Offer: Derbyshire Parish records

[Dizzifish]

Hi Haff....

Re your comment: " I am not really familiar with IGI records - just wondered how reliable they are/how you can form view on their reliability etc."

My view on that is: The IGI is only a finding aid and the original record should be consulted to determine the entry as fact.It is a great tool to help find baptisms and marriages and help with ideas of other parishes as to where to look next etc, but you can't beat viewing the actual entry... and very often the original has extra info which is not in the index.

The IGI is a database of genealogical records by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latterly Saints and created to help track the temple ordinances for the deceased. Information comes from various sources, such as; records extracted from microfilmed birth & marriage records but also comes from "community contributed", which is personal family information which was submitted to the LDS. The community contributed stuff is known to have some dubious content!

I have revisited my previous posts and realise the William 8Th Oct 1837 - parents William & Mary.... is not the correct William.... his parents should of course be John & Mary and their William was born about 1836 and his baptism is not showing as taken place at Shirley....... 

Just out of interest the other William is with his parents here in 1851 = HO107/Piece2146/ Folio 89/Page 7 - Shirley, Derby's.

But.... the good news is, Derbyshire Record Office are in the process of digitising the parish records plus other things, such as workhouse records and the last I heard was, it's hoped they will be online, maybe in 2014 on a pay to view basis. I can't wait, then we can all be Derbyshire specialists!


Regards


Sheila.

[Haff]

Sheila,
many thanks for the insight on IGI records. Sounds like a good site if used carefully.
Good news re Derbyshire records being digitised.

Haff

[meercat]

I have the parish records for Shirley and quite a few baptisms and marriages are missing.
There is some banns and how many times they were read in there.Many of my relations are from
Shirley and I sent for a marriage that didn't appear in the parish records and they were married at Shirley Church so somehow missed out on the parish records.

Meercat.

[Dizzifish]

Hi Meercat....

Thanks for sharing that about Shirley registers.... someone else has told me that the marriage I found on the IGI and in the newspaper article was for the reading of banns and for some reason doesn't appear in the actual registers.

One Nottinghamshire parish register I frequent quite often,is known to have many omissions, between 1836 & 1847 the registers had been badly kept, with the vicar just copying stuff onto loose papers!  No wonder we can't find those elusive baptisms.


Sheila.

[Derbysderek]

Hi Meercat..as usual.an invaluable contribution..

Derek..(GenesReunited)

[Dizzifish]

Hi Haff,

I don't know if you have managed to get any further with the Maskrey family, but I did manage a very quick look at Shirley records.

The banns do appear and it does seem some marriages are missing for some reason; just not recorded at the time by the vicar....... just as Meercat said..

The banns were read : May the 6th;13th & 20th by W.A. Shirley. and both John Maskrey & Mary Adams were of the parish.


Sheila.

[brokentypewriter]

Hi Derek,

I am trying to find out more information on William Finney who married Mary Fox [FullwoodHall]
at Bradfield 13 July 1718.

Do you have these parish records and is there any further information about him?

I have lots on his descendants and lots on Mary Fox, but can't get any further back with him.
Cheers.
B.

[Jopeg]

Is there a Bradfield in Derbyshire as well as in Yorkshire? Or are they the same place? 

[Derbysderek]

I think it's one of those places that could never make up its mind which County it belonged to. Certainly it straddles the border..but Batch Numbers have it in Yorkshire with a whole series of Parish records, whilst there aare none in Derbyshire
But it appears, by Google, that both counties lay claim to it..........either way..the above marriage does not appear......