Welcome, Guest. Please login or register for free.
Did you miss your activation email?
Monday 23 November 09 10:03 UTC (UK)
Welcome Home Help Surnames Library Shop Search Login Register

+  RootsChat.Com
|-+  Beginners
| |-+  Beginners
| | |-+  IGI v Family Search COMPLETED thanks
« previous next »
Pages: [1] Print
Author Topic: IGI v Family Search COMPLETED thanks  (Read 515 times)
Anny
RootsChat Extra
**
Posts: 39


Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk


IGI v Family Search COMPLETED thanks
« on: Monday 22 June 09 05:46 UTC (UK) »

I have a Jane Renshaw Clay shown as being Christened on 23 December 1828 in Grantham, Lincoln, England on the IGI records but is shown as being Christened on 19 Dec 1829 in Grantham, Nottingham, England on the Family Search site with same parents.  How do I know which is correct? Has anyone encountered this before or am I misreading something? 

Anny
« Last Edit: Monday 28 September 09 03:31 UTC (UK) by Anny » Logged
bikermickau
RootsChat Senior
****
Posts: 452



Re: IGI v Family Search
« Reply #1 on: Monday 22 June 09 06:18 UTC (UK) »

I suggest go to the Source and see what is on it. ie Original Parish records

A Grantham in Nottingham does not seem correct to me.
Logged

Jeffs - Northamptonshire to Leicestershire to Queensland, Australia
Lewis - Gloucestershire to NSW & Queensland, Australia
Mary Jones, Daughter of James and Eliza - born abt 1864 Staffordshire, married 1883 London to Queensland, Australia
Dorans - Ireland to Scotland to Queensland, Australia
Reedy - Ireland to NSW & Queensland, Australia
Bradbury (False name?) - Oxfordshire to Queensland, Australia
bearkat
RootsChat Marquessate
********
Posts: 3876


Census Info. is Crown Copyright, from www.national


Re: IGI v Family Search
« Reply #2 on: Monday 22 June 09 06:19 UTC (UK) »

The IGI is part of the family search site.

The IGI 1828 record is 'extracted' so is from a parish register entry.  Some records are 'submitted' and are a result of people's research which may not be accurate.  The Grantham, Nottingham entry is submitted.

Any part of Familysearch needs to be used as a finding aid.  There is no substitute for checking original records which may also contain additional information.

Logged

Middx - VAUS, ROBERTS, EVERSFIELD, INMAN, STAR, HOLBECK, WYATT, BICKFORD, SMITH, REDWOOD
South Stoneham, Hants - SMALL, HAMMERTON, GRIST, FRYER, TRODD
Beaulieu/Boldre, Hants - WOODFORD, CROUTEAR, BECK, BENDELL, KEEPING, HARDING
Kent - BAYLY, BORERr, MITCHELL, PLANE, VERNON, FARRANCE, CHAPMAN, MEDHURST, LOMAX, WYATT
Devon - TOPE, BICKFORD, FOSTER
YKS - QUIRK, McGUIRE, BENN
Nott/Derbs - SLACK
Hert - BARNES
L'pool- PLUMBE
Anny
RootsChat Extra
**
Posts: 39


Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk


Re: IGI v Family Search
« Reply #3 on: Monday 22 June 09 06:46 UTC (UK) »

So you mean that the info on Family Search has just been submitted by other people and we don't know if they actually verified the info? Thanks to you both for clarifying it for me.

Anny
Logged
heart247
RootsChat Extra
**
Posts: 19


Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk


Re: IGI v Family Search
« Reply #4 on: Monday 22 June 09 08:34 UTC (UK) »

Both dates for Jane Renshaw Clay are in the IGI which is a section in familysearch.
19 Dec 1829, Grantham, Nottingham, England came from someone's submission w/o any source ref.
23 Dec 1828, Grantham, Lincoln, England came from Church extracted parish records.

Grantham, Nottingham and Grantham, Lincoln are both listed as "Grantham, Lincolnshire, England" and can be considered the same.

