IGI Batch C055181 - why oh why?

[KiteRunner]

Look at a few entries and you'll see what I'm wailing about. Why would anybody do that?

[Olde Crone Holden]

Kate

I have no idea! The only thing I can think of is that the print out was done quite some time ago, and the person doing the transcript had not been TOLD to include the parents, lol!

Or maybe the names are not actually on the BTs?

But I have to say - I have seen originals, very early on, where the Vicar did not always record parents names.

I do agree - a total waste of cyber space. Perhaps they will tidy up these sorts of anomolies when their new system is up and running?

OC

[Uncle John]

I blame the Bishop who did the original transcript.

[Christine in Herts]

I had a quick look. I can see what you mean. I suppose the DoBap is better than nothing...

I think it looks as if there had been a change of régime between 15 March 1786 and 21 May 1786. I think any from May 1786 onwards will have the parents' names. Any from March 1786 and before won't.

Christine

[Olde Crone Holden]

Thinking about this, I feel that it is miscatalogued as a C- number.

C- numbers are supposed to be Christening Records taken from original documents.

For a start, Bishops Transcripts aren't originals and printouts of Bishop's transcripts CERTAINLY aren't originals.

I suspect that this is quite an old document - 1970s or 80s, probably and I know (because I made the mistake once of ordering a print out instead of an original) that they hadn't quite got to grips with the format they wanted to use.

I suspect (but don't know) that some of these earlier print-outs were SUBMITTED by well-meaning people who had access to computers in those days, but had little interest in family history.

Also - it falls into a batch of records "extracted" from 14 different churches with very different locations - someone's magnus opus, perhaps, rather than a commissioned extraction?

Blimmin annoyin, whatever.

OC

[dicole]

Hi

It may be that it is a true copy of the register.

Have a look at batch C071351 for the TUPPER entries - there are no parents listed. But in this case, I have seen the original on microfiche.

This is what is written in the register for my g-g-g grandfathers entry -

"Charles, Charlotte and Thomas Tupper, baptised 1st March 1807"

That's all he wrote, I don't know if they were triplets or just baptised together. I estimate, from other sources, that Charles was about 3 years old, but don't know about the others.

Diane

[Anne in Carlisle]

I would have taken that one to mean that the parents were called Thomas and Charlotte :o But presumably you know that is not the case?

Anne

[Darksecretz]

I would have taken that one to mean that the parents were called Thomas and Charlotte :o But presumably you know that is not the case?

Anne

Me too.. thats how I would've read it

[Anne in Carlisle]

Thank goodness for that Julie - I nearly didn't post it in case I looked stupid. we may be wrong but we can be wrong together!!

Anne

[KiteRunner]

I disagree - it would be very unusual for the mother's name to be stated before the father's unless the child was illegitimate.

[JudithM]

I blame the Bishop who did the original transcript.

I'm sure Bishop's had many failings but we can't lay this one at the Bishop's door - BTs were transcripts made FOR the Bishop not BY the Bishop
I'm guessing either a vicar who just kept lousy records or quite likely by the time the vicar of clerk got to the point where he had to send in the transcripts to the Bishop he decided a brief list of the names of the children would suffice rather than copying out the whole entry.

[dicole]

Hi

Now there's a thought - I will have to go back and consult my notes I wrote that day and see the exact order of the names, although I did think it was Charles, Charlotte, Thomas. Perhaps Thomas and Charlotte were the parents, although I can find no record of them anywhere else. The only Thomas Tupper having children in Graffham at that time was Thomas Tupper who was married to Ann (nee Poat). Several of them are to be found in the census, but no Thomas junior or Charlotte.

Its a mystery !! But clearly, the register is at fault, here, not the IGI entry, so maybe the same thing happened in other registers. In fact, if I remember clearly, the whole part of the register for that time was pretty scrappy, not written neatly or in columns or lines. Perhaps after a little too much liquid refreshment late one evening ?

Diane