RootsChat.Com
England (Counties as in 1851-1901) => England => Kent => Topic started by: casalguidi on Monday 02 April 07 13:34 BST (UK)
-
I have been compiling a list of recently added batch numbers to the IGI
http://www.rootschat.com/forum/index.php/topic,201731.0.html
Can anybody confirm the place for the following batch numbers?
I005362 baptisms/marriages
I012582 baptisms/marriages
Casalguidi
-
Hi Casalguidi,
I can't help (sorry) but am intrigued - especially by the first batch which seems really weird with many entries ca 1815 and many entries ca 1890 but nothing in between.
Have you asked the LDS (via the FamilySearch site)? Not that I hold out much hope :(
These 'I' batches without any indication of source are a real puzzle and it would be great if we could find out anything further about them.
I have my Grandmother's christening in an 'I' batch in Sheffield - she was born in Barrow in Furness.
JAP
-
Having compared several Christenings randomly so far with those on the free BMD for the I005362 batch number all results are Milton...I chose easy to recognize names...so looks good so far...
Births Dec. Q 1892
Burgess Lettice Ethel Milton v. 2a p.836
Births Sept. Q 1891
Butcher Harriett Milton v.2a p. 876/878
Births Dec. Q 1892
Butler Beatrice Constance Milton v. 2a p.821
Births Sept. Q 1888
EPPS John William Milton v. 2a p.842
Births June Q 1893
Holdstock Grace Maud Milton v. 2a p874
Births Sept. Q. 1889
Savage Walter Joseph Milton v.2a p.857
Births Sept. Q 1891
Whitnell Albert Evesy Milton v. 2a p. 867
-
The batch number above seems to cover marriages from 1813 to 1815 only
and Christenings 1888 to 1896 only...This is an unusual range. ;D J.J.
I have chosen about a dozen of the more unusual surnames...ie Moses Vergum / Richard Challacombe and tried to match births for the married couples...and even using no surname for the mother, haven't come up with a birth yet...it's wierd....
O.K. finaly found a few births...but not in Kent so doesn't help...
-
I012582 Lists marriages from 1873 to 1909, these listings MANY seem to have the father of the groom included...Many have father of the Bride, also!
Free BMD comes up Bromley
examples:
Marriages Mar. Q 1891
AKERMAN Simon Read Bromley v. 2a p. 609
IGI lists Annie Isabel Russell
22 JAN 1891 Kent, England
Lists father as James Akerman...
Marriages Dec 1888
BUTCHERS ThomasStephen Bromley v. 2a p.684
IGI lists Annie Moon
27 OCT 1888 Kent, England
Lists father as Edward Butchers
-
The Christenings come up as Bromley also, covering1874 to 1896...so should we assume the batch numbers also above might be Milton?
sample:
IGI: May Ada Fanny Friend
Christening Jan. 27 1889 Kent, England
FBMD: Births Mar Q 1889
Friend May Ada F Bromley v. 2a p.418
Many hugs, J.J.
-
JAP No, I haven't contacted the LDS - it's not a personal interest but might be of interest to other Rootschatters to know the actual parish
J.J. Thanks for your efforts - they certainly do look like somewhere in the Milton and Bromley registration districts so it would be wonderful if somebody recognises something and can narrow them down to an actual parish
Casalguidi :)
-
Tried the batch ( on your other post) for Eastchurch (female baptism pre 1812) CO17336. Family ties.
Nothing is found.
Does this help? Would you like us to try the other batch numbers on that post?
Lesanne. :)
-
Hi Lesanne
The batch numbers on the other post are all ok .................. the "0" in the C017336 needs to be the number "0" not the letter "O" ;)
Casalguidi :)
-
Hi, Casalguidi...would looking at censuses for some of them help, or is that still not the answer? :P :-\ J.J.
-
Possibly - if somebody has the time and the resources to do it ;)
Casalguidi :)
-
Hello Casalguidi,
Tried with family name of Mepstead/Mepsted, mostly in and around Rochester and other North Kent.
