RootsChat.Com
England (Counties as in 1851-1901) => England => Durham => Topic started by: ChicoChico on Monday 01 July 13 00:59 BST (UK)
-
Hi All – I am hoping someone can resolve an apparent discrepancy between the Gainford Parish Records and Bishop’s Transcripts for the same records.
According to Elliot Stock’s 1889 transcription / index of the Gainford Parish Registers “Index to the First Volume of the Parish Registers of Gainford, in the County of Durham: Part 1 Baptisms, 1560-1784”, pg 30, there is a “Clark (Clerk), Jane, d. John, Cletlam, 17 Dec., 1780.” (link to Google Book where I found the information: http://books.google.com/books?id=c_oVAAAAYAAJ&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q=%22clark%20(clerk)%2C%20Jane&f=false ).
However, when I looked up the same information in the Gainford Bishop’s Transcripts on FamilySearch, the entry is NOT there (however the preceding name from Stock’s index, “Clark(e), William, s. John, Langton, 16 Dec., 1780.” is listed both in the image from FamilySearch (Link to FamilySearch image: https://familysearch.org/pal:/MM9.3.1/TH-267-11882-114425-77?cc=1309819&wc=MMRX-Y4G:n1407643015 ). Nor is it on the following page (since the William entry is on the bottom of the page of baptisms: https://familysearch.org/pal:/MM9.3.1/TH-267-11882-114585-34?cc=1309819&wc=MMRX-Y4G:n1407643015 ).
Is it possible that an entry (Jane Clark) is in the Parish Register, but not in the Bishop’s Transcript? Or did Elliot Stock make an error in his work transcribing the parish registers? Any clarification one way or the other would be greatly appreciated. Thanks in advance.
Chico -
-
Given that both are transcribed from the original document it is entirely possible that there are errors in one or both and the only way to resolve it completely is to check the original document itself.
-
Given that both are transcribed from the original document it is entirely possible that there are errors in one or both and the only way to resolve it completely is to check the original document itself.
I learned that lesson the hard way having spent months searching Houghton le Spring records for someone. When I eventually looked at the original register rather than the BT I could see that the transcriber had muddled two entries and the one I wanted was Chester le Street!
-
You always have to bear in mind that there can be errors on any written document - even the original. I have the record from a parish register for the funeral of my father in 1969. It was written at the time by the priest who performed the service. It has a date that is a week 'before' Dad died :-), which is a tad previous but really would have made him smile.
When the Bishops Transcript was made by the vicar/parish clerk by copying from the original, mistakes could and did creep in.
Best we can do is check as many different versions available and then draw a conclusion based on the info as its presented.
Boo
-
This is why genealogists need to be aware of what they are actually viewing.
For instance if one views a transcript of a parish register one is viewing a second copy of the original.
The information being first recorded in a day book and copied to the register once a week.
Assuming the original contained the correct information still allows for two instances of errors to be made.
A transcript of a Bishop's transcript is a copy of a copy of another copy of the original day book. In other words three instances where errors could occur (assume correct information in the day book.
All transcripts should simply be used as finding aids rather than evidence.
Cheers
Guy
-
Guy's main point is correct, but I think he's a bit prescriptive about the number of copies:
For instance if one views a transcript of a parish register one is viewing a second copy of the original.
The information being first recorded in a day book and copied to the register once a week.
Assuming the original contained the correct information still allows for two instances of errors to be made.
A transcript of a Bishop's transcript is a copy of a copy of another copy of the original day book. In other words three instances where errors could occur (assume correct information in the day book.
In some parishes there clearly were day books, because they have survived, but at this distance it's not always possible to tell whether the Bishop's transcript was copied from the register or if that too was from the day book.
Where no day book survives, I don't think we can be certain that there ever was one - and in a small parish with only a handful of CMBs each year I think it's rather unlikely. It's also not certain that the Bishop's transcripts were always copied from the register. In one place I came across I'm pretty sure it was the other way round, with the BT as the first version, written up at the time of the events on loose pages, and the register as a copy of that, since a whole year had been written up very neatly in the same hand and with exactly the same pen and ink etc. (Typically I can't now remember where that was :-[)
As to the original question of what can be inferred from a discrepancy between the register and the BT, there are a few possibilities, such as:
(a) the extra entry was omitted by mistake in copying from one to the other (or from a day book)
(b) the first version omitted the entry by mistake, but this was realised and corrected in a later one
(c) the version with the extra entry was written up before the event, but for some reason it didn't take place, so the version with the omission is correct
... and probably a few more.
At this distance you can often only make a best guess as to the reason, but looking at the originals is always going to help. There may be clues in the handwriting, or in BTs, a note above the signatures saying what was copied from what.
Arthur
-
Thank you everyone for your input and observations. I guess I will have to find a way to view the original parish records. If anybody has any suggestions on that front, it would be appreciated as I'm not based in the UK (Note: I would love to go a visit in person, but budget is a consideration). Thanks. :)
Chico -
-
You can get copies of parish register entries from Durham County Record Office - see http://www.durhamrecordoffice.org.uk/pages/Copyingservice.aspx for full details, and elsewhere on the site there is information on the many useful sources they hold.
Alternatively, though it appears to offer transcripts rather than images, have a look at Durham Records Online - http://www.durhamrecordsonline.com/index.php I don't know whose transcripts they use, but if it was by a different pair of eyes, you might find something useful.
Arthur
-
Durham records online transcribe records themselves from parish registers and bishop's transcripts. According to their site the records they have for Gainford as mainly from the BT's.
Cheers
Jay
-
Arthur & Jay - Thanks for the additional feedback. I appreciate your help. :)
Chico -
-
snip
Where no day book survives, I don't think we can be certain that there ever was one - and in a small parish with only a handful of CMBs each year I think it's rather unlikely. It's also not certain that the Bishop's transcripts were always copied from the register. In one place I came across I'm pretty sure it was the other way round, with the BT as the first version, written up at the time of the events on loose pages, and the register as a copy of that, since a whole year had been written up very neatly in the same hand and with exactly the same pen and ink etc. (Typically I can't now remember where that was :-[)
snip
Arthur
Yes I agree Arthur, it is a point I have often made that some vicars or clerics took the opportunity to "tidy up" the register by using the bishop's transcripts as register pages and sending the original pages off to the Bishop to be archived. ;)
This example taken from "The Digest of the Parish Registers within the Diocese of Worcester previous to 1812 together with a Table of the Bishops’ Transcipts now in existence in Edgar Tower, Worcester previous to 1700" though outwith Durham exemplifies the problem with duplicated registers and transcripts.
"The Ipsley Baptism & Burial Registers for the years 1808 to 1812 have been copied from the Diocesan Registry as has the Hindlip Register for the years 1612 to 1737 ;
Volume 9 of the Bromsgrove Register contains duplicates of parts of Volumes 5 and 8 ;
Wolvery has an additional private register for the years 1678 to 1712 ;
Volume 4 of the Birmingham St. Martins contains marriage entries for the years 1753 to 1766 which are really an index of the marriages in volumes 9, 10 and part of 11."
I should also point out that Parish Registers were supposed to be compiled once a week on Sunday which in most cases a note book or day book would be kept to help the memory.
Cheers
Guy