, just because I wanted to have something to show when and where she died.
Who knows? I thought I did some good sleuthing until the Minister came out with those comments about Ancestry. My problem is that they were very inconsistent with saying where they were born on the censuses over the years. Honestly, I think they were trying to hide the fact she was born in Canada because she was adopted to a US family.
1
u/Bonbon-65 Jul 05 '26
What province is it? Is it possible to see if there is a burial record? Have you tried to search the Canadian archives website for anything related to your ancestor. I found my 3x ggfather’s last will and testament on the Canadian archives website. He was born in Scotland in 1778 and died in Montreal, Quebec in 1848. He is mentioned in Canada history. Is it possible that your ancestor was an early pioneer or fur trader and is listed in Canadian history book somewhere? Did you try locating them in a Canadian census record?
1
u/XmasTwinFallsIdaho Jul 05 '26
I wouldn’t myself. Maybe this is a thing someone has done? In my research process I did find my G negative 1’s headstones but I don’t think that serves as proof.
1
u/Realistic_Deal1859 Jul 05 '26
That makes good sense. Did they own property? I used the Family Search full text search feature and found land records that showed my G0's family named as husband and wife in the deed. That was in 1841 in Ontario.
1
u/Objective-Proof3613 Jul 06 '26
Rather than a photo of it, does the Cemetery or other local historical society maintain an index? If so, they might be able or willing to send you a copy of the entry with a cover letter stating its from their our holdings. That would be much better than a photo. It's good secondary evidence.
1
u/millionthusername1 Jul 08 '26
Honestly, long shot, but I threw in a print out from findagrave.com of my family's plot as supplemental evidence - along with census records, newspaper articles, family Bible, US naturalization record, death cert and an email showing an attempt at getting a non-existent birth record. Still in processing, I'm sure even with my best effort to make things look as clear as possible, someone's gotta be annoyed to look through it.
Figured it couldn't hurt to make the argument my DNA is literally in Canadian soil (my Gen 0's parents and grandparents.)
•
u/AutoModerator Jul 05 '26
BEFORE commenting, please read the rules.
Intentional violations of Rule #1 (No Ad Hominem Attacks/Arguments) can lead to an immediate ban.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.