As above Bromley. I012582
Lesanne. :)
-
Does this help or perhaps you've already got it :)
http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~hughwallis/IGIBatchNumbers/CountyKent.htm#PageTitle
Lesanne
-
Hi Lesanne
Yes, I already have this posted in one of the Kent Resources posts at the top of the Kent board ................................ have just been trying to list some of the more recent additions ie. since Hugh's pages were compiled in 2002.
Thanks
Casalguidi :)
-
There is also this on Kent IGI batch numbers
http://www.rootsweb.com/~engken/batchnumbers.txt
-
Tried some of the names in I012582, and compared with entries in the 1881 census on FamilySearch and/or with entries on FreeBMD.
*Reginald Alfred Christy BOTTING bap 7 Dec 1879; 1881 has 1yo Reginald AC BOTTING born Hayes; FreeBMD has Bromley.
*Edith Maria CHANNAN bap 18 Apr 1880; 1881 has 1yo Edith CHANNON (sic) born Hayes; FreeBMD has (as CHANNAN) Bromley.
*Horace Montagu COWLARD bap 30 May 1880; 1881 has 1yo Horace M COWLARD b Keston; FreeBMD has Bromley
*William George HONEY bap 11 Jun 1879; 1881 has 1yo William G HONEY born Keston; FreeBMD has Bromley
George HOSIER marriage 1879; FreeBMD has Bromley
Samuel Sporle KIRBY marriage 1890; FreeBMD has Bromley
JAP
-
As far as the early baptisms (1813-1815) in I005362 are concerned, that's a bit harder!
But I found a few in the 1881 census.
I tried only males (assuming that females would be likely to have married and changed their name) and only from the baptisms (assuming that people married between 1813 and 1815 would be unlikely still to be alive in 1881).
*William Isaac CHAMPION bap 3 Jun 1815; a William CHAMPION appears in 1881 age 66, born Sheerness
*Thomas SCUTT bap 11 Jul 1813; a Thomas SCUTT appears in 1881 age 68, born Sheerness
*Thomas Datson WEBB bap 18 Feb 1813; a Thomas D WEBB appears in 1881 age 68, born Sheerness
and this next one which is surely one and the same person in the batch and in the 1881 census
*William Horatio Needham NEWCOMB bap 11 Jun 1814; appears in 1881 as William H. N. NEWCOMB, age 66, born Sheerness
JAP
-
To add to above results for batch number Marriages I012582, compared to couples in 1881 the mix is a great deal of results for Orpington, ( either census place, or birth place of bride or groom) Hayes, Keston & a few Lewisham, Woolwich, Rochester St Margaret..(.but of course where couples end up isn't really relevent...)
and I012582 Christenings compared to 1881 birthplaces were similar...
Orpington, Hayes, Chislehurst, St Mary Cray, Cudham
Would those at least help to narrow a section in Kent, if not the Parish... :P ::)
(ie Chiselhurst/Bromley cover these places above on the 1861...)
I005362 comparing christenings in the latest of the births 1896
with 1901 results:
Frank Acott age 5 b. Milton Parish Milton Next Sittingbourne
George Emmens age 5 b. Milton parish Milton Next Sittingbourne
Frank R Hinkley age5 b. Sittingbourne Parish Sittingbourne
Robert Jarrett age 6 b. Fawkham Parish Sittingbourne
Albert Earl age 5 b. Sittingbourne parish Gillingham
William Brunger age5 b. Milton Parish Milton Next Sittingbourne
-
The only consistent piece of information about these batches seems to be the following:
I005362 (leaving aside the marriages and christenings 1813-1815)
Christenings in the 1880s and 1890s
It seems that all the births of those christened were registered in Milton
I012582
Marriages and christenings from the 1870s to the 1900s
It seems that all the marriages and all the births of those christened were registered in Bromley
But neither the location of registration nor indeed the actual birthplaces (as recorded in censuses) help with identifying which church(es) the marriages and christenings actually took place in.
