|
Can someone please tell me if l024958 is a submitted file because there is nothing to say where if comes from.
I ask because I seem to have an extra marriage in February 1871 in Shrewsbury when the actual marriage took place in Stafford in March (I have seen the marriage record from there).
Could the earlier record be a listing of banns?
For anyone interested, the names are Edward Bissell and Sophia Farmer, and on the marriage record, Sophia's address is given as Shrewsbury.
Thank you
Hilary
|
|
Hi Hilary
My first thought is that the extra marriage might in fact be a Banns reading in either the bride or grooms parish
Sylvia
|
|
There are 2 of them on IGI. The second one with a date of 1 Mar.1871 is definitely an extracted record.
It's curious that the first one has the same couple but a date of 12 Feb.1871. It doesn't say whether it's extracted or submitted.
Marg
|
|
If there's anything less trustworthy than Ancestry's census transcriptions, it's IGI submitted records ...
In this case, the later dated record, in batch M010228, is an "extracted" record, so barring human error in the original or the transcription, it's accurate.
The earlier one may well be banns. I wonder whether the Mormon forms, for church members to submit their four generations or whatever, simply didn't have a category for banns reading, and someone who knew something about Sophia / Shrewsbury went looking there and found something that looked good enough ...
If you click on the batch number for the earlier entry, I024958, and search for Bissell, you get:
1. Mary Bissell - International Genealogical Index
Gender: Female Marriage: 03 NOV 1872 St Chad'S, Shrewsbury, Shropshire, England
2. Edward Bissell - International Genealogical Index
Gender: Male Marriage: 12 FEB 1871 St Chad'S, Shrewsbury, Shropshire, England
3. Isabelle Bizzell - International Genealogical Index
Gender: Female Marriage: 13 SEP 1891 St Chad'S, Shrewsbury, Shropshire, England
4. Sarah Bissell - International Genealogical Index
Gender: Female Marriage: 11 DEC 1860 St Chad'S, Shrewsbury, Shropshire, England
If you do the same for the "official" batch, which covers 1861-1876, you get only Edward's marriage. The 1872 Mary marriage isn't shown. Oh, well, that would be because they're for two different places.
The "official" batches for St. Chad, Shrewsbury, Shropshire, don't cover the time period in question:
http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/
~hughwallis/IGIBatchNumbers/CountyShropshire.htm#S
-- but hang on, these are periods covered by the GRO.
And that index shows:
Name: Edward Bissell + Sophia Farmer
Year of Registration: 1871
Quarter of Registration: Jan-Feb-Mar
District: Stafford
County: Staffordshire
Volume: 6b
Page: 28
and nobody else remotely resembling.
If you know for sure that Sophia came from Shrewsbury, then it seems quite likely that the earlier date does refer to the banns reading.
Aha. The other three marriages in that unexplained batch I024958 match up in the GRO with:
Name: Mary Bissell
Year of Registration: 1872
Quarter of Registration: Oct-Nov-Dec
District: Atcham
County: Montgomeryshire, Shropshire
Volume: 6a
Page: 1292
Name: Isabella Birrell (correct per image)
(there ya go, not even transcribed correctly in the IGI)
Year of Registration: 1891
Quarter of Registration: Oct-Nov-Dec
District: Atcham
County: Montgomeryshire, Shropshire
Volume: 6a
Page: 1345
... and for Sarah Bissell, hmm. There's a Charles Wilkes in Q1 1861 in Wolverhampton on a 3-groom 2-bride page, and I don't find the missing bride as being Sarah Bissell on a quick search. Banns but no marriage?
... I was about to say: and no Charles + Sarah Wilkes in the 1861 census at Ancestry. Until I spotted Charles + Thomas Wilkes in Wolverhampton. But she's Phoebe, and she has many children. So don't know what happened to that fourth couple.
That's my long-winded non-answer! -- I agree with Sylvia. ;)
|
|
Thank you for your input. I am just hoping there is an index to the batch numbers to say whether they are extracted or submitted.
I tend to agree that the l0 batch listed here is for banns, but it is not at all clear that it is submitted, and could confuse people. It is a large list as well - 400 entries for A and B surnames
Kathryn, you have done a lot of checking for me - many thanks - I had already got the genuine Mary B marriage, and Sarah married in Stafford in 1769. If the Shrewsbury list was a banns list perhaps one or both of them changed their minds. There is nothing on GRO for her at that date in Shrewsbury.
|
|
Found something.
Sequence goes like this:
http://www.familysearch.org/Eng/Library/FHLC/frameset_fhlc.asp
- click Place Search
- search for Shrewsbury
- select England Shropshire Shrewsbury
- select Church Records - Index
- select the St Chad one
and it says:
Batch nos. C01575-1, 2, 3, 4 and M01575-1, 3, 4.Extracted from microfilm copies of parish registers and bishop's transcripts on film nos. 0503526-0503528, 0908235 it. 3 (v. 15), 0908236 (v. 16-17) or book no. 942.45 B4sL v. 15-17.
Nothing about that batch number of yours.
So ... I didn't find anything. But that could be the answer. ;)
Oh, here we are. Googled for
igi "batch numbers" "start with"
and it turns out Hugh Wallis does address it:
http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~hughwallis/IGIBatchNumberFAQs.htm#OtherSeries
Q. I've found batch numbers starting with A (or F, I, L, T etc.) Why are they not on this site?
A. Reviewing batches starting with A, F, I, L and T[,] I find that these are all LDS patron submitted or church member related batches and so not part of the Controlled Extraction Program. In keeping with my stated policy of not including batches which are not part of this program, you will not find them on this site. You may notice some T series batches that I have included - these were done before I was aware they were not part of this program and so I don't plan to remove them since people may have already become used to having them around!
There ya go, more or less!
|
|
Hello Kathryn,
Thank you for your time and effort to solve my problem. It is much appreciated.
Hilary
|
|
Hi
Will just add here that I have a marriage in my tree for which I have the certificate so know the details are correct.
The IGI however have an extracted entry which match on the mans name, the date and the church but have married him to someone else.
Geoff
|
