RootsChat.Com
England (Counties as in 1851-1901) => England => Derbyshire => Topic started by: robert g shaw on Friday 15 September 17 10:39 BST (UK)
-
hi
i dont know whether this is common knowledge or not, but when i was in derby records office last weekend, they told me that in about a month, all of the records held at the derbyshire records office at matlock will be available on ancestry... thatll be handy!
-
Thats good to know :)
-
That's great news. Thanks for letting us know.
Carol
-
Brilliant news! I'm writing out my list even as I type! I might get to the bottom of those Newbolds and Toplis(s) characters at last!
-
nice to be able to give something back, after all the help ive requested..
-
Great news, thanks. I imagine that is why the images are no longer available to view on Family Search.
Jan ;)
-
Do they really mean "all their records"? I'd be very surprised. Maybe all their parish registers? Time will tell I suppose.
-
I imagine just parish registers, but there may be other stuff. Wills would be good :D
-
I imagine just parish registers, but there may be other stuff. Wills would be good :D
some wills are on find my past, unsure how comprehensive it is.
-
Do they really mean "all their records"? I'd be very surprised. Maybe all their parish registers? Time will tell I suppose.
the guy told me 'everything they have at matlock'... i dunno, im only passing on the info.
-
I imagine just parish registers, but there may be other stuff. Wills would be good :D
some wills are on find my past, unsure how comprehensive it is.
I suspect that the wills on FindMyPast are those within the jurisdiction of Lichfield Diocese.
You'll just have to wait and see how much of the Matlock information will be made available :o
-
Only handy if one has an Ancestry account. No good at all if one has signed up to FindMyPast. I complained a few weeks ago that they should not contract exclusively with any one company as it excludes non-account holders.
Re earlier posts:
1) It is the reason why the images are no longer available to view on Family Search. When I enquired a few weeks ago I was told they should never have been on Family Search. LDS had no permission to hold them.
2) The Derbyshire wills at FindMyPast are the ones held at Lichfield.
-
Only handy if one has an Ancestry account. No good at all if one has signed up to FindMyPast.
true, and im on find my past, not on ancestry.... im not sure what FindMyPast has that ancestry doesnt, but ill get ancestry even if its for only a few months - its cheaper and more handy then travelling to matlock.
i might cancel find my past if i find ancestry is better.
-
Only handy if one has an Ancestry account. No good at all if one has signed up to FindMyPast.
It also works the other way round, when new collections are added to FindMyPast and one only has an account with Ancestry :o
I've got both, so it doesn't affect me :D :D My area of research is Yorkshire - Ancestry has West Riding parish records, FindMyPast has BT's for the whole of Yorkshire, plus East and North Ridings.
And, in any case, it's so much easier than having to visit umpteen Record Offices. Most libraries have access to one or the other sites.
Let's be positive about the release of records via these sites. ;)
-
1) It is the reason why the images are no longer available to view on Family Search. When I enquired a few weeks ago I was told they should never have been on Family Search. LDS had no permission to hold them.
I think you'll find that Familysearch didn't have permission to make them publically available on the web. The fact they have copies on microfilm would be they had permission to hold them and make them available through their Family History Centres, something that obviously continues with the digital versions being restricted to viewing through the FHCs.
-
I'm with "Ancestry" - perhaps we all ought to "buddy-up", one with an Ancestry account, and a partner with F.M.P, and between us we might manage to get the fullest possible story!
-
Only handy if one has an Ancestry account. No good at all if one has signed up to FindMyPast.
It also works the other way round, when new collections are added to FindMyPast and one only has an account with Ancestry :o
Yes - which is why UK record offices should not enter into exclusive contracts with any one but make records available through all. Let the companies compete on service levels and technical expertise, not on what UK owned records they offer.
-
I'm with "Ancestry" - perhaps we all ought to "buddy-up", one with an Ancestry account, and a partner with F.M.P, and between us we might manage to get the fullest possible story!
is that legal?
-
Only handy if one has an Ancestry account. No good at all if one has signed up to FindMyPast.
It also works the other way round, when new collections are added to FindMyPast and one only has an account with Ancestry :o
Yes - which is why UK record offices should not enter into exclusive contracts with any one but make records available through all. Let the companies compete on service levels and technical expertise, not on what UK owned records they offer.
The exclusive contracts are only "short term" to allow the internet company time to recoup the costs in scanning and/or transcribing the records.
When we are talking about large datasets these costs are quite heavy even for large companies and they need to be able to recoup them relatively quickly, otherwise few/no records would be online.
This has been the model since the 1911 census became available online.
Cheers
Guy
PS Or perhaps even the 1901 Census ;)
-
The exclusive contracts are only "short term" to allow the internet company time to recoup the costs in scanning and/or transcribing the records.