If only the LDS would list the source information for such batches, or would provide that information when asked!
JAP
-
re: #I012582 marriages - Might be interesting to have a challenge to find
this out...It was surprising how few of those married I checked in years
close to 1881 actually stayed in the district! It was surprising how many
I couldn't FIND in 1881!)
It also doesn't say the file has been extracted from
parish files so maybe they weren't..Are they on BVRI listings the same way?
Could it have been unusual circumstances say, mixed religions...and
therefore justice of the peace marriages? A new Independent church not
yet recognized? Would the registry office that holds the record have more
information?
If this is a list of miscellaneous Parishes, and compiled under one batch
number for any certain reason, I couldn't find it...A few were in barracks
in the 1881...but not enough to flag that... Having the father
of the bride & groom listed on so many of them is perhaps unusual, though.
Lots of questions for someone to answer but no help from me.... sorry... :P :-\ J.J.
( well at least we put it back to the top so that more may see it ;) :) )
& perhaps challenged someone wih resources as I have none)
J.J.
-
If the following is correct re baptism then it would match with the PRETTY baptism 26 Jan 1890 batch number I005362 (thought I was going to get to Z without finding anything LOL)
http://awt.ancestry.co.uk/cgi-bin/igm.cgi?op=GET&db=:3096937&id=I608625298&ti=5538
Looks like I005362 (at least the later baptisms) is Holy Trinity, Milton (nr Sittingbourne) then ................ the other batch still looks pretty tough unless anybody recognises anything :-\
I agree that the earlier entries (baptisms at least) for I005362 are probably Sheeness or Minster in Sheppey.
Thanks for all your help with this
Casalguidi
-
sorry, Casalguidi ... I was looking through again and I see I missed some dates.... I was tired, it was late, excuses excuses...
#I012582 - covers
christenings...1874 to 1896
marriages 1863 to 1909...
#1005362 -
marriages 1813 to 1815
christenings 1813 -1816 and
christenings 1888 - 1896
Think that's got it right this time... but then, who knows... ::) :P
-
Hi casalguidi and everyone
I found this following quote on this web site-
http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~hughwallis/IGIBatchNumberFAQs.htm#OtherSeries
"Reviewing batches starting with A, F, I, L and T I find that these are all LDS patron submitted or church member related batches and so not part of the Controlled Extraction Program."
My thoughts are that this batch are those submitted entries for Kent are just bundled together.
regards Linda
-
Hi Linda,
The excellent Hugh Wallis site (what would we do without it) is copyright 2002. As far as I am aware it has not been updated since then.
The FAQ answer which you quote was, I believe, a fair and reasonable explanation of the situation at that time.
However there has been an explosion of 'I' (and sometimes 'C' and sometimes 'M') batches since then which are almost certainly part of some sort of LDS controlled extraction program but for which no source information whatsoever is provided.
There has been considerable discussion of these batches on various genealogical forums, and attempts have been made (even by LDS members in charge of Family History centres) to elicit an explanation from higher LDS authorities - but to no avail.
Here is an earlier post of mine on the topic:
http://www.rootschat.com/forum/index.php/topic,50398.msg201644.html#msg201644
Regards,
JAP
-
My thoughts are that this batch are those submitted entries for Kent are just bundled together.
Yes, I wondered that too as I have seen other batch numbers that cover several parishes :-\
Casalguidi
-
Casalguidi,
As I've said elsewhere, I suspect some of them are extracted from arcane sources.
For instance, might these be possible sources for some strange Kent batches (from the LDS library catalogue):
'Extracts from Kent parish registers and monumental inscriptions' by George Edward Cokayne, 1825-1911.
'Kent parish register extracts, 1560-1895' by Frank Watt Tyler
I'm not at all suggesting that the above are sources for the batches in this thread, just mentioning the fact that the LDS do have all sorts of records which they might be indexing and putting online - though why they don't state the source of the batches is beyond me.