It is very likely that she was born 19 Dec and christened 23 Dec 1828.
It is possible the 1829 came from an assumption from a census record. She was listed in 1841 and 1851 censuses.

there is verified and UN-verified information in the IGI and other parts of family search.

click on the source info, details or numbers to find out where the information came from. You can find out if it was submitted information with sources or just submitted. - hope this helps
Good Luck Smiley
Logged
Nick29
RootsChat Aristocrat
******
Posts: 2865



Re: IGI v Family Search
« Reply #5 on: Monday 22 June 09 09:14 UTC (UK) »

The IGI is not a genealogical database - it is a record of those who have been baptised (usually posthumously) into the Mormon faith.  The records are kept as accurate as possible to accurately identify individuals, but it is not a genealogical organisation.  The LDS church generously allow their records to be viewed by those outside the LDS church, but you need to be aware of the purpose of the record keeping.

Logged

Best Wishes, Nick.

Research interests:
Field - Luton & Islington
Hole - Somerset, Suffolk & Surrey
Farnish, Parker, Cattermole, Last, Wasp, Church - Suffolk
Lewin/Lowin/Lowen - Hertfordhire
Martin - Eltham & Greenwich, Kent (London)
Stead - Greenwich, London (Kent) & Maidstone
Wood - Hertfordshire

Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
Sylviaann
RootsChat Aristocrat
******
Posts: 2853


Isabella Barette


Re: IGI v Family Search
« Reply #6 on: Monday 22 June 09 09:46 UTC (UK) »

Annie if you go to your nearest LDS centre you will be able to order the film of the parish register for a very small fee.  Then you will be able to view it on microfilm or microfiche.

Nick29  The mormons were able to film the parish registers on the understanding that they would allow anyone to view the records, so not that generous.

Sylviaann
Logged

Census information is Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
Norfolk: Gooch, Loveday, Lake, Betts
Suffolk: Gooch, Crosby, Turner
Hampshire: Laws, Burrows
Kent: Beer
Jersey: Barette, de Gruchy
East London: Middleton, Gower, O'Farrell, Smith, Weston
Anny
RootsChat Extra
**
Posts: 39


Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk


Re: IGI v Family Search
« Reply #7 on: Tuesday 23 June 09 05:44 UTC (UK) »

Thanks to you all for explaining the differences about these sites.  Will stick to info from original docs only and just use the others as means of finding the originals. 

Anny
Logged
c-side
RootsChat Veteran
*****
Posts: 570


A new generation - my great grandson 11-09-09


Re: IGI v Family Search
« Reply #8 on: Tuesday 23 June 09 18:14 UTC (UK) »

That's the only proper way to do it, Anny, but these sites are very useful, particularly when a rellie goes missing - and they frequently do!

Any transcribed information is suspect - simply because transcribers are only human and can make mistakes or mis-read a name/date.

Christine
Logged
stonechat
RootsChat Aristocrat
******
Posts: 1575



WWW
Re: IGI v Family Search
« Reply #9 on: Tuesday 23 June 09 18:34 UTC (UK) »

Be sure when you find something in the IGI check whether it is an extracted record (good) or a patron submission (suspect)
Bob
Logged

Douglas, Varnden, Joy(i)ce Surrey, Clarke Northants/Hunts, Pullen Worcs/Herefords, Holmes Birmingham/USA/Canada/Australia, Jackson Cheshire/Yorkshire, Lomas Cheshire, Lee Yorkshire, Cocks Lancashire, Leah Cheshire, Cook Yorkshire, Catlow Lancashire

NOTE I have moved my website to http://www.cotswan.com
Anny
RootsChat Extra
**
Posts: 39


Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk


Re: IGI v Family Search
« Reply #10 on: Wednesday 24 June 09 05:38 UTC (UK) »

Thanks again for all the tips and help that I've received with this query it"s very much appreciated.

Anny
Logged
Pages: [1] Print 
« previous next »


[Copyright] [Shrink Link] [About Us] [Terms of Use]
All Census Lookups are Crown Copyright, National Archives for academic and non-commercial research purposes only
RootsChat.com cannot be held responsible directly or indirectly for the messages or content posted by others. Inline images in messages are the copyright of the respective linked sites.
RootsChat.com, Europa House, Bury, Lancashire, BL9 5BT

In loving memory of Eric George Davies, 1934-2009, the father of RootsChat.com































Powered by SMF 1.0.7 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines LLC
0.741:21