RootsChat.Com
England (Counties as in 1851-1901) => England => Oxfordshire => Topic started by: Catling121 on Friday 06 March 15 19:54 GMT (UK)
-
Hi All,
Back in June (I think) 2012, a message appeared on the Oxford Archives site saying that a "9-month project" had begun to digitise the counties Parish Records.
Well, it's March 2015 now and nothing seems to have appeared either at the archives, nor online. Does anyone know what's going on, or what to expect?
Many thanks,
Chris
-
http://boards.ancestry.co.uk/localities.britisles.england.oxf.general/4538/mb.ashx
-
Hello Catling121 -
The project was funded and organised by Oxfordshire Family History Society. I'm happy to chat on the phone in detail if you like - my number's on the Society website at www.ofhs.org.uk
Yes, the project has gone very well so far. We have achieved the scanning of all deposited registers at the Oxfordshire History Centre bar about half a dozen, mostly for reasons of fragility. We even did better than that - a campaign of talking to incumbents meant some undeposited registers were lent from the parishes to the History Centre specifically for the scanning. The registers couldn't be scanned on site, so 180 registers each fortnight were checked into plastic crates and sent off to be scanned. A fortnight later a batch came back, needing to be checked back, plus a hard drive.
The Society now holds scans of all the pages of 3,403 registers, comprising 184,000, mostly double page, scans.
There were quite a few months' work in checking the scans. Obviously this whole procedure was a first for us, and so we had to devise various checks for completeness.
Our reasons for carrying out the scanning were twofold. The first was the preservation of the registers - in line with our Society objectives. We have now devised a viewer to be used in the Search Room such that the scans of the registers can be browsed (at no charge). This is now in operation, meaning the registers need not be produced.
The other reason was so that the scans had wide availability. We have had meetings with potential providers, and our legal advisors have been at work. A current estimate of the scans appearing on the web, indexed, is a good two years. It's been a large project for a volunteer body, but a very exciting one!
Wendy Archer
Chairman, Oxfordshire FHS
www.ofhs.org.uk
-
Hi Chris, and thanks for raising this question :)
Hi again Wendy :)
Could you just clarify something for me please? Will OFHS continue to produce CDs of parish registers, and if so will the CDs contain fresh transcriptions derived from your new scans?
All the best,
Carol
-
Hi Carol -
Hi Chris, and thanks for raising this question :)
Hi again Wendy :)
Could you just clarify something for me please? Will OFHS continue to produce CDs of parish registers, and if so will the CDs contain fresh transcriptions derived from your new scans?
Your question is a bit ambiguous!
There's no intent to retranscribe the existing transcripts, and sale of the CDs will continue.
Many of the transcripts are already up to present times because transcribers used registers in the parishes if at that time they weren't deposited.
But for parishes where what we've scanned gives us registers that haven't been transcribed onto CD, we're certainly doing that with the help of volunteers! Some if the registers we've scanned won't appear on the internet anyway, as being "too recent", so the CDs will be our only way of publishing such data. The church, St Lukes in Cowley, which is now the Oxfordshire History Centre, itself has registers from the 1930s. Our volunteer told me last week he's finished transcribing them from the scans I gave him - though there will be a checking stage before publication. I've just sent a memory stick of scans of Kidlington registers out for transcription. We've recently updated the CD WIT01 with a further 100 or so years of both Eynsham and Witney.
If you, or anyone else reading this, would like to help with transcription, do contact me. If you have a favourite parish or area, I try and match folk to the areas which they will know well. The writing isn't as challenging as that of previous centuries!
Wendy
Chairman, Oxfordshire FHS
www.ofhs.org.uk
-
Hi Wendy,
Thank you for your detailed and informative reply. Interesting that you should mention St Luke's; I visited it once, but have no memory of the event as I was only 3 months old at the time! No doubt your volunteer has transcribed my baptism, as well as my parents' marriage.
If I understand you correctly, the existing range of CDs will continue to be sold, and the newly scanned registers are being transcribed onto new CDs. I was a little concerned that the new material wouldn't be available (outside of Oxford) for another two years, so thank you for explaining the process.