Just a thought.
JAP
-
May I humbly suggest a possible answer. As Milton is a small village within the Parish of Sittingbourne, and Hayes is a small parish on the edge of Bromley maybe these are minor Registers from the Churches within said Boroughs and not large enough or over looked from earlier Extractions.
Alan
-
If you search the LDS library for Sittingbourne (as mentioned by Alan) the following is given
England, Kent, Kingsdown (near Sittingbourne)
England, Kent, Milton-next-Sittingbourne
England, Kent, Newington-next-Sittingbourne
England, Kent, Sittingbourne
And selecting Milton-next-Sittingbourne gives a large collection of records including
Bishops Transcripts, Archdeacon's Transcripts (a new one for me)
Parish register transcripts, Parish register extracts and Parish Registers for a variety of churches.
I would think the I batches come from among these records. My completely unproven view is that I batches are as initially keyed & eventually they are linked to films which gives the correct reference in the library. I have only found them over the past couple of years & the ones I have found are for parishes I previously did NOT find on the IGI.
I noticed recently, the LONDON LDS posted their web site link on RootsChat - could be worth a query - they may have more information. (of course, at the minute I can't find the post ::) )
Trish
-
Following JAP's findings above
http://www.rootschat.com/forum/index.php/topic,224654.msg1186021.html#msg1186021
I can now confirm that the baptisms 1813-1816 with batch number I005362 took place at Minster Abbey, Minster, Sheppey (Sheerness actually came under Minster at that time) - will update the list :)
http://www.rootschat.com/forum/index.php/topic,201731.0.html
So that now leaves us with the remainder of I005362 (marriages 1813-1815 - will have to have a scout around to see if any matching marriages for Minster, Sheppey can be found to match any on the IGI)
and batch number I012582 baptisms 1874-1896/marriages 1864-1909 to confirm.
These wouldn't be the first batch numbers to cover multiple parishes ie.
Lydden (female baptisms 1812+) C043183
Lyminge (female baptisms 1812+) C043183
Lympne (female baptisms 1812+) C043183
Lynsted (female baptisms 1812-1817) C043183
which could well have arisen by the parish registers (or BTs) for these villages being on the same film in some repository somewhere.
Casalguidi
-
Hello All,
I've not given up on trying to find out the answer to the query which began this thread.
Finally some little progress seems to have been made.
See:
http://www.rootschat.com/forum/index.php/topic,318060
JAP
-
The I numbers are patron submissions made up from collected family group sheets compiled into batches. These contain the details of up to three persons.
I.E. in a christening the subject and parents in a marriage the couple.
For example I02xxx denotes submissions made in 2002
I00xxxx are submissions from the year 2000.
Cheers
Guy
-
So that now leaves us with the remainder of I005362 (marriages 1813-1815 - will have to have a scout around to see if any matching marriages for Minster, Sheppey can be found to match any on the IGI)
and batch number I012582 baptisms 1874-1896/marriages 1864-1909 to confirm
If anybody can confirm which parishes they are then I will add them to the list.
Casalguidi :)
-
The I numbers are patron submissions made up from collected family group sheets compiled into batches. These contain the details of up to three persons.
I.E. in a christening the subject and parents in a marriage the couple.
For example I02xxx denotes submissions made in 2002
I00xxxx are submissions from the year 2000.
Cheers
Guy
Hi All,
I'm not going to re-visit a quite unpleasant (now locked) thread ( http://www.rootschat.com/forum/index.php/topic,219113 ).
My interest in this matter was sparked by a batch (I008159) which includes the christening of my own lovely - salt of the earth - Grandmother (Ada TRIPPIT, 1872-1963).
The information I've provided today has been posted with the sole aim of trying to help and inform fellow RootsChatters about my own progress re a problem which many of us have encountered - and for which no official sourced explanation had been provided.
What I've posted today includes information received IN WRITING (email - 24 July) by me from staff at the official LDS FamilySearch website.
