Dave Like you, I’ve a particular interest in Worcestershire. My wife’s father came from Badsey (and back for many generations before), and his mother came from Evesham, where her parents were married (at St Lawrence) in 1876. Joseph Knight and Minnie Clarke were married at Bengeworth in 1911 and Ancestry clearly has the original register for 1909-1927. But as for her parents' Evesham marriage . . . looking at the browse for post 1754 marriages there are ‘Parishes’ identified as “All Saints”, “All Saints and St Lawrence in Evesham”, “All Saints Evesham”, “Evesham” and “St Lawrence Evesham”. Selecting “Type” reveals that “All Saints” is BTs from 1813-1854 plus 1823 (why separate?); “All Saints and St Lawrence in Evesham” is BTs 1813-1825; “All Saints Evesham” is BTs 1813-1847; “Evesham” is BTs for 1826; and “St Lawrence Evesham” is BTs 1813-1827. Only “All Saints” would contain any post 1837 records and it’s interesting to see that both pre and post 1837 entries are effectively copies of the original registers. But if you hoped (as I did) to find a late 19th century marriage you’d be out of luck - so it always pays to ascertain the scope of the dataset you’re using. And while Ancestry provides a source ref for BTs there’s not one for the Bengeworth entry - but then the Worcester RO couldn’t give me one either - they’re still cataloguing!
I'm having similar location issues with Parish Registers from St Martin, Ruislip, Middlesex. Most are indexed as just 'England', with a few listed as 'Middlesex'. No excuse as in most cases at least 'Ruislip' is clear on the document.
Yes, several marriages from 1754 onwards for Worcestershire are from BT's whereas the original registers will have the names of the two witnesses. I find the witnesses names are fundamental as they were often relatives. Although you may find many were just friends, neighbours or parish clerks or church officials.
I've encountered this problem too. Awful! Generally, Ancestry needs to distinguish clearly between PRs and BTs. It's important for the user to know the difference!
Seems Suffolk, Berkshire, Buckinghamshire and Cumbria are like Worcestershire then, under represented on Ancestry and FMP. I know there are some on those sites but many are just transcripts. I have ancestors from Shipston On Stour which was an exclave of Worcestershire until about 1931. Ancestry needs to sort out their digitisation.
Dave
Like you, I’ve a particular interest in Worcestershire. My wife’s father came from Badsey (and back for many generations before), and his mother came from Evesham, where her parents were married (at St Lawrence) in 1876. Joseph Knight and Minnie Clarke were married at Bengeworth in 1911 and Ancestry clearly has the original register for 1909-1927. But as for her parents' Evesham marriage . . . looking at the browse for post 1754 marriages there are ‘Parishes’ identified as “All Saints”, “All Saints and St Lawrence in Evesham”, “All Saints Evesham”, “Evesham” and “St Lawrence Evesham”. Selecting “Type” reveals that “All Saints” is BTs from 1813-1854 plus 1823 (why separate?); “All Saints and St Lawrence in Evesham” is BTs 1813-1825; “All Saints Evesham” is BTs 1813-1847; “Evesham” is BTs for 1826; and “St Lawrence Evesham” is BTs 1813-1827. Only “All Saints” would contain any post 1837 records and it’s interesting to see that both pre and post 1837 entries are effectively copies of the original registers. But if you hoped (as I did) to find a late 19th century marriage you’d be out of luck - so it always pays to ascertain the scope of the dataset you’re using. And while Ancestry provides a source ref for BTs there’s not one for the Bengeworth entry - but then the Worcester RO couldn’t give me one either - they’re still cataloguing!
I'm having similar location issues with Parish Registers from St Martin, Ruislip, Middlesex. Most are indexed as just 'England', with a few listed as 'Middlesex'. No excuse as in most cases at least 'Ruislip' is clear on the document.
Yes, several marriages from 1754 onwards for Worcestershire are from BT's whereas the original registers will have the names of the two witnesses. I find the witnesses names are fundamental as they were often relatives. Although you may find many were just friends, neighbours or parish clerks or church officials.
I've encountered this problem too. Awful! Generally, Ancestry needs to distinguish clearly between PRs and BTs. It's important for the user to know the difference!
Seems Suffolk, Berkshire, Buckinghamshire and Cumbria are like Worcestershire then, under represented on Ancestry and FMP. I know there are some on those sites but many are just transcripts.
I have ancestors from Shipston On Stour which was an exclave of Worcestershire until about 1931. Ancestry needs to sort out their digitisation.
Excellent video. But do you think Ancestry pay any attention?
(Do you do FMP too?)
Looks like they possibly do...
twitter.com/Dave_Lifelines/status/1700159001227321656