Confused ...

[LeicestershireLass]

https://familysearch.org/pal:/MM9.3.1/TH-1-12987-23120-41?cc=1824688&wc=6895276

At the bottom of this page is a marriage on 24th Dec 1794 ... I'd appreciate it if you'd take a look and let me know what you think the Groom's name is (the first two words of the bottom section).

This is the corresponding entry on freereg

http://www.freereg.org.uk/cgi/SearchResults.pl?RecordType=Marriages&RecordID=92670

What's the likelihood that they are 2 different couples?

Thanks

[LeicestershireLass]

I wonder if the parish clerk's mind was on other things ??? ... maybe his Christmas dinner or what present he was likely to receive!

https://familysearch.org/pal:/MM9.3.1/TH-1-12987-23036-52?cc=1824688&wc=6895276

[Janet in Yorkshire]

I'm confused too - but by the transcribers' actions!

I have a copy of the Phillimore transcription, which states the groom is Thomas Barrett widower.

However, having looked at the original in the PR, I think the entry is quite clearly Thomas Everet widower.

I know from experience that mistakes were made when copying up into the parish registers and the subsequent baptism seems to suggest that indeed an error was made in this case.
However, a transcriber is supposed to transcribe what was written in the original, unless it is totally illegible. There should have been a footnote in both the Phillimore publication and the Freereg entry reporting what was written at the marriage and also at the baptism; it is for the researcher to decide whether or not an error was made in the original entry, not the transcriber.

A contact of mine used the Fring registers many years ago before they were deposited at the record office and told me there were pages missing and some were illegible. I do sometimes wonder if transcriptions (like Phillimore) are used in such cases - nothing wrong with that, but in that case the second transcription should say "taken from as earlier transcription."

Jay

[LeicestershireLass]

However, having looked at the original in the PR, I think the entry is quite clearly Thomas Everet widower.

Hi Jay ... can only assume that Robt. Curtis, Churchwarden mistranscribed the entry when sending a copy of the parish registers to the Archdeacon ...

Have you seen the actual entry in the parish register?

The 1841 census + burials of Thomas and Mary confirm their name = Barrett

[maudarby]

https://familysearch.org/pal:/MM9.3.1/TH-267-12530-3618-77?cc=1416598&wc=MMVP-QMS:n1589150982

This is the original entry. Definitely Barrett.

Moggie

[LeicestershireLass]

Moggie - you are WONDERFUL

I definately need to improve my familysearch technique ...

[Janet in Yorkshire]

Ahh - your query & discoveries make sense now! I couldn't get your second family search link to open last night. It was late & I'd thought the BT return was the PR

Jay

[LeicestershireLass]

Ahh - your query & discoveries make sense now! I couldn't get your second family search link to open last night. It was late & I'd thought the BT return was the PR

Jay

I spent until midnight trying to solve it ... lol - thankfully it's now sorted!