Marriage Possibley Northill

[TangoDancer]

Hi there

That nasty but often useful IGI has me on the go again!

I am looking for a marriage of William Taylor and Sarah Barber (but could be Barker) on 2nd April 1730.  The place recorded is Yne Bedsfordshire, but there is no such place now, if there ever was.

They were both baptised in Northill so I am hoping that is also where they got married.

I know some kind soul has created an index of Bedford marriages, but don't know if it is available outside of the record office.  This might show an alternative parish for the marriage.

Thank you.

[rosie99]

The IGI entry is submitted not extracted       

From familysearch  https://www.familysearch.org/
Wm Taylor 
Sarah Barber 
Marriage Date 2nd April 1730 
Marriage Place: Northill,
Source Film Number: 599349, 826480 

Rosie

[bedfordshire boy]

There is an extracted entry on the IGI for a marriage at Northill on 2 Apr 1730 between the two parties named. It's also in the Northill transcript, both parties being of the parish of Northill.

I would describe the IGI, particularly for Beds, as being invaluable, rather than often useful - IF you accept it for what it is, an index, and use it appropriately, differentiating between extracted entries and member submissions. There are three entries for the marriage in question, all showing it to have taken place in Northill. The extracted entry being on 2 April 1730, the two member submissions as being on 2 Apr 1729. I can't see any entry where the marriage allegedly took place at Yne*

Rosie - I think the marriage you found is the extracted entry, not a member submission. It comes under batch number M00342-1 which are extracted.

David

* Found it now. Not in the IGI at all but in Ancestral File. Actually it does show in the IGI as well, at Yne$, Bedsford, but doesn't show if you restrict the search to Bedfordshire

[rosie99]

Rosie - I think the marriage you found is the extracted entry, not a member submission. It comes under batch number M00342-1 which are extracted.

Sorry I didn't make myself clear

The IGI record was submitted, the familysearch (new pages) was extracted 

I can't get used to the new familysearch (I have been doing this too long  though I must admit it is better as it omits those 'submitted' records.

[bedfordshire boy]

I hate the new sexed up IGI, and always still use the old IGI, member submissions, warts and all!

[rosie99]

I only look at the new one in desperation    I don't like the way the new one is set out. 

[TangoDancer]

Thank you very much for that.

Being a bit new to the what I have called IGI but actually shows up as Family Search and you also seem to have another name for I don't really understand what you are saying about extracted and submitted, so am doubly grateful to you for helping me out.

By the by, do you know if there ever was such a place as Yne because I have found a load of children on there as well showing the same place name for baptism, along with children baptised in Northill?  Otherwise any idea where it could have come from?

[bedfordshire boy]

It comes from garbage put on there by an LDS member.  I can't imagine what it could be a corruption of.

The familysearch site, at least the old part of it, is split into three: Ancestral File, Pedigree Resource File, and the IGI. The first two are members' trees and are as good as the research that's gone into them. To be used as guidance only to be checked with original records. The IGI can be divided into extracted entries, taken from parish registers, which are reliable, and member submissions, which as you've just found can range in quality from garbage/pure fiction to well researched. To find out which type of entry it is look in the Messages box on the Individual record page.

[[Ray]]

Maybe .....

Wiki says that Yielden's name was spelt a number of different ways since early days, including
Yueldene & Yeveldene.
Perhaps the transcriptor just took the middle part out?