Latter Day Saints genealogy

[Sloe Gin]

There you have it.  Back in the days of the BTs, there were probably incumbents just like him, but someone had to get something off to the Bishop.   So no doubt the church warden or parish clerk kept a separate record, and that would explain why the BTs are better in some cases.

[Lisajj]

Some vicars/curates had a bad habit of filling in the parish registers at the end of the year and went on memory and a few notes scribbled down!

I have always been very dubious of the IGI since I found my great gran on there with her parents, but no other family member what so ever!  There were details of their address in 1881, and at that time there would have been several other people living in the house.  And then when I acquired the correct data, they had entered my great grand mother's date of birth wrong.  However, it is a good site to use as a guide and to give some clues when you get stuck.

[Hampshire Lass]

All of these opinions could explain away a mystery on my tree.

I have an ancestor who married and christened her 5 children in Durham.

Via durhamrecordsonline I acquired the 5 respective baptism records and on the first the mother was entered as coming from Chatham. On the other 4 the entry says Chatton.

Chatham is in Kent and Chatton in Durham. I have never really known whether to accept the first entry as correct or the other 4! Am starting to think maybe the first one may be the correct record and I can in fact find a likely baptism for my ancestor in Chatham, but as I said have never really known whether to accept it or not.

[Redroger]

Remember there was significant economic migration in the UK during the 19th century. This may well be the reason your Chatham born ancestor finished in Durham, if indeed this is the right one.

[Hampshire Lass]

Yes, and both Chatham and the area in Durham and Northumberland she lived in were Maririner/Shipwright areas, so it is possible.

I cannot find a christening in Chatton but I can in Chatham.

However I wonder why the parish priest would say she came from Chatton for the christenings of her last 4 children.

[JenB]

However I wonder why the parish priest would say she came from Chatton for the christenings of her last 4 children.

Perhaps she said 'Chatham' (i.e. in Kent) and he thought she said 'Chatton' (in Northumberland). The names do sound very similar.

[Hampshire Lass]

Yes, that's just what I've always thought and so haven't put her parents on my tree. But if it was Chatham I can find parents. I'm too sceptical to claim that birth record though and there is no record of her in Chatton, having brought the CD from NDFHS.

[Ruskie]

Is there any mention of her place of origin on her marriage certificate?

Are there any clues in the names of the parents in the Chatham Kent birth/baptism?

Does she have any siblings you can trace - either in Kent or Durham? Did she move to Durham with her family - perhaps father got a mining job/seafaring job? Sometimes siblings followed each other to different areas of the country for work etc.

Have you looked for all records on the Familysearch Pilot site where you may be able see images of the original BT's (depending on coverage/dates etc)?

[barryd]

An example of human error in LDS data is in their records at their branch in Shincliffe, near Durham City. According to their records John Routledge and Elizabeth Birchley were married 11 February 1843, Gilesgate, Durham City. A check on Free BMD proved negative. Knowing the possible year and quarter and the Durham Registration District I did a John and Elizabeth only search in that year/quarter - Durham. The Registrar had entered them as John Rutledge and Elizabeth Birtley. Bearing in mind that the person entering the information into the LDS record book was probably an American Missionary struggling with the language and the Registrar (or Vicar) did not help.  The final outcome was that John Routledge married Elizabeth Birtley.