I quote it in part (emphasis added):
'.. I or E or even the C,M records with no source is from extraction, Indexing projects ... The source is known and documented in an internal database ... No future updates or changes will be made to the old IGI to add this information ... {A} request has been submitted to add it to the New Family Search web page system ... {At present all that the new pilot site} ... indicates now is "LDS Church Records" ...'
What I've posted today also includes information (received by me today) which was elicited from formal LDS sources by another RootsChatter.
Obviously neither she nor I can know whether the information which we have been given is correct or not - all one can say is that it comprises written information from LDS sources.
As I recommended today on the following thread:
http://www.rootschat.com/forum/index.php/topic,318060
I can only suggest that RootsChatters who want information about the source of 'I' batches should request the information from the London FHC and/or use the 'Contact Us' form on the FamilySearch site.
If any more details come to hand I'll post them on:
http://www.rootschat.com/forum/index.php/topic,318060
Casalguidi, Perhaps you could ask the London FHC and/or FamilySearch about those batches so you can add them to your amazingly comprehensive list :)
Regards,
JAP
PS: What will be really good is if we end up with the source details revealed online ...
(Grammatical and font edits made subsequently)
-
The I numbers are patron submissions made up from collected family group sheets compiled into batches. These contain the details of up to three persons.
I.E. in a christening the subject and parents in a marriage the couple.
For example I02xxx denotes submissions made in 2002
I00xxxx are submissions from the year 2000.
Sorry to disagree again Guy but I was given a part of batch I02682 to transcribe 16th June 2006. It was for baptisms for a Manchester Parish... not a patron submission but actual images extracted from parish records. The details are from a personal email from my Extraction Director, at that time, I have more examples. I have searched familysearch for this particular batch number and it doesn't appear to be there... so perhaps it was renamed after verifiying.
I shall not be posting again, as I don't want to rake over old ground either but I did want to clarify that the batch numbering is not as you describe! Maybe things have changed since 2002 - my last piece of transcribing was done earlier this year :)
Jenny
-
I am afraid someone has misinformed you. If you were transcribing extractions from the parish registers in June 2006 they were not intended for the IGI.
They would be part of the VRI
Cheers
Guy
-
Guy... in this instance you are probably, and sadly, correct. That the later transcribes after 2002 are not bound for the search but for the VRI... shame the LDS are not being very honest over this as there are many wonderful voluntary transcribers giving their time freely who may not be made aware their work will not be available free on the web.
Hence I gave up transcribing for them
but I am correct in stating that the transcripts were of extracted parish records and NOT submissions and it would be nice if you acknowledged that.
Jenny
-
Umm.. VRI...? ???
meles
-
The single sex transcriptions are from transcripts such as
John Owen's Manuscripts, vols. 65-66 (index of Brides).
Or similar transcriptions and databases.
Cheers
Guy
-
So, that's what it is - many thanks, did not know that. What do the letters stand for?
meles
-
Guy... in this instance you are probably, and sadly, correct. That the later transcribes after 2002 are not bound for the search but for the VRI... shame the LDS are not being very honest over this as there are many wonderful voluntary transcribers giving their time freely who may not be made aware their work will not be available free on the web.
Hence I gave up transcribing for them
but I am correct in stating that the transcripts were of extracted parish records and NOT submissions and it would be nice if you acknowledged that.
Jenny
Not sure I understand your point.
Yes transcripts of extracted parish registers and other sources are continuing to be made, they have never stopped.
I did not have access to what you transcribed but if you say they were parish registers that is not in dispute.
I would however note.-
It is intended that the data that makes up the VRI (Vital Records Index) will eventually be made available free of charge on the web. At one time this would have been on the familysearch site.
There has been a change of tack from the family search site to the Record Search site (the pilot site) and if I understand correctly such transcriptions as yours will eventually become available there.
The pilot site is more complex than the familysearch site as it also allows sight of the original record. This in itself causes difficulties with copyright and licence considerations.
