Genealogy Chat

There tend to be more females transcribed than males. The LDS claim this is because more females attend the Temples, implying that women transcribe females and men transcribe males. The moral of that story is if you can't find your g/g/grandfather, look for his sisters instead.

Not dumb at all, most of didn't know it either when we first started. One think I have found out about the IGI and only because my gg grandfathers brother went out to Salt lake city 1850 and his granddaughter Nellie was working in the Library when they first started the IGI before computers came along. 1910-1930. We had a book from your cousin Nellie to our g or grandparents and it was about Salt Lake city so we knew of the relations out there but not how. When we first started to look I kept finding no parents on christening but there was relative William or Daniel, then one day I found one with Nellie on, that when I realised they had written to relatives over here to get information but they didn't get the full answers (since confirmed by relative in Salt Lake that I have found). So they put down relative and their name. Even when they thought there was a relationship and there possible is not one (not for a 100 years or more) I may add they were in the same village from the 1500's. We now have letters that Nellie wrote to our relatives over here and gathered the information it does make interesting reading as there are letters my g grandparents wrote. They are now transcribing the parish records and like any it all takes time. You could try Hugh Wallis batch numbers, this gives the parish church in which you can hunt the surname only, this will give you some idea of others in that parish at the time. Another is if you want to find their children in the IGI is to put the mans name then only the mothers first name, (boxes on the right hand side of the page) give a 20 year search after the marrriage, click christening then the county, I try not to put parish unless there are to many as they could have moved around. But what ever you do never take it as correct only a guideline try and confirm by checking the records yourself and getting a copy to keep in your files. It does get very hard reading the early records as they didn't like to waste paper so they are not always in the right order, they would get to the end of a book and then go back and fill any little space. A nightmare for us researchers. Irene

I have noticed that where a baptism occurred a year or more after the birth, then quite often (but not always I guess!), the IGI has also recorded the age at baptism or even the date of birth. Also, some of the Ancestral file entries appear to be family groupings taken from censuses - with all the inherent inaccuracies in ages, etc included! Such entries can usually be spotted as all the family have just a year of birth, rather than full date.

I was born 1956,and baptised in 1975! so do not go by that lol

My gggrandfather was baptised along with his 6 siblings, the youngest 3mths at the time, the eldest 9. Batch baptisms...like that. I shall remember that for the next time I'm trying to explain things to my non-genealogy minded family! Lou xxx

Some Parish records are not included because the church concerned would not let the LDS scan them. Steve.

Elizabeth, Do remember that baptism is not the same as birth. Children could be baptised a year or more after they were born.

Thanks Heather & Brenda, it is pretty much as I thought. Whilst I have been happily filling up my family tree, I have taken nothing as gospel. I live a long way from the County Records Office in question, but I have certainly plenty to check when I can get back there. My last trip paid off, as my gg grandfather is in 1881 census as being 47, & checking the image on Ancestry, this was the age he had given. However, checking the parish records, he was actually baptised in 1833, & the 1841 census gives his birth a further year earlier.

IGI is a hotch-potch, added to over the years. You can see the source for each entry. These seem to be: 1) Transcriptions of registers 2) Submitted details from named individuals 3) Submitted details from unnamed individuals While 1) ought to be the most reliable, you do not immediately know whether ALL records have been entered, or whether the information comes from original registers. This is certainly not the case for Devon or Norfolk, where some entries are attributed to the wrong parish entirely as the transcripts of two different parishes have been put together. The IGI is useful as a pointer, but you should always check the original entries. And bear in mind that it does not (as a general rule) contain any deaths or burials. B

Tough one. Ancestral files are submitted by members, people like me or you, so not 100% reliable. The IGI has a mixture of submission and quality stuff taken from parish records. It will tell you which is which when you look at an entry. I think Parish records usually have a ref beginning with C0 at the end of the page. But as I say it will say if it is taken from records or submitted. I guess not all records have been transcribed yet. I have found a useful tip from someone on here that if you find one child, take the reference batch number and enter that in the search along with the childs name you have found and the parents names. From doing that I have found several siblings in the same batch of records.

Firstly, what is the difference between ancestral file & IGI? Second, how reliable are they? I know Pedigree file is taken from submitters details, but where do IGI & ancestry file details come from? Are they transcribed from parish records?Lastly, where do the details come from? How come some parishes are there, others not, some members of a family from a particular parish can be found, others are absent? Needless to say, I have found both invaluable for finding some people, but siblings are missing or details are sketchy. Can any one solve this conundrum?