scotlandspeople v IGI

[capricorn]

Hi Ros, I'm also finding this very interesting, there is always something new to learn all the time with this hobby.
             JAP and ibi, your postings made great reading and I'm sure a lot of people, including myself, (and me a Scot )have learnt a great deal from them.

Liz

[ibi]

Hi Liz and Roz

A note of appreciation is always welcome !!

Thanks.

ibi

[Boongie Pam]

This has been my experience as well, and not just for Scotland.  I have lines born there and elsewhere where only sons are listed and all the daughters are not, or vice versa.

I haven't come across any males-only batches myself (though perhaps some families might have bothered to baptise only the boys!) but females-only batches (i.e. where only the females have been extracted into the online IGI from a church register which contained the normal mix of boys and girls) certainly occur in England as well as in Scotland.  And seem to be increasing there with 'I' birth/baptism batches.  'I' batches (there are 'I' marriage batches also) are increasingly coming online and are clearly extracted from church records - but give no information as to their source.
<snip>
JAP

I'm plagued with female only batches unfortunately.

Examples are...

C118124 for Annan
C118144 for Canonbie
C118395 for Langholm

I could go on.  It features in many many Dumfriesshire parishes for the first half of the 1800s.

It certainly isn't that the records are not there - I'm well acquainted with the films.  It is definitely a quirk in the extraction for publication.

I've tried to find the answer through the IGI but no answer was forthcoming.

I also found what looked to be teh male births in Annan submitted by a member.  I've trid to find out if this was submitted by a person or body of people to "fill the gap" but again no luck.

Pam
  

[JAP]

Hi Pam,

Just so you know that you are not alone, there are some parishes where people are not just plagued with females-only batches but where all the pre-1855 batches are females-only.  Here are just a few examples of some more Scottish females-only batches - and somewhere I have notes about lots of English ones too!

Straiton Ayrshire - C116172 1644-1746; C116176 1646-1819; C116174, 1746-1821; C116175, 1819-1854

Kirkmichael Ayrshire -  C116002 1636-1819; C116004 1820-1855

West Kilbride Ayrshire - C116202 1691-1819; C116204 1819-1854; C116205, 1692-1796/1820-1855

Lanarkshire: Wiston and Roberton - C116602, 1689-1819; Old Monkland - C116524, 1820-1846; Glasgow - C119752, 1843-1846; C119671, 1829-1830;  C119672, 1837-1840;  C119673, 1846-1850.

And here's a really odd one where the discrimination wasn't quite complete; Auchinleck Ayr, C115772, 1693-1870 - where, in nearly 1400 entries, there are about 200 males.

And here's a females-only English 'I' batch: Sheffield, Yorkshire - I008159.

The only response I have ever seen from the LDS is as follows:
"Under certain circumstances, we perform extractions that meet particular criteria.  The situation you mentioned is one of these, and we extracted only one gender.  There is no need to make corrections to this information."

From other lists I have gathered that even LDS people in charge of big Family History Centres haven't been able to get answers from Salt Lake City!

Cheers,

JAP

[Ninatoo]

Wow thanks for the infor, everyone....at least it makes sense now why some of my families have members not listed at the IGI, but are there in the censuses.  And I never considered that the reason I cannot find my Corrs is because they were Catholic!

So....if we go to our local LDS libraries, there will be more and better sources of information, is that correct?  I hope so, as I am going tomorrow.

Nina

[awebster]

Following this line of enquiry, I have just been informed by a very polite gentleman that my ancestor in Muckairn parish, Argyll, did not exist. Eh, hello?
This poor fellow was under the misapprehension that everything appearing on the LDS Family Search site was the gospel truth, and that if your ancestors weren't there, then they didn't exist....
Sorry, chaps, but ...I don't think so!
As JAP says, make use of the Familysearch site because it's free, but be very aware that - like most records - there are large gaps.

Augustus

[ibi]

Following this line of enquiry, I have just been informed by a very polite gentleman that my ancestor in Muckairn parish, Argyll, did not exist. Eh, hello?
This poor fellow was under the misapprehension that everything appearing on the LDS Family Search site was the gospel truth, and that if your ancestors weren't there, then they didn't exist....
Sorry, chaps, but ...I don't think so!
As JAP says, make use of the Familysearch site because it's free, but be very aware that - like most records - there are large gaps.

Augustus

Hi Augustus !!

To put it mildly, - ROFL !!!!!!..........

As you very correctly comment - "Eh!? ... Hello there !?"

While the LDS indexes of the Established Church of Scotland Old Parochial Registers ("OPR") are a fantastic resource for researchers with Scottish ancestry, the limitations of IGI, at times "severe", must be understood.

Never mind the numbers of Scots, sometimes only a few, but sometimes a lot, - see any of many www sites that you will find via Google in relation to the "The Disruption, as well as earlier dissenting congregations.

ibi

[ciorstag72]

"I understand that there is a project by the National Archives of Scotland to transcribe other surviving Registers but whether that will happen in the foreseeable future is another matter!"

Unfortunately, this is not the case, but I do know that the National Archives of Scotland are currently digitising Kirk Session records and are devising an index for them.  To transcribe them all would be an impossibly long task - indexing will be bad enough!   They have a band of volunteer indexers trying out their index template and may be looking for more volunteers in future.
There is a project on the go between Scottish Archives Network (SCAN), National Archives of Scotland (NAS), and Genealogical Society of Utah (GSU) to digitise and index the kirk session records in series CH2 and CH3, these being the sessional records of the Established Church of Scotland and some Free kirk congregations.

It's a while since I heard about progress, but, previously it was anticipated that the project would take between 4 and 5 years.


The good news is that the digitisation part of the project is ahead of schedule but as you might imagine an index will take quite some time. 

[Loquitur]

Could someone supply the IGI online search database link.? Many thanks