I am interested in transcribing for OFHS, but it might not be practical as we're travelling around Australia in a caravan. We don't always have electricity, let alone internet! However we have stopped for a few weeks, so if you tell me what's involved I'll give you a proper answer.
Keep up the good work!
Carol
-
The other reason was so that the scans had wide availability. We have had meetings with potential providers, and our legal advisors have been at work. A current estimate of the scans appearing on the web, indexed, is a good two years.
If you will forgive my impertinence, Wendy, I recommend that you include in any contract with the online Family History providers a commitment on the provider's part to put the records onto their site within a certain period from the time OFHS provides the data.
One of the large providers (name rhymes with MindMyPast) is notorious for making grand announcements in the press and then not producing the records. Witness MindMyPast's Westminster Collection, announced with great fanfare in March 2012 to be arriving "in the coming months". Thirty-six months have come and gone since and the Westminster Collection consists of incomplete PRs and one tranche of Rate Books and has been forgotten (no update since December 2013) while MindMyPast pursues the US market and publishes vital Irish Dog Licence records.
-
Hear hear ( as an OFHS member)
Steve
-
Horsleydown86, and Old Bristolian -
Your comments have been noted, and I will pass them to the OFHS committee.
Wendy
-
Hi Carol -
I am interested in transcribing for OFHS, but it might not be practical as we're travelling around Australia in a caravan. We don't always have electricity, let alone internet! However we have stopped for a few weeks, so if you tell me what's involved I'll give you a proper answer.
Keep up the good work!
Carol
Many thanks for your kind offer. For fresh transcribing it would be a case of sending you scans of registers, but that would be on a password protected memory stick, which sounds impractical in your circumstances. We also need the old transcripts rekeying from the pdf files on the CDs - would you like to be involved there?
Let's continue this discussion by email :-)
Wendy
-
Hi again Wendy,
I’m emailing you separately about my possible participation.
Many people who use this board are not familiar with the history of the 1974 county boundary changes, and will be unaware that some ‘Oxfordshire’ parish records are retained in Berkshire. So for the assistance of all RootsChatters with Oxfordshire interests, could you just confirm that the ex-Berkshire parishes have not been included in the scanning project.
Regards,
Carol
-
Hi Carol & all -
Hi again Wendy,
I’m emailing you separately about my possible participation.
Many people who use this board are not familiar with the history of the 1974 county boundary changes, and will be unaware that some ‘Oxfordshire’ parish records are retained in Berkshire. So for the assistance of all RootsChatters with Oxfordshire interests, could you just confirm that the ex-Berkshire parishes have not been included in the scanning project.
Regards,
Carol
Thank you again, Carol, for your offer to be involved.
Yes, I did say earlier in the thread that the scanning project applied to all deposited registers at the Oxfordshire History Centre. Registers of parishes historically in the pre-1974 county of Oxfordshire are held at the Oxfordshire History Centre.
Registers of parishes historically in the pre-1974 county of Berkshire are at the Berkshire Record Office in Reading. Oxfordshire FHS covers the present county of Oxfordshire, so has transcribed most of the "old Berkshire" parishes, but has not scanned them.
Wendy
-
Wendy, thank you for explaining the situation. I thought that was the case, but it's always best to get up-to-date confirmation where possible.
Carol
-
Witness MindMyPast's Westminster Collection, announced with great fanfare in March 2012 to be arriving "in the coming months". Thirty-six months have come and gone since and the Westminster Collection consists of incomplete PRs and one tranche of Rate Books and has been forgotten (no update since December 2013) while MindMyPast pursues the US market and publishes vital Irish Dog Licence records.
Given that a lot of the early Irish census records have been lost or destroyed, the dog licence records might be the only way of tracking down some of my ancestors who I know were in Ireland at one time. I just hope they were dog lovers. ;D ;D.
Seriously, it's good to hear of what progress is being made in the Oxfordshire record project. I have ancestors from both sides of the border (pre -1974 Oxon / Berks that is).
-
Hi,
I live near Cowley and I'm fairly sure that every Tuesday, the main church by Temple Cowley has a sort of open day for people wishing to do searches for the Oxfordshire area and they must have access to a variety of parish records.
