RootsChat.Com
Scotland (Counties as in 1851-1901) => Scotland => Topic started by: Liviani on Sunday 18 June 17 16:19 BST (UK)
-
I've come across a few records in the OPRs on SP in my research that have this "FR" after the names?
Here is an example in a baptism record. There are two entries listed and they are as follows;
CLOUDSLY
GILES
ANDREW CLOUDSLY/ANNE AIR FR183 (FR183)
0
16/01/1785
286/
10 142
Farnell
CLOUDSLY
GILES
ANDREW CLOUDSLY/ANNE AIR
0
16/01/1785
286/
10 250
Farnell
In the second entry there is no "FR". I wonder why there are two listed here when the dates, names and location is the same?
Many thanks,
Jill.
-
'FR' is short for 'Frame'.
I am not 100% sure how this came about, but I do know that in the old International Genealogical Index, and also the old LDS indexes to baptisms and marriages, it means that the entry is out of chronological sequence in the original register.
When the registers were microfilmed by the LDS many years ago, each page was automatically assigned a frame number. Presumably when the contents were indexed, the indexers were told to add the frame number if any entry was out of sequence.
My understanding is that when the GROS first started to computerise their indexes, they used the indexes the LDS had already created. They have since corrected and modified them, and added more information, but occasionally an old piece of information will crop up.
So the FR numbers are only useful if you are trying to find an entry using a microfilm. If you are using the online system at Scotland's People, they have no use or relevance and can safely be ignored.
As for there being two entries with different numbers, this looks as if the parish clerk has forgotten that he had already recorded this baptism and made a duplicate entry, or he has written it down again because there was something extra to be added. You'd need to look at both to see if the later one is different.
-
Many thanks Forfarian. This is useful to know, so I'll just ignore these from now on.
I've looked at both images and apparently Giles is a girl. ;D I had wrongly assumed that this child is 100% male.
-
And here is the second image
-
Yes, Gil(l)es is often -usually - a girl.
So are Nicholas, Cameron, Gordon, Stewart and various others we would now think of as masculine names. That's one reason why it is important to look at originals!
-
Oh dear, I'll be there all day. lol
Incidentally it looks like 'Giles' died aged 21 in 1806 this time they are noted as 'Gillie'.
CLOUDSLY
GILLIE
-----
21
25/10/1806
308/
10 241
Maryton
-
Thanks for the explanation on the FR reference! I'd wrongly assumed it was a reference distinguish different pairs of parents with the same names! On the Giles name issues, it might be a spelling variant of Geilis?
-
Thanks for the explanation on the FR reference! I'd wrongly assumed it was a reference distinguish different pairs of parents with the same names! On the Giles name issues, it might be a spelling variant of Geilis?
Yes. Or any other spelling variant you can think of involving Gil*s (Gilaes, Gilas, Gileas, Giless, Gilesse, Gilias, Gilies, Gilis, Gilleas, Gilles, Gillins, Gillias, Gillies, Gillis, Gills, Gils, Gilsess etc etc) or a version of Gil*e or Gil*y.