Unconfigured Ad Widget

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Strange recordings in parish records

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Strange recordings in parish records

    How I wish all vicars/parish clerks wrote 'extra' details in their records, it would certainly make it easier to research our ancestry.

    15 Jul 1609 Robt Warre & Eliz Watson [were married] : and it rained almost all that day (being St Swithin's Day) and 6 weeks after so that we had 8 great floods in August following: water so cheap* and malt so dear

    and


    3 May 1609 [Burial of] John Williams - a poor maimed man conveyed in carts from town to town from Chelmsford in Essex to Staffordshire died in Desborough and was buried there

    and


    20 Nov 1631[Burial of Thomas Alderman, aged 18 months]: Thos s John Alderman; whose mother drowned herself of a Friday night
    Foxyloxy

  • #2
    Yes, I've also seen some marvellous (and really helpful) detail in the margins - yet another reason to look at the original record, as these marginal notes are very rarely transcribed.

    OC

    Comment


    • #3
      There's some awful ones in Hawkshead 1577 "pestelent sicknes in or pishe wch was brought in by one George Barwicke" Then the burial of poor old George Barwicke "Wch brought in the sicknes"

      Comment


      • #4
        I read an image of a parish record which recorded an earthquake in the north west. I discovered that there was someone researching eth history of earthquakes etc in eth UK who was delighted to have another such piece to add to his research "jigsaw".

        Christine
        Researching: BENNETT (Leics/Birmingham-ish) - incl. Leonard BENNETT in Detroit & Florida ; WARR/WOR, STRATFORD & GARDNER/GARNAR (Oxon); CHRISTMAS, RUSSELL, PAFOOT/PAFFORD (Hants); BIGWOOD, HAYLER/HAILOR (Sussex); LANCASTER (Beds, Berks, Wilts) - plus - COCKS (Spitalfields, Liverpool, Plymouth); RUSE/ROWSE, TREMEER, WADLIN(G)/WADLETON (Devonport, E Cornwall); GOULD (S Devon); CHAPMAN, HALL/HOLE, HORN (N Devon); BARRON, SCANTLEBURY (Mevagissey)...

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Christine in Herts View Post
          I read an image of a parish record which recorded an earthquake in the north west. I discovered that there was someone researching eth history of earthquakes etc in eth UK who was delighted to have another such piece to add to his research "jigsaw".

          Christine
          Oh wow it is normally the cleric/clerk being non-PC about the parishioners or like last week I was scanning through some Co Durham PR images and noticed the less than nice comments in the margins just about each and everyone, he had something not so nice to say about, followed by a couple of full pages where he wrote an account and named parishioners about feeling tyrannized and in fear for his life....... maybe the parishioners had read his comments
          Foxyloxy

          Comment


          • #6
            It's always worth a look right at the end of the record as well, because sometimes the back few pages were used to record all sorts - in one case, the astonishing (to me!) list of pupils at the free school set up in the village in 1701!

            Another rather scrappy parish record suddenly had two pages of closely written Latin which someone else kindly translated for me. Turned out the vicar had been "ill" (Alzheimer's?) for many years but all attempts to have him replaced had been rebuffed by the Bishop.. Most of the records for the previous ten years or so were either incomplete or completely fictitious......

            OC

            Comment


            • #7
              I have one of OHs' where the BT corrects the PR and gives half the family tree to back up his statement. That was rather a nice find.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Harrys mum View Post
                I have one of OHs' where the BT corrects the PR and gives half the family tree to back up his statement. That was rather a nice find.
                Had a similiar experience, early on I researched a line which had been difficult my great grandfather began his life with one full name and ended it using another, lived with his grandparents from the age of 1 year, yet his parents went on to have a family who all remained in the group and they stayed married and together into their 80s. So I had all his parents siblings and it was only on getting a will of his Uncle that he named a married sister I had no knowledge of at all, yet I had researched the fiche of the PRs, another interesting thing was her surname was my great grandfathers 'taken' first name...so back to the records office to see the PRs, couldn't find anything about 'Ann' so I asked for the real records and looked on them, again found no mention of her name, speaking to the archavist she suggested I look at the BTs, not convinced but I agreed and did and found her, then compared the PRs with the BTs and every single time her name was in a BT... in the PRs there was a ink spot, page tear or page crease 'removing' her name....... more research later I found my great grandfather for some time was parish clerk and so had access to all the PRs, but of course not the BTs which had already been sent........... my conclusion after many years researching is in records the man his mother married is his father, I think his aunts husband was his father, only DNA will tell me for sure ...so I have two paternal researched lines for him, one that I think is true and one that records say is true.