I've never been, but I have no ancestral ties to the area, but there's always a poster up outside the church advertising the above.
-
I live near Cowley and I'm fairly sure that every Tuesday, the main church by Temple Cowley has a sort of open day for people wishing to do searches for the Oxfordshire area and they must have access to a variety of parish records.
I've never been, but I have no ancestral ties to the area, but there's always a poster up outside the church advertising the above.
Do you mean St Luke's, on Oxford Road opposite the Original Swan pub? That building is no longer a church. It has been the home of the Oxfordshire History Centre for a few years now and is open daily for anyone researching local history, including family history. All of the county's parish records are lodged there. (See Wendy's posts earlier about the OFHS scanning project.)
Carol
-
UPDATE (which should probably have been provided by OFHS):-
Ancestry is the chosen provider. It's a done deal. No doubt their dollars will outweigh the loss of my OFHS annual subscription.
Carol
-
Interesting, thanks Carol.
My suspicion that FindMyPast is no longer interested in (non-military) UK records has hardened into conviction with every Friday's pathetic output in the months since I last posted on this thread.
This further confirms it.
With Ancestry at least we might eventually see the Oxfordshire records.
-
Well, I hope they do them justice and that the OFHS are happy with the results
My Oxfordshire lot didn't seem to settle in any particular area which made purchasing the CDs too much of a hit-and-hope exercise, so I'm looking forward to this.
-
Stevie Stevie -
Well, I hope they do them justice and that the OFHS are happy with the results
We organised the scanning and have carefully checked the resulting images. We are very pleased with the results of the project. Indeed, the images can all be viewed at the Oxfordshire History Centre.
My Oxfordshire lot didn't seem to settle in any particular area which made purchasing the CDs too much of a hit-and-hope exercise, so I'm looking forward to this.
OFHS offers searches in its county-wide databases for just that reason - see Surname Search Services on the left at www.ofhs.org.uk
OFHS HelpDesk
-
Thanks iffley
The site looks very different from what I remember. Looks like you've been busy the last couple of years!
-
Thanks iffley
The site looks very different from what I remember. Looks like you've been busy the last couple of years!
The website design hasn't changed much - except we now also have a news blog at http://news.ofhs.org.uk/news/
But we have various new products - like the Oxford City Cemetery Grave Register CD, and several new photographic MI CDs every year. We also give taster journals on the site - the beginning and the end, but the middle is only available to members.
-
With Ancestry at least we might eventually see the Oxfordshire records.
Are these scans available on Ancestry yet? Apparently they've had them for several months.
At least if they'd gone to FindMyPast or, even better, The Genealogist they'd be handled within the UK.
Will OFHS be allowed to provide images to members or will Ancestry have exclusive rights?
Carol
-
Are these scans available on Ancestry yet? Apparently they've had them for several months.
Not yet, but they are working on them and keeping us informed of progress.
Will OFHS be allowed to provide images to members or will Ancestry have exclusive rights?
As I have said earlier in this thread, the images are currently available at Oxfordshire History Centre. This means one of our major objectives is fulfilled, that of preserving the registers, which are not now available to researchers.
Those currently using the Oxfordshire FHS's Search Services are able to pay for images of the results of their searches, at the discretion of Alan, who runs the Search Services. Contact Alan if you want to discuss images of particular events.
Wendy
Oxfordshire FHS
-
Any news on these yet?
sre
-
sre -
Any news on these yet?
If you have interests in Oxfordshire and in the scans, may I suggest it would be good to join Oxfordshire Family History Society, who've funded the scanning. There are updates in their journal. You'd slso be supporting genealogy in Oxfordshire.
There's a taster journal online at www.ofhs.org.uk (the full journal has lots of articles as well!), and you can read the recent Chairman's piece there.
The plan, all being well, is that the Ancestry launch of the Oxfordshire images will coincide with the OFHS Fair in Woodstock on 1 October.
Furthermore, all Oxfordshire Family History Society members at that time will be entitled to a significant discount off a year's Ancestry subscription - another good reason to join OFHS! See http://www.ofhs.org.uk/introduction.html
Iffley
-
Thanks Iffley, will do
Cheers
sre
-
Hi there ive been waiting for these records to come online for so long now, you say the records may be released 1st October 2016 on ancestry? That is only next week ! I really do hope so
-
Hi Brad -
Hi there ive been waiting for these records to come online for so long now, you say the records may be released 1st October 2016 on ancestry? That is only next week ! I really do hope so
Yes, 1st October - Saturday week as I write!