When we are talking about large datasets these costs are quite heavy even for large companies and they need to be able to recoup them relatively quickly, otherwise few/no records would be online.
This has been the model since the 1911 census became available online.
Cheers
Guy
PS Or perhaps even the 1901 Census ;)
I appreciate the costs, Guy. However, in the case of Derbyshire the digitising had already taken place. The database/images were already available at Matlock and (albeit unknown to Derbyshire CRO) via Family Search.
-
In the case of Derbyshire the digitising had already taken place. The database/images were already available at Matlock and (albeit unknown to Derbyshire CRO) via Family Search.
I wonder how they covered the cost?
-
The exclusive contracts are only "short term" to allow the internet company time to recoup the costs in scanning and/or transcribing the records.
When we are talking about large datasets these costs are quite heavy even for large companies and they need to be able to recoup them relatively quickly, otherwise few/no records would be online.
This has been the model since the 1911 census became available online.
Cheers
Guy
PS Or perhaps even the 1901 Census ;)
I appreciate the costs, Guy. However, in the case of Derbyshire the digitising had already taken place. The database/images were already available at Matlock and (albeit unknown to Derbyshire CRO) via Family Search.
The familysearch digitisation is/was part of their ongoing digitisation of all their microfilm holdings.
I have not accessed the Ancestry dataset but hope they were digitised from the registers rather than the microfilms (there is often a big difference in quality).
Do Ancestry have an esculvie contract with the Record Office as I know Findmypast put a selection of Derbyshire baptisms, marriage and burials online in 2011 but these may have been transcripts, I have not checked.
Cheers
Guy
-
Yes Guy, they are just transcripts on Find my Past and only for a limited number of parishes.
Jan
-
Do Ancestry have an esculvie contract with the Record Office as I know Findmypast put a selection of Derbyshire baptisms, marriage and burials online in 2011 but these may have been transcripts, I have not checked.
Cheers
Guy
Yes, it is exclusive "for a number of years", but no indication as to how many years that may be.
-
Do Ancestry have an esculvie contract with the Record Office as I know Findmypast put a selection of Derbyshire baptisms, marriage and burials online in 2011 but these may have been transcripts, I have not checked.
Cheers
Guy
Yes, it is exclusive "for a number of years", but no indication as to how many years that may be.
Perhaps it might be worth asking the reason and length of exclusivity.
Cheers
Guy
-
Perhaps it might be worth asking the reason and length of exclusivity.
Cheers
Guy
As mentioned, I had some correspondence with Derbyshire CRO a few weeks ago about this. They cited the need for LAs to obtain new sources of income, saying finally "we undertook a lengthy and complex tender process for putting our parish registers online. The tenders were assessed against a number of factors; Ancestry were the winners in that process, and hence were awarded the contract.".
I didn't ask how long as there seemed no point in prolonging correspondence which was going nowhere.
-
can someone let us know when this is done please ? (derbyshire records on ancestry)
-
All parish records appear to have been added yesterday.
-
All parish records appear to have been added yesterday.
thanks :)
-
I've found that several parishes, perhaps upto a dozen or more, are systematically missing the parents' names from the transcripts for Baptisms post-1813.
The images appear to be mostly taken from microfilm, although the register of baptisms, 1813-1915, for Cromford, Saint Mary, which was damaged, has undergone rescanning in addition to the microfilm version.
FindMyPast are still missing the collection of wills taken from the Peculiar courts for the Lichfield diocese
Derbyshire Probate Courts
Here is a list of the courts that had probate jurisdiction over Derbyshire before 1858. For more information, click on a court name.
Court of the Bishop of Lichfield and Coventry (Episcopal Consistory)
Court of the Peculiar of the Dean and Chapter of Lichfield
Court of the Peculiar of Burton upon Trent
Court of the Peculiar of Hartington
Court of the Peculiar of the Manor of Dale Abbey
Court of the Peculiar of Peak Forest
Court of the Peculiar of Sawley
Prerogative Court of the Archbishop of Canterbury
https://www.familysearch.org/wiki/en/Derbyshire_Probate_Records
also see https://www.staffsnameindexes.org.uk/Documents/INDEXES%20-%20Lichfield%20Wills%20Index%20peculiar%20jurisdictions.pdf
-
My email from ancestry telling me the Derbyshire records were there arrived this morning. I know what I'm up to this wet Friday!!!
-
The images appear to be mostly taken from microfilm
Yes, the microfilms made by the LDS, and until recently available to view on FamilySearch.
The irony!
-
The images appear to be mostly taken from microfilm
Yes, the microfilms made by the LDS, and until recently available to view on FamilySearch.
The irony!
But apparently without the Record Office's permission, hence they became restricted.
-
True, and I presume coverage may be more comprehensive on ancestry.
As we know, if something is available on FamilySearch take advantage while you can!
John
-
True, and I presume coverage may be more comprehensive on ancestry.
