RootsChat.Com
England (Counties as in 1851-1901) => London & Middlesex Lookup Requests => London and Middlesex => England => London & Middlesex Completed Lookup Requests => Topic started by: jillruss on Thursday 17 April 08 15:03 BST (UK)
-
Can anyone help me track down this marriage?
It's from the IGI, and has one of those Batch Nos. (I011617) which doesn't have any source information but is not submitted by a LDS member, so you'd assume it was reliable.
Its:
19 Jan 1732 James Mitchell & Ann Dean
and just says 'London'.
This could possibly be a marriage I've been looking for, but it's impossible to say without more info. Is there any way of telling where in London the marriage actually took place because I'd really like to discover if there is any further information given in the original PR entry?
Jill
-
Can't help with that one, but looking at your list, hows about this from Boyds index.
1737 / TROUGHTON RIC /FRIDGE JANE / SEDBERGH /YORKSHIRE
1738 / HORWOOD JOHN / SMITH MARTHA / HORSLEY / GLOUCESTERSHIRE
-
Mean_genie knows quite a bit about the IGI batch numbers but I think you are going to be unlucky trying to track anything from the IGI which has a batch number beginning with I
http://www.rootschat.com/forum/index.php/topic,286510.15.html
'There isn't a great deal Hugh Wallis could do with the 'I' batches, because there are no descriptions for them whatsoever under 'Source Information', and the body of the entry usually just says London, or even worse, Westminster!'
The date is pre the start of Pallots index, so if Boyds don't have it and it wasn't a marriage by licence and therefore can be found in a marriage licence index (both on the Origins website) then it is going to be very difficult to track it down.
http://www.britishorigins.com/
Regards
Valda
-
I sort of thought that might be the answer, Valda, but thought I'd try anyway! ::)
I did a free search on British Origins and, of course, it came up with quite a few finds for James Mitchell, but I don't really want to pay a subscription just for one look up. Don't suppose there's a free site?
Suffolk*sue, thanks for the suggestions about 2 of my missing marriages.
I knew about the first one - Sedbergh - and , to cut a very long story short, I've had a bit of a run around with it. You know the way it goes, one RO has this bit of info but if you want to know this, then you'll have to contact another RO. Turns out, the parish record entry in Sedbergh has Richard from Kendal and Jane from (I can't remember off hand but it was somewhere very near Kendal) - which is where my Richard & Jane had their family. Problem is, the marriage licence index (at another office!) had Jane marrying someone completely different!! When I queried this with the various offices, they had no answer! ::) :-X As the marriage was a couple of years after the baptism of their first child in Kendal, it would perhaps have explained why they went off somewhere else to make it legal, but I really didn't know what more I could do to sort it out! :'(
And that was supposed to be the short version!! :-[
But the other suggestion for John Horwood and Martha is the right time - but it's a good 60 miles from where they had their family - in Wargrave, Berks. Still, it's the best possibility I've ever had so will investigate further. But...Smith!! Aghhhh!!
Thanks,
Jill
-
Jill, the woes of the family historian and yeah, SMITHHHHHH
Arrrrrrggggggggg.
:'( :'( :'(
-
After all that, Sue - I forgot to ask.
Does the Boyds Index give any more info on either of those marriages?
Thanks,
Jill
-
Thanks for the name-check, Valda!
Some of those inscrutable 'I' batches that just say 'London' turn out to relate to Fleet marriages. I have been able to identify some of them, but not others. I will have a look at my notes and get back to you. The date of 1732 is definitely the peak period for Fleet marriages. The batch also contains a few baptisms, which is not unusual for a Fleet register.
Mean_genie
-
After all that, Sue - I forgot to ask.
Does the Boyds Index give any more info on either of those marriages?
Thanks,
Jill
No thats all the info there was.
-
Thanks, Sue.
Mean_genie, funnily enough I was just thinking that this could be one of those dodgy Fleet marriages - the chap I'm sort of hoping it might be would only have been about 15/16 at the time, so perhaps dad didn't approve and they had to run away to get married. My chap was baptised in Eton, so not too far to run! ???
Jill
-
They weren't all dodgy (although please feel free to think the worst of your rellies if you want to!), but they were quick, cheap and convenient. Ironically, the records often give more detail than you get in ordinary parish church marriages - specifically, the groom's occupation.
The whole series of Fleet Registers in RG7 at TNA is currently being digitized and indexed by BMDregisters, but so far they haven't announced a likely release date. Frankly, I'm not surprised because this is a very difficult series to deal with, with many duplicated entries, and at least one register that has been proved to be a forgery. Apart from that, some of the films are unreadable so they will have to re-scan the originals.
Mean_genie
-
Jill
Your batch (I011617) covers the years 1721-1740, and contains a few baptisms as well as the marriages. The only Fleet Register covering exactly this period and also including baptisms is RG7/60, so that may be the one. If I get a chance I will check it for you.
Mean_genie
-
That would be much appreciated, Mean_genie. Will keep my digits crossed - especially if, as you suggested, it could give more info than normally. ;D
Jill
-
Jill
It's not RG7/60.
The batch may have been taken from one of the notebooks in the series (which duplicate many of the entries in the Registers), or more likely a collection of them, since there are over 2000 marriages in the batch. It's a really difficult series to make sense of, with all the duplications. Fascinating, but incredibly frustrating!
When BMDregisters finally get them online it will be possible at last to get some idea of the scale of the duplication - no one really knows how many marrriages are actually contained in the series because of this, and it's not even possible to make an educated guess.