                My 'suspicions' were further arroused when I recieved a photo from a researcher showing this man, his son and him, they look so much like my great grandfathers, grandfather, uncle and cousin, but images, marked PRs, name changes and suspicions don't count in this game............. even him marrying twice and writing down his grandfather on one and his uncle on another on the 'father' column, yet his birth and baptism record shows 'his fathers' name who was still alive on both marriages.
                Last edited by foxyloxy; 07-07-13, 10:40.
                Foxyloxy

                Comment


                • #9
                  Foxy

                  I have a similar thing in my tree, one of my 2 x GGPs, fifth child of ten, no reason for me to suspect anything. I got his BC, everything as it should be. All ten children were baptised in the same church. This was on the old IGI and eventually I got around to checking the actual PR. nine of the ten children were on it, MY man wasn't! I checked and rechecked, nothing. Very puzzled, I also looked at the BTs and there he was - illegitimate son of another family member.

                  For reasons best known to themselves, whoever transcribed the PR for the LDS, added a fictitious baptism for my 2 x GGF, to make him look respectable I suppose. His "parents" actually his aunt and uncle, registered his birth as if he were their own child. They had had a child a month or so before his birth, a girl who had died (baptised and buried in the PR). My 2 x GGF's mother died in childbirth.

                  All of which makes me very wary about everything, particularly transcribed records.

                  OC

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Olde Crone Holden View Post

                    For reasons best known to themselves, whoever transcribed the PR for the LDS, added a fictitious baptism for my 2 x GGF, to make him look respectable I suppose.
                    OC
                    Don't quite see how they could have done that. Each entry is indexed by two people and arbitrated by a third; and all of them strangers to each other. Is it possible, perhaps, that one entry was in the original ledger and the other was omitted from the Bishop's Transcript?
                    Always looking for Goodwins in Berkshire.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      STG

                      Many PRs were transcribed many years ago by volunteers who were unsupervised and no one ever checked that their extractions were correct. It is only in the last ten years or so that a programme of controlled extraction has taken place with double keying.

                      I used to attend my local FS centre weekly and the manager there told me that she never transcribes illegitimate births out of sensitivity to "local people".

                      OC

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        getting me paranoid now!

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          STG has given me an idea though - I haven't looked at this family for many years and it will be interesting to see if the false entry is still on the FS site, or whether their new broom really has swept clean, lol. (I HATE the new LDS site, cannot fathom it out at all, so I may be gone some time....)

                          OC

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            I'm with you OC. I hate the new site and can't find anything. At least with the old site, I could work my way around it, even if half the records were false........well, mine were anyway...lol

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Oh, I have been on there for nearly an hour and found next to nothing! I haven't found either the real or the false baptism, even though the relevant registers are SUPPOSEDLY on there. Searching by batch number brings up only two of the siblings - one of them is on there FIVE times with exactly the same information...........................

                              Like Libby, I used to know my way round the LDS backwards and knew how to interpret what I found (and how to search effectively). Yesterday, I was searching for someone born in Scotland. Putting in SCOTLAND as the country of search brought me no results, removing that as a search term brought me thousands of results, many of which were in Scotland....


                              OC

                              Comment


                              • #16
                                it is annoying. i was looking for records in richmond yorks yesterday, and towns like gilling or marske, both near richmond. getting no results. put in just yorkshire and all the hits came up, gilling by richmond, marske near richmond, richmond itself. annoying.

                                they used to have french and mauritian records up there too. now i can't see any. wonder if the french stuff was removed because it's all (or being) digitised by the departments already.

                                Comment


                                • #17
                                  I too find the FS site frustrating, but when I know the actual parish, I seem to get better results from FS if I go via www.dustydocs.com.
                                  Always looking for Goodwins in Berkshire.

                                  Comment


                                  • #18
                                    Originally posted by SmallTownGirl View Post
                                    Don't quite see how they could have done that. Each entry is indexed by two people and arbitrated by a third; and all of them strangers to each other. Is it possible, perhaps, that one entry was in the original ledger and the other was omitted from the Bishop's Transcript?
                                    That is likely what happened, BT transcription but it isn't always the way with the IGI, donations could be sent in which are not checked and were added, some counties IGI are better than others I have found the same person, same parents, same date with a different village put in on several occassions in one County in particular......one was true the other "seemed to me" to make up the numbers that were sent in
                                    Foxyloxy

                                    Comment


                                    • #19
                                      Originally posted by kylejustin View Post
                                      it is annoying. i was looking for records in richmond yorks yesterday, and towns like gilling or marske, both near richmond. getting no results. put in just yorkshire and all the hits came up, gilling by richmond, marske near richmond, richmond itself. annoying.
                                      Yes noticed that too I have ancestry from that area, took me a while to realise that is it possibly because of Durham, Yorkshire border changes;D...somedays I am better than others, quicker on the up take, other days I shouldn't be let out on my own
                                      Foxyloxy

                                      Comment


                                      • #20
                                        I should have said...the only reason anyone could have had for putting a false baptism on the record would be because they were related to my 2 x GGf - why else would they either know or care to falsify a record? Only a family member would have known that my 2 x GGF was a cuckoo in the nest, lol.

                                        Still trying to find my original notes on this, my computer is playing up and I keep getting thrown off this site...

                                        OC

                                        Comment

                                        Working...
                                        X