As we know, if something is available on FamilySearch take advantage while you can!
John
And still available to view at an LDS library - for free. :)
-
I've been searching the Derbyshire parish registers on Ancestry for a couple of days now.
I've noticed a few errors - search results showing one parish but linking to another parish's register, for example. Overall I wouldn't trust the search results yet, keep digging manually if a record you're expecting does not appear when you search.
I also note a couple of parishes I'm interested in are not included.
-
I also note a couple of parishes I'm interested in are not included.
Winshill being one. :-\
-
Overall I wouldn't trust the search results yet, keep digging manually if a record you're expecting does not appear when you search.
Yes, I've had to do that for quite a few Wirksworth records.
-
my problem is...... i cannot find on other sources records for people, being born, marrying and dieing - thomas hill and wife hester of mugginton for eg - yet theres plenty of births citing these as parents.
so if they dont appear on ancestry, is it because they are incorrectly loaded or dont they exist?
-
I've seen a report on a Facebook group, today, of some glaring errors in the indexing provided by Ancestry. Examples are "Kirglai" instead of "Nicholai", "Huhelin" instead of "Gulielmi" and "Wechallin Ejus" instead of "Durneelee Willielmus".
I would recommend that any such errors found are reported to Derbyshire CRO, rather than Ancestry.
If Ancestry receives reports they may well correct them (why not, all the work has been done for them) but there is no incentive for them to spend money to institute a more general quality check (and the CRO may never even hear of it).
On the other hand if the CRO receives multiple reports then they should be able to bring pressure to bear upon Ancestry to bring the index up to the required standard.
-
I've seen a report on a Facebook group, today, of some glaring errors in the indexing provided by If Ancestry receives reports they may well correct them (why not, all the work has been done for them) but there is no incentive for them to spend money to institute a more general quality check (and the CRO may never even hear of it).
Ancestry will just update the entries with the suggested alternatives, they do not and never have actually changed them completely. I doubt somehow the Record Office would be interested, nothing as been done previously as this is an ongoing issue which also applies to Findmypast. While I agree that the indexing leaves a lot to be desired at times, there is nothing to stop people playing around with the search and/or browsing the images. Something that they would have to do if they went to the Record Office anyway. If either Ancestry or Findmypast spent a lot more on indexing (which most likely would be needed to get improved indexes), there would more than likely be an big increase in subscription costs, something I doubt anyone wishes to see.
-
While I agree that the indexing leaves a lot to be desired at times, there is nothing to stop people playing around with the search and/or browsing the images. Something that they would have to do if they went to the Record Office anyway. If either Ancestry or Findmypast spent a lot more on indexing (which most likely would be needed to get improved indexes), there would more than likely be an big increase in subscription costs, something I doubt anyone wishes to see.
I actually enjoyed having to browse the records to find what I wanted. I would certainly rather do that from time to time than not be able to afford to access records at all.
-
seriously unimpressed.
i paid for a month to see how it goes, but initial impressions arent good. they dont stock wills i know exist, ive seen them on find my past, ive only seen 1 record from the derbyshire records office, all the others have no available image, they dont find some people i know are listed on other sites, and so far - they havnt found anything not on other sites.
-
they dont stock wills i know exist, ive seen them on find my past, ive only seen 1 record from the derbyshire records office, all the others have no available image, they dont find some people i know are listed on other sites, and so far - they havnt found anything not on other sites.
Wills aren't included, they are only parish registers.
As for the search, well you have to play around with soundex or the use of *, or just browse the registers if you know the dates, even approximate, and location. If you search Rootschat you will find numerous threads regarding the issues with the indexes on both Ancestry and Findmypast, and for that matter elsewhere. Mistakes are made based on people's interpretation and their skill at reading the handwriting. Yes its frustrating but its far better that the records are more easily available. Its a matter of working with the sites and other indexes available to find what you are looking for. That said, its always possible something doesn't exist anyway, there are gaps in many parish registers at various times for various reasons.
As I said in my previous post, if they spent a lot more money on indexing, the subscriptions would most likely be much higher and people would complain about that. At least they are now more easily accessible. Ancestry isn't perfect, never has been, there are still registers missing from the London Metropolitan Archives collection which were released in 2009, you just have to accept this happens. And Findmypast are no better, their Hertfordshire collection has masses missing and as yet they have done nothing about it and they were released a few years back.
-
Wills - pre 1858 - are lodged with the Diocese. There are a lot of Derbyshire parishes which came under the jurisdiction of the Diocese of Lichfield. Have you checked the holdings on FindMyPast of Lichfield wills under Staffordshire holdings.
-
I am currently studying baptismal records from the newly added Derbyshire lists on Ancestry. My particular interest has always been South Normanton which until now has been extremely patchy with what has been available on line. This place also had a reputation for high illegitimacy rates which made tracing family lines tortuous if not impossible.
