IGI Batch numbers not on Hugh Wallis

[LizzieW]

My husband's 3 x g.grandfather and wife had at least 8 children, the first three of which have baptisms shown on IGI, in 1803, 1805 and 1807 respectively, under batch number I024927, type film.  Does anyone know what this number relates to?  The baptisms took place in Cheshire, I've looked at Hugh Wallis's list and I024927 doesn't seem to be listed.

It has been suggested to my OH that these baptisms were submitted, but it doesn't state this on IGI.

Lizzie

[c-side]

Have you tried putting this batch number into IGI search with just your relevant surname to see what comes up?

Christine

[JAP]

Hello Lizzie,

The IGI "I" batch numbers relate to extracted records.

However, they (and some relatively recent 'C' and 'M' batches) have no source information.

Many people (including people who manage LDS FHCs) have been querying this for years.

It is only in the last week or so that some answers have been coming to light.  My investigations, and those of another RootsChatter, are not yet finished.

At this stage I'll just say that the following is my understanding:
* the source information is recorded in an internal LDS database
* it will not be added to the online IGI
* it is not currently planned to include the source information in the new prototype website.

Bear with us!  We might be able to add some more information soon ...

JAP

[JAP]

Hello again Lizzie,

No sooner said than done (hot off the press from a fellow RootsChatter)!

Nothing further has come to light about why the source information is not provided in the IGI or about future plans BUT ...

Apparently it has been advised that the head of the London Family History centre has indicated that he will be happy to provide, on request, the source details for any such batch.

The London FHC has a website at:
http://www.londonfhc.org/
There's an email address on the site.

I have now asked Family Search Support whether the same facility (provision of source details on request) could be provided via the 'Contact Us' form on the FamilySearch site.

You might wish to submit requests - both to the London FHC and via the FamilySearch site - re the batch which is of interest to you.

If you do, please let us know the outcome.

All the best,

JAP
Edited to remove the name of the London FHC head - apparently he has moved on to another LDS position.

[JAP]

PS:

I see that the batch relates to Castle Hall, Cheshire.

There are no batches for Castle Hall listed on the Hugh Wallis website (last updated 2002).

However, a search for Castle Hall in the Library catalogue on the FamilySearch site finds that the LDS library holds films relating to Castle Hall church records.

1. Parish Registers, Church of England, Chapelry of Castle Hall (Cheshire) 1852-1938.  It include baptisms, marriages and some burials.

2. Bishop's Transcripts, Church of England, Chapelry of Castle Hall (baptisms 1892-1893)

This suggests that your batch (I024927) is a partial extraction from the Parish Registers.

Incidentally, if you view the whole batch, you will see that it is one of those infuriating batches where only the females have been extracted into the online IGI.  And no - despite repeated attempts I've not been able to elicit any explanation for this.

Regards,

JAP
 

[JAP]

Hello All,

I have suggested to Berlin-Bob that this thread should be added to the Lexicon of Genealogical Terms and Abbreviations.

Refer:
http://www.rootschat.com/forum/index.php/topic,276715.msg1988889.html#msg1988889

JAP


Added Thanks

[LizzieW]

However, a search for Castle Hall in the Library catalogue on the FamilySearch site finds that the LDS library holds films relating to Castle Hall church records.

1. Parish Registers, Church of England, Chapelry of Castle Hall (Cheshire) 1852-1938.  It include baptisms, marriages and some burials.

2. Bishop's Transcripts, Church of England, Chapelry of Castle Hall (baptisms 1892-1893)

This suggests that your batch (I024927) is a partial extraction from the Parish Registers.

The only problem with this is that the baptisms were 1803-1807 and there does not appear to be any information about the church there at the time.  The Holy Trinity wasn't built until about 1840-50.  I assume this batch is from the parish records of a church which was demolished pre 1840 but no-one seems to know what this was.  My OH contacted Tameside FHS and was more or less told that this batch had been submitted by an LDS member as there wasn't a previous church!

Christine - Putting in the relevant batch number and surname only brings up the 3 ancestors of my OH, but I thought each batch number related to one family, is this correct?

JAP - Are you saying that only the female members of the family were listed, or that there are other females of a different name listed under this batch number?  Although if you are saying that only female members of the family have been listed, that might solve the problem of why there don't appear to have been any children born during the first 8 years of marriage, then they went on to have 8!  If we can find previous births, it will help to solve a mystery, whereby someone with the same name thinks that her ancestor is a brother of the girls who are listed, although he is about 3 years older.

Meanwhile JAP, I'll pass your very good information to my OH so he can contact the appropriate people.

Thanks for your help.

Lizzie

[JAP]

Hi Lizzie,

Good point about the dates - I didn't pick up on that.

Yes, I am saying that there are only girls - no boys - in the batch.  There are (unfortunately and inexplicably) many batches like this!  Just select British Isles as the region, enter the batch number, and then click on Search.  You will see that the batch contains only females.

Do please submit some requests to London and to the FamilySearch site.  You might help to solve this puzzle and thus help all RootsChatters and so many other genealogists 

All the very best,

JAP

[jillruss]

JAP - thank goodness for that information!!

Only yesterday I found a batch of baptisms in Heversham, Westmorland - C012785 - which doesn't appear in Hugh Wallis's list, and couldn't make out why there were only female baptisms: no males.

I was beginning to wonder if it was something they put in the water up in Cumbria...

I wonder why there are so many batches like this? Perhaps the Mormons think women are more worth saving...

Jill