RootsChat.Com
England (Counties as in 1851-1901) => England => Worcestershire => Topic started by: Davedrave on Friday 11 August 23 18:31 BST (UK)
-
I’m looking for the baptism of Thomas son of Charles and Martha Hicken, born in King’s Norton in about 1804. I have found a Bishop’s transcript from Worcstershire, but it appears to be missing the top and location seems to be unknown. Are there any clues which might confirm it is him? (It looks like it might be a problem with modern cropping of the original image rather than that the original top is missing.)
Does the place Withall Chapel possibly give a clue?
https://www.ancestry.co.uk/imageviewer/collections/62085/images/62085_302022005560_3627-00020?treeid=&personid=&rc=&usePUB=true&_phsrc=BeL2&_phstart=successSource&pId=414587
-
I think I’ve cracked it. The place Wythall seems to have been part of King’s Norton, in which case it’s definitely him.
-
Hi
Previous image has "Kings Norton" written. I guess it's on the reverse side?
Next image has "Married at Kings Norton in the Year 1804" Nine marriages there.
-
I'd be looking to source a copy of the Parish Register entry (maybe from the relevant archives?) to verify / discount what you are seeing in the BT.
Boo
-
Thomas Hickin bap 27 May 1804, King's Norton, on FreeReg
https://www.freereg.org.uk/search_records/5d05f67df493fd1f797a78a3
-
Thanks for this confirmation,
Dave :)
-
You need to bear in mind that in this time frame, the BTs were often written on huge pieces of paper and, as such, have been filmed in sections which overlap so nothing is missed but a few names may appear on more than one section image.
I searched the Worcestershire Bts on Ancestry for Thomas Hicken born 1804
I got two results, both dated 27 May 1804.
EDIT added search results link
https://www.ancestry.co.uk/search/collections/62085/?name=thomas_hicken&birth=1804&count=50
the one which you gave the link to just says Worcestershire in the results and is an image of just a section of the page starting part way down
the other result says Kings Norton and that image is the top part of the huge piece of paper that was used that year to record the events in that Parish and 'does' have the citation at the top.
https://www.ancestry.co.uk/imageviewer/collections/62085/images/62085_302022005560_3627-00019?
Boo
-
Many thanks for finding this, Boo, and thanks for the explanation. I have now downloaded this image and discarded the other.
Dave :)
-
Well done, Boo.
the one which you gave the link to just says Worcestershire in the results and is an image of just a section of the page starting part way down
I didn't see the other half of the top part via that link from Dave, perhaps ancestry missed it out? :-\
Though Kings Norton does "appear" one way or another on the images on either side.
-
I didn't see the other half of the top part via that link from Dave, perhaps ancestry missed it out? :-\
Though Kings Norton does "appear" one way or another on the images on either side.
I get the feeling that this dataset was not Ancestry's finest hour :-) You are not (ever as it stands) going to be able to navigate back/forward to find all the parts of each huge page (as I am used to doing e.g. in the Diocese of Durham BTs on FS)
Ancestry do not seem to have grasped that the images of all the sections of each page belong to the same parish - no, I have no idea why - its hardly rocket science
Look at each of the images
1 the image linked to the first result I found which Dave originally posted starts part way down the page
at the top it says parish is 'not stated' and we are looking at image 15610 of 30280
2 the image linked to the second result I found
that says its King Norton Parish and its image 127 of 224
I am not about to check each image in each database but a quick 'spot check' of 10 random numbered images from each set leads me to believe its quite possible that Ancestry have only included the section of the page that includes the Parish name as belonging to the parish and all other sections (which may be a few from each page) are lumped together as 'unknown' parishes :-(
so for Worcestershire BTs on Ancestry there are 'potentially' 30280 images which are reported in the results as being an unknown Parish somewhere in Worcestershire.
Boo
-
Good grief, Boo.
I see what you mean now. I didn't think it could be that bad. I underestimated them!
Can we hope ancestry get some parish registers up eventually? :-\
Jon
-
Hi Jon
This is just my opinion based on what I am seeing, I can't say for certain but taking the two images and searching for a couple of names that appear on both images
Rebecca Buckley 20 May 1804
2 results 1 Worcestershire, I Kings Norton Worcestershire
Barnett Parkes 29 Jul 1804 , 2 results as above
and a couple that are not on the image with the citation but are on the image of the next section
John Delingpole 25 Dec 1804
1 result Worcestershire
Betty Parsons 15 Apr 804
1 result Worcestershire
So I can say quite confidently that this page isn't properly recorded in the database which lends weight to the theory
Boo
-
Can we hope ancestry get some parish registers up eventually? :-\
Jon
Gotta love an optimist!
They have mangled the BTs, lets hope they get the PRS (which are possibly in the same physical format in this time frame) and see how far they can mangle those ? :-)
Boo
-
Apologies jonw65,Davedrave and anyone else who has read it. When I said
" You are not (ever as it stands) going to be able to navigate back/forward to find all the parts of each huge page"
I was wrong, its taken a fair bit of firkling to suss it and its a workaround but it is possible
Though obviously Ancestry putting it right is the ideal, paying customers shouldn't have to go to these lengths.
Going back to Dave's original link, it was
https://www.ancestry.co.uk/imageviewer/collections/62085/images/62085_302022005560_3627-00020?treeid=&personid=&rc=&usePUB=true&_phsrc=BeL2&_phstart=successSource&pId=414587
But we are only interested in the actual image so lose everything after the ?
https://www.ancestry.co.uk/imageviewer/collections/62085/images/62085_302022005560_3627-00020?
which is the link to the actual image.
The 00020 is the important part, change that in the url to 00019 and you get
https://www.ancestry.co.uk/imageviewer/collections/62085/images/62085_302022005560_3627-00019?
so thats top left and bottom left of the page (with the overlap so we can be sure its from the same page)
then change the number to 00021
https://www.ancestry.co.uk/imageviewer/collections/62085/images/62085_302022005560_3627-00021?
and then to 00022
https://www.ancestry.co.uk/imageviewer/collections/62085/images/62085_302022005560_3627-00022?
and you have top right and bottom right of the image of that entire page :-)
In theory , the same principle will apply to all the images in the dataset
I stitched the 4 together (badly) to show the whole page.
https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/lagfvpdjqq9wkfrcuukwu/kings-norton-BT-1804.jpg?rlkey=xjt0vbkr8jg4hklfivj53ccsn&dl=0
Boo
-
Incredible, Boo. Thank you.
You should work for ancestry!
Reminds me, that changing the image number in the url trick can be useful for ancestry. Someone on Rootschat once demonstrated it brings up the very many missing images for some of the cemeteries featured in their England & Scotland, Select Cemetery Registers, 1800-2022 collection.
I have also used it very occasionally to find some things on there that we are not supposed to see! Though they have more or less put a stop to that now.
Jon
-
www.rootschat.com/forum/index.php?topic=864395.msg7343093#msg7343093
-
Incredible, Boo. Thank you.
You should work for ancestry!
wash your mouth out young man! I stopped the salaried entertainment many, years ago.
I just hate it when things don't make sense and am so nosey I just have to firkle till I have an explanation.
Now that I do have an explanation I am happy. I don't think I have 'any' folk on my tree in the Worcestershire area but if I come across one at least I'll know that ancestry have mucked up the BTs but it is get roundable!
Boo
-
Thanks Boo for your hard work.
Dave :)
-
Thanks Boo for your hard work.
Dave :)
I was about to apologise for hijacking your thread on what was a very personal quest to satisfy my curiosity/nosiness.
But maybe we've all learned something so perhaps we can call it quits :-)
Boo