Image my surprise and delight when I found many records in the form of:
June 16th 1814: Hannah, illegitimate daughter of Ann and Isaac: Jephson Ball
I (and several others on this forum) had come to this conclusion about Hannah but I don't think I've seen both parties named in this fashion in a Parish Record before
Alan
-
I actually enjoyed having to browse the records to find what I wanted. I would certainly rather do that from time to time than not be able to afford to access records at all.
you mean getting onto a parish record then manually browsing to discover records that are not online?
ive done that but to no avail , i simply cannot find records for births, and marriages, that i know happened.
not only can i not locate a marriage for thomas hill and h/esther, despit 15 years of producing children in brailsford and mugginton , theres no marriage for john hill, (born 1700) nor a son samuel hill, samuel hill is mentioned in 2 wills by his uncles - 'samuel son of brother john' which suggests john married and fathered at least 1 child.
of course these marriages could have taken place elsewhere , but the only 'thomas and h/esther' i can find is in coventry 7 years before they started having children.
-
Fantastic. Thanks for the update
-
Edit:
Never mind folks.
The lovely CaroleW got all sorted out.
Thank you.
-
One last question though, for future digging:
My mothers given name has four variations; Marrianne, Marianne, Mariame and Marion making it difficult to pin down at times. I noticed other names changed from one census to the next.
What is the most reliable source for authenticity?
-
As far as your Mum is concerned, if still available, ask her!
However, there is no one source which can be considered authentic. It's not just given names which change from census to census - but surnames do too. The most extreme I have from Derbyshire is Gaskin / Gascoynge (and several other minor variants). Many individuals in Victorian censuses were illietrate. So, it would depend on what the enumerator or the registrar thought he heard and the person not being able to read so couldn't correct a mistake. If you then add in regional accents the situation becomes magnitudes worse. On Tyneside, we had the appearance of a new surname presumably from a Geordie registrar not understanding fully the accent of broad Devonian fisherman.
For my own ease of record keeping and database management, I record them all as one standard form of name (Gaskin in the above example), and note variations in the notes section for each individual
Alan
-
Thanks Alan.
Mum's not hearing so well through the dirt.
I would have thought that since 1907, when she was born and registered, there would be a little more consistency but I understand what you say.
-
Don't forget "Mary Ann".
-
I have been trying to have a look on Parish Registers on Ancestry..but the page kicks me out saying it is no longer available..
Anyone else have the same problem?
Forgive me if it sounds like a stupid question!!
Dowdy
-
Dowdy - are you talking about the "Parish" under "What's Happening at Ancestry" on the home page, and when you click on Parish to tells you that this no longer exists?
Another way in, is via "View all new Records" on Home page, then when the new page appears, chose "Parish Records" from the list on the right-hand side of the page. This will take you to what used to appear via "Parish" on the Home page. Not sure if I can attach the procedure, but I'll try ;)
-
I think your best bet is either to put "Derbyshire records Ancestry" in your browser search field or try this:
Welcome to our Derbyshire family history research page. (https://search.ancestry.co.uk/Places/UK/England/Derbyshire/Default.aspx)
I've not yet found these Derbyshire pages by going into Ancestry first.
Alan
-
Using my method, and highlighting "Midlands" , and Derbyshire - this is what I get
-
Using my method, and highlighting "Midlands" , and Derbyshire - this is what I get
Thats the one!!
Thanks for your help.
I think I am underusing what I am paying for :-\
Dowdy
-
It doesn't help when these websites change their methods. I spoke to Ancestry some time ago regarding the "unavailable" page, but they still haven't fixed it. Just by chance I found the alternative way in, and I suppose it does only involve two extra clicks. :-\ :-X
-
I have been trying to have a look on Parish Registers on Ancestry..but the page kicks me out saying it is no longer available..
Anyone else have the same problem?
Forgive me if it sounds like a stupid question!!
Dowdy
just checked a couple of mine, they are still available..
-
Whilst I do have a full subscription to Ancestry I don't rely on it and would never ever upload any material of my own onto it. I also have a full subscription to FindMyPast which is just as well as I am currently delving back to and beyond 1700 in the Leicestershire parish records (Great Easton). And, although Ancestry has some Rutland records rolled into its Northamptonshire collections, FindMyPast is by far more exhaustive.
Alan
-
The Rutland records on Ancestery are the Bishops Transcripts held at Northampton Record Office, hence, as is normal with Bishops Transcripts, they are not so exhaustive as those on Findmypast from the Parish Registers.
There are also a few issues with the naming of parishes within the Bishops Transcripts. Pickworth and Great Casterton have been amalgamated into one "parish" in the BTs but were actually two separate parishes with separate parish registers. I don't think this is an Ancestry problem as they are showing the same on Familysearch. It may be that the copies were submitted together as one originally hence the error.