One day...
Mean_genie
-
Thanks for trying, Mean_genie.
I keep going back to the BMD registers site to see if the Quaker records are available yet - but still, 'coming soon'! Will now add the Fleet records to my list.
They tell me patience is a virtue, so I am about to be very virtuous!! ::)
Everything comes to she who waits..... :-\
Thanks again,
Jill
-
Why don't you email LDS and ask them for the source of the batch? In my experience they normally reply to such queries within 48 hours.
-
Hi Sundridge, That's a very sensible suggestion of yours. However :'(
Many of us have done exactly that but the answers from the LDS have, as far as I'm aware, not been the slightest help at all.
Here's a thread which gives a flavour of the sort of 'response' one might expect:
http://www.rootschat.com/forum/index.php/topic=248384
Regards,
JAP
-
I've had a go and emailed LDS so will wait to see what the answer is. I'm sort of thinking that, if they had any source info they would have included it in the first place, but let's wait and see what they say. :-\
Jill
-
For what it's worth, here are some of the IGI batches that I have been able to tie up with identifiable Fleet Registers in The National Archives series RG7:
I025702
RG7/36 Marriages 1715-1717
RG7/37 Marriages & baptisms1715-1728
RG7/38 Marriages 1715-1728
I031177
RG7/153 Marriages 1735-1746
M140054
RG7/102 Marriages 1729-1735
RG7/103 Marriages 1729-1743
RG7/104 Marriages 1729-1732
M140055
RG7/107 Marriages 1730-1735
RG7/108 Marriages 1730-1731
RG7/109 Marriages 1730-1733
RG7/110 Marriages 1731-1731
M140058
RG7/121 Marriages 1732-1740
RG7/122 Marriages 1733-1754
RG7/123 Marriages 1733-1737
RG7/124 Marriages 1733-1735
RG7/125 Marriages 1733-1733
RG7/126 Marriages 1733-1734
RG7/127 Marriages 1733-1735
There are several other batches that I have identified as containing Fleet Register entries, but I have not been able to pinpoint them.
Mean_genie
-
Thanks, Mean_genie, that's helpful.
Well, at least I got a swift reply from LDS, but...I was sent what seems like a standard 4 page 'how to identify your batch no. and order your film' document, which is fine, except the batch no. I'm looking for doesn't have a film number so what was the point of that?
The covering email -
"The source for batch numbers that begin with a zero ("0") is a Temple Service Center entry, usually in the native language.
These entry forms sometimes show additional family information such as the parents' death dates, ages of spouses, or their parents' names. These forms may list the sources used to compile the data. They usually give the name and address of the submitter. You can use this address to try to contact the submitter. Most forms were contributed more than ten years ago, and the addresses may be obsolete.
This source is available on microfilm. For a small handling fee, the microfilm can be ordered and viewed at one of our Family History Centers near your home.
The "Source Call No." mentioned in the International Genealogical Index (IGI) is the microfilm number to order. You can find the submitted form on the source microfilm.
You will need the ordinance date, temple, batch, and serial number to find the entry form on the microfilm. This information is found on the Ordinance Index at most Family History Centers.
Each of our Centres are staffed by volunteers who are knowledgeable and happy to assist individuals. All have unique opening hours so do please be sure to telephone for their scheduled hours before you visit. Ask the staff about the services they have available for patron use. Resources at the Centre are free and for your information some also have equipment that can print a photocopy from a microfilm or fiche.
You can find the address of a family history centre near you on FamilySearch™ Internet:
1. Go to FamilySearch Internet (www.familysearch.org).
2. Click the Library tab.
3. Click Family History Centers.
4. Follow the instructions on the screen.
If you are looking for a specific family history centre and do not find it online, please contact us.
We do hope this information is of help."
Well, er, no - not really!! There's no source number!!! ::) ::)
Am I reading the first sentence 'Temple Service Centre entry' etc to mean that batch nos. starting with '0' are actually nothing more than entries submitted by an LDS member? Or have I got that wrong? I know it's supposed to be in English, but it's gobbledegook to me!! :-[
Jill
-
Jill
I'm not really surprised at the answer you got, I'm afraid!
I first noticed this problem in connection with some of the batches I have just listed (the ones beginning with 'I') where there is no Source Information apart from the batch number itself.
I have been told by two fairly senior LDS people that many of the most recent additions to the IGI are being entered like this (in the interests of speed, I guess). One of them works in the library at Salt Lake City and was able to confirm that the first batch I found was from the Fleet Registers only by ringing someone in the Library and getting them to look it up in an index that is only accessible to the staff there - and he knew exactly where to tell them to look, otherwise I doubt I would even have got that far.
Most of the other prefixes I have found are described in LDS guides, but there is nothing about 'I' batches. The most common are C and M, for baptisms and marriages, and I have listed a few M batches from the Fleet. These do have reasonable descriptions in the Source Information, but it is not immediately obvious that they are TNA references so I included them anyway.
Altogether there are more than 80,000 Fleet marriages in the IGI that I have identified so far, but there is no way of knowing how many of these are duplicates. My gut reaction and some unscientific research suggests that quite a lot of them are.
Mean_genie
-
If the LDS have the infomation in their own indexes, why don't they include it on the IGI? Of course, I'm forgetting that their primary raison d'etre isn't family history but to 'save' us all.
I'm just hoping that the BMD Registers site will be able to make sense of the Fleet entries - from what you say it sounds like a mammoth task. No wonder it and the Quakers are still 'coming soon'!! ::)
Jill