And all members of OFHS, who financed the scanning, will be eligible for a 20% discount off their next UK Premium subscription to Ancestry. Membership of OFHS is only £9 pa, so the arithmetic makes sense to join OFHS and support the local society - as well as getting 3 journals a year! See http://www.ofhs.org.uk/introduction.html
Back to the scans - there are 4 datasets.
Oxfordshire, England, Church of England Baptisms, Marriages and Burials, 1538-1812
Oxfordshire, England, Church of England Births and Baptisms, 1813-1915
Oxfordshire, England, Church of England Marriages and Banns, 1754-1930
Oxfordshire, England, Church of England Deaths and Burials, 1813-1965
The formal launch will be at our Fair at Woodstock - see www.ofhs.org.uk/fair.html Do come!
-
Thanks for your reply on this, so tomorrow is the day I'm excited :D
I will be looking on there first thing in the morning in hope they have been added.
are the records full scans or transcript's?
Also are the registers complete or are some parish's missing do you know?
many thanks
-
Thanks for your reply on this, so tomorrow is the day I'm excited :D
I will be looking on there first thing in the morning in hope they have been added.
are the records full scans or transcript's?
Also are the registers complete or are some parish's missing do you know?
many thanks
We're excited too!
Transcripts by OFHS have long been available on CD :-)
These are the scans - scanned by OFHS - indexed by Ancestry.
All Oxfordshire parishes are included - they have been scanned as far as the registers are deposited in the Oxfordshire History Centre, but will only be on Ancestry subject to the normal date restrictions. There's some doubt about whether the Asthall nineteenth century register will have been included.
Is it ELKINGTON you're interested in?
Wendy
FHS Publicity Coordinator
-
The Oxfordshire Records are now on line at Ancestry.
Simon
-
The Oxfordshire Records are now on line at Ancestry.
Simon
;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
With tomorrow's cold and wet weather forecast, I know what I shall be doing. ;)
-
As a heads up to anyone looking for Sandford St Martin marriages 1754 onwards. They've been indexed in amongst the 1538-1812 registers rather than under the marriage register search. If you use the main Ancestry search page, you will get some results, but not under the normal 1754-1930 Marriage Search page. ::)
On a plus note, they're very good quality scans. ;D
-
I have just started collecting the records for my Oxfordshire families.
It is wonderful to see the originals - in such beautiful scans - after years with the transcripts.
I would like to say a huge thank you to Wendy and everyone at the OFHS who contributed to this project.
-
Hallelujah! I must say the scans are excellent - well done OFHS. Ancestry's indexing is patchy as usual. Please, don't rely on the indexes alone - if in doubt go to the images, parish by parish if necessary, and enjoy the search!
Steve
-
I've not got many relatives from Oxfordshire, but have managed to find most of them in Ancestry's new records - hurrah! Good work all round, and thanks OFHS.
-
It seems Westcote Barton post 1813 burials are missing. ::) Not showing through the browse facility so its not just an issue of not being indexed. As the OFHS have transcribed them, it would appear to be an issue with Ancestry.
What with that and the fact that many of the post 1754 Marriage Registers have been included in the 1583-1812 Parish Register collection instead of the dedicated 1754-1930 Marriage Register collection. Typical Ancestry.
Edit - post 1837 Marriages for Westcote Barton are missing too. Only the Banns Register is there.
Rather annoying since I don't have that many in Oxon and Westcote Barton is one of the few parishes I'm interested in. :-\
-
Someone once said "I doubt Anc will ever release Oxon due to OXFHS having the records". Shows that you can never trust such phrases.
My paternal gran's mum was from Oxford, moved down to Sussex then ended up in Essex and my paternal grandfather's great gran came from Oxfordshire so I will be busy.