It is still very early days for this site but eventually it will become perhaps the most important genealogical site available with a high percentage free to all.
Cheers
Guy
-
The single sex transcriptions are from transcripts such as
John Owen's Manuscripts, vols. 65-66 (index of Brides).
Or similar transcriptions and databases.
Cheers
Guy
Single sex batches (particularly females-only batches) which have been extracted from Parish Registers are widespread in the online IGI.
Source
The online IGI
A Small Selection of Examples
*Dailly, Ayrshire
C115852, C115854
*Monkton, Ayrshire
C116062, C116064
*St Quivox & Newton, Ayrshire
C116122, C116124-116127, C116129, C195441
*Straiton, Ayrshire
C116172, C116174-C116176
*Tranent, East Lothian
C117222, C117224-C117229, C117231
*Dauntsey, Wiltshire
C153401
JAP
-
For information only
A recent announcement from FamilySearch has raised some concerns about the future of free online access (I hope they are groundless).
I note that access will continue to be free at Family History Centres - that presumably would fulfil the initial obligations under which the LDS were granted approval to film many records.
However, precisely what free online access will be available is not yet entirely clear. A Google finds that widespread concerns have been expressed by concerned users (including volunteer transcribers).
jc26red, who has carried out volunteer indexing for the LDS, has expressed some reservations above (see reply #35).
I note that she has indicated previously that her volunteer transcription work (which was from parish registers) included transcription of the parish and location
(see http://www.rootschat.com/forum/index.php/topic,219113.msg1531562.html#msg1531562 ).
However, the formal written advice I received only days ago from Family Search Support (see reply #32) is that - while the specific source of extracted 'I' batches is held in a private internal LDS database - the pilot site shows the source merely as "LDS Church Records" ...
I think that there is little or no point in hypothesising or in expressing our personal interpretations of the announcement.
We will just have to wait and see what happens.
The FamilySearch announcement has been quoted on many web sites - including Eastman's Online Genealogy Newsletter, 29 July 2008
This can be found at:
http://blog.eogn.com/eastmans_online_genealogy/2008/07/indexed-records.html#more
**********
"The following announcement was written by FamilySearch:
The recent announcements of joint census projects with FamilySearch and affiliate companies, such as findmypast.org and Ancestry.com, have caused some confusion. FamilySearch patrons and indexing volunteers are wondering if the indexes created from their efforts will continue to be free to the public. The answer is a resounding YES!
All data indexed by FamilySearch volunteers will continue to be made available for free to the public through FamilySearch.org — now and in the future. Access to related digital images may not always be free to everyone. Working jointly with other organizations ensures wider availability to improved indexes and provides a tremendous benefit to millions of people around the world who are seeking to connect with their ancestors. FamilySearch is committed to working with records custodians around the world to provide faster access to more records for more people.
Where possible, FamilySearch will seek to provide free public access to digital images of original records. Due to affiliate obligations, free access to some images may be available only to FamilySearch members (volunteers and indexers who meet basic contribution requirements each quarter, patrons at Family History Centers, and members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints who’s contributions support FamilySearch’s operations). FamilySearch members will also enjoy convenient access in their homes or wherever they have Internet access. (FamilySearch is currently developing its ability to verify that users are FamilySearch members for future home access. This expanded access should be enabled in 2009.)
The general public will have several options to access any fee-based images offered under FamilySearch affiliate agreements. 1) Home access will be free for FamilySearch members; 2) access is free through a local Family History Center or the Family History Library; 3) access is often free through the record custodian or archive reading room; or 4) for a nominal fee, the public can access the images on specified record custodian or commercial Web sites."
**********
JAP
-
So that now leaves us with the remainder of I005362 (marriages 1813-1815 - will have to have a scout around to see if any matching marriages for Minster, Sheppey can be found to match any on the IGI)
and batch number I012582 baptisms 1874-1896/marriages 1864-1909 to confirm
If anybody can confirm which parishes they are then I will add them to the list.
Casalguidi :)
Hello Casalguidi,
I have emailed the London FHC requesting source information for these batches.
Regards,
JAP
-
The single sex transcriptions are from transcripts such as
John Owen's Manuscripts, vols. 65-66 (index of Brides).
Or similar transcriptions and databases.
Cheers
Guy
Single sex batches (particularly females-only batches) which have been extracted from Parish Registers are widespread in the online IGI.
JAP
Jap the reply you got from the LDS and the reply I gave you amount to the same point.
However, the formal written advice I received only days ago from Family Search Support (see reply #32) is that - while the specific source of extracted 'I' batches is held in a private internal LDS database
There are a huge number of different projects taking place by the LDS and members of the Church.
Some of these include Brides Indexes from previously transcribed sources such as Owen's. In others the brides have to be extracted from registers to an internal database first.
When the database has been extracted direct from registers the source is shown as the register (I would prefer the source shown as the database, but this is not how they do it).
The result is the same an all female batch on the IGI.
There are various reasons for these databases, some due to demographic studies, such as age at marriage, some due to tracing female lines.
There is nothing wrong with such studies, indeed similar studies have been done by individuals and universities for years.
Cheers
Guy
-
I wouldn't mind subscribing in any way, if we could get the information we are looking for, after all the LDS are spending rather a lot of money on their new project, even if the transcribers have to do it for free - I assume they do it for free. ???
Lizzie
-
Most do it for free some do it to enable them to get hold of a particular microfilm/fiche for their own research.
Cheers
Guy
-
Guy
Does this mean if I volunteer to transcribe, I can ask for a particular film?
Lizzie
-
No but it can be done the other way round.
Ask for a loan of the film required, to enable you to transcribe it.
Volunteer, in return, to provide the Church a copy of your transcriptions.
Cheers
Guy
-
Guy - I might just do that.
Lizzie
-
So that now leaves us with the remainder of I005362 (marriages 1813-1815 - will have to have a scout around to see if any matching marriages for Minster, Sheppey can be found to match any on the IGI)
and batch number I012582 baptisms 1874-1896/marriages 1864-1909 to confirm
If anybody can confirm which parishes they are then I will add them to the list.
Casalguidi :)
Hello Casalguidi,
I have emailed the London FHC requesting source information for these batches.
Regards,
JAP
Hello again Casalguidi,
I have received a reply but it probably won't help ...
The reply reads:
Our database shows that I012582 (baptisms and marriages) is from film #2145475. We have no listing for I005362 (baptisms and marriages). If we recieve information about that batch, we will send it to you.
The library catalogue on the FamilySearch site shows the following for FHL Film#2145475:
Items 1 - 6 Parish registers of Hayes, 1539-1909 Church of England. Parish Church of Hayes (Kent)
Items 7 - 11 Parish registers of Keston, 1540-1906 Church of England. Parish Church of Keston (Kent)
Items 12 - 15 Parish registers of Orpington, 1560-1907 Church of England. Parish Church of Orpington (Kent)
Regards,
JAP
-
Thanks for keeping us informed JAP - every little helps :)
Casalguidi :)
-
Hi casaguildi,
Another snippet from the London FHC.
"Batch number i005362 is film number 1835503. We do have that film in our inventory."
FHL 1835503 brings up the following in the Library catalogue on FamilySearch:
Item 1 Archdeacon's transcripts, 1560-1812; Bishop's transcripts, 1606-1899 Church of England. Parish Church of Milton-next-Sittingbourne (Kent)
Item 2 Bishop's transcripts for St. Mary's Church, Milton-next-Sittingbourne, 1902-1908 Church of England. St. Mary's Church (Milton-next-Sittingbourne, Kent)
Item 3 Archdeacon's transcripts, 1566-1812; Bishop's transcripts, 1606-1898 Church of England. Parish Church of Minster-in-Sheppey (Kent)
Regards,
JAP