-
I've subsequently heard that the Westcote Barton post 1837 marriages and post 1813 burials haven't actually been deposited at the Oxfordshire History Centre which is why they are missing from Ancestry as they haven't been digitised. :-\ The OFHS transcripts were apparently done by the Bartons History Group. Disappointing for me, but explains their absence rather than it being an Ancestry screw up for a change.
-
Combe seem to not have put their records after 1705 on yet.
Most are online though it seems. I have managed to send some brickwalls flying down to the ground to dust now.
-
I can't find any marriages in Wardington between 1726 and 1754
-
There is a serious problem with the earlier burials.
Those which are just a name are fine. Those which come with a relationship may not be.
If the entry reads "John Smith", you can find it. No problem.
If it reads "John son of John Smith", chances are that it's only been indexed as "John"
"Ann daughter of John Smith" or "Ann wife of John Smith" is only indexed as "Ann"
Choose a parish, and just put Ann or Mary into a burials search.
Now, that might work for some people. It doesn't for me. It means searching the burials manually for each child to make sure it didn't die, and for the mother for years.
I emailed Ancestry, and what I got back was:
"We always strive to ensure that the information we provide is accurate. Please note that we generally receive data from outside sources and post it as it was provided to us. In order to maintain authenticity in our records, we cannot make changes directly to material not created by Ancestry. To make these types of changes, you will need to contact the original creators of this data, have them correct this in their own records and then send this update to us for posting."
I had always suspected there were no quality checks.
I have already expended considerable time adding corrections to Deddington, thinking it was just Deddington, but it isn't.
-
Its not just burials where they have missed off the surname. I was looking for some baptisms in Alderton in the 1670s and 1680s and in the same situation where it said "John son of John Smith and Mary", they have left off the surname for both the child and the parents so are just indexed under first names. ::)
I've been adding quite a few corrections too, including I think also some in Deddington. ;D
-
They appear, from the content of the email, to be referring this back to the OFHS, that they have to make mass corrections, and send them in for uploading? Surely that doesn't make sense?
-
Seems strange to refer back to OFHS when they are Ancestry's own transcriptions. OFHS Facebook Group has post saying that Ancestry didn't want OFHS' transcriptions and did their own.
-
This is why I didn't want Ancestry involved. OFHS and OHC must be terribly disappointed.
Carol
-
This is why I didn't want Ancestry involved. OFHS and OHC must be terribly disappointed.
Carol
To be honest, whether its Ancestry or FindMyPast, there are always issues. FindMyPast made a real mess of Hertfordshire PRs and still haven't sorted out the problems. There are also issues with the Welsh PRs. It doesn't really matter who had them, there were always likely to be issues. At least they are available now more widely. There is nothing to stop people browsing the images and working through them, ie. the good old fashioned way of doing research. As time goes on, if people continue adding corrections, then the indexes will improve.
-
To be honest, whether its Ancestry or FindMyPast, there are always issues. FindMyPast made a real mess of Hertfordshire PRs and still haven't sorted out the problems. There are also issues with the Welsh PRs. It doesn't really matter who had them, there were always likely to be issues. At least they are available now more widely. There is nothing to stop people browsing the images and working through them, ie. the good old fashioned way of doing research. As time goes on, if people continue adding corrections, then the indexes will improve.
The annoying part is that it's so avoidable!
-
I have the Oxon marriage index and some OXFHS CD's so can still refer to them if I cannot find a likely marriage in the Ancestry records. I'd rather we had them on Anc than not as it will make it easier at least to find those Oxfordian ancestors. Also Oxon is one of my fave ancestral homelands as well. I went there last October and went to the RO.
-
To be honest, whether its Ancestry or FindMyPast, there are always issues. FindMyPast made a real mess of Hertfordshire PRs and still haven't sorted out the problems. There are also issues with the Welsh PRs. It doesn't really matter who had them, there were always likely to be issues. At least they are available now more widely. There is nothing to stop people browsing the images and working through them, ie. the good old fashioned way of doing research. As time goes on, if people continue adding corrections, then the indexes will improve.
The annoying part is that it's so avoidable!
I agree. Sadly all the 3rd party companies are these days as bad as each other. :-\ There are similar problems with the Northamptonshire PRs on Ancestry. I know from an exchange of emails with the RO that they had a "Project Manager" working with the Ancestry staff, yet it would appear that there wasn't much managing and monitoring going on do ensure the job was done properly with the scanning because there are a number of large gaps in some parishes. As to the issues with transcription, sadly its all too common and one of the reasons why people shouldn't rely on transcripts and indexes only, something far too many seem to do, without checking originals. ::) Just look at the number of complaints on Ancestry's Facebook page about their "hints" not being very accurate.
-
I've seen a few burials where the date given is the date an affidavit was received later. Some interesting transcriptions of surnames even though the writing was perfectly clear, quite how Sewell became Severance or Smallbrook became Smallbones I have no idea...
-
Having had an initial look around at the new Oxfordshire records on Ancestry, I think these will need to be used with some care!
As an "experiment" I took three of my 17th century WASTIE marriages that appear on the OFHS's Oxfordshire Marriage Index. Two of them don't appear in the indexes and the one that does has the groom's surname incorrectly transcribed and gives the groom's place of residence where the bride's name should be!
Of the two that don't appear in the indexes, I've found one in the relevant parish register images. Although the groom's name is hard to decipher, the bride's forename and surname are quite clear. Searching again for the marriage under her name, there is nothing found on the index.
I was thinking (regretfully) that my marriage index CD would now be redundant ... but I think I shall still be using it!
-
I was thinking (regretfully) that my marriage index CD would now be redundant ... but I think I shall still be using it!
I've been regularly referring to my Northamptonshire Baptism/Marriage/Burial Indexes since the registers went online on Ancestry. :-\ Between the two I've managed to find things, but I'm still having to refer to them some months after their release (along with submitting numerous corrections). ;D
-
My Oxon Marriage Index is now in my PC as we speak. I am also finding marriages that I cannot find on the Ancestry records. I may have found the baptism of an ancestor and am doing a mini tree. I found 2 marriages on the CD that were mis-transcribed in the Anc records.
-
I found 2 marriages on the CD that were mis-transcribed in the Anc records.
Only two? ;D ;D
I must say, I'm rather glad our tree was done the old-fashioned way, sitting in the record office / Bodley. All I'm doing is adding the records to my Ancestry tree and checking detail.
I'm just glad I'm not trying to trace travellers!
-
I'm just glad I'm not trying to trace travellers!
Like me, just broken a brickwall and confirmed a hunch, not directly related to the PRs being launched on Ancestry but I'm now looking for a marriage in the late 1680s which could either be in North Berkshire (which obviously aren't included although now part of Oxon) or south Oxfordshire. Nothing appearing on Ancestry and nothing on my v1 of the Berkshire FHS marriage index, so its anybody's guess where it is (I do have a number of OFHS west north Berkshire transcripts but not so many over towards the north eastern part of the county). The couple's daughter's marriage is also a problem but I have managed to confirm her maiden name by the fact the parish clerk kindly included it on her son's burial entry (even though he was a married adult) and her parent's names courtesy of a chance view of a Oxfordshire Admon on FindMyPast today. ;D Now if I could just find the marriage and confirm the wife's maiden name (already believe I know the husband's parents based on previous hunch and other Wills) then I can hopefully research some more. :-\
-
Hi smudwhisk,
(along with submitting numerous corrections)
I've just looked on Anc...y and found one of my ancestors but it was a struggle as the surname has been mistranscribed. It is shown as "Found" whereas it should be "Pound".
Looking at the original it could easily be taken as a "F" but on closer viewing it is a "P".
I looked but couldn't see where to lodge a correction. Can you guide me, please?
PS. have sent a PM to you.
Alan
-
I am very happy to see the Oxfordshire parish records on line at Ancestry, but I too am a bit surprised at the standard of some of the transcriptions. I have already had to provide dozens of "alternatives" (Ancestry don't do corrections, if it's transcribed incorrectly it will stay that way for ever), and I'm sure it will be up to hundreds in the next couple of weeks at this rate. I wouldn't have expected that the old fashioned double ss would be transcribed as ts but has in many cases eg Williss as Willits. At least a whole page of births in Cropredy have been given an incorrect year, even when each entry has the full date, year included. Others just have the year missing for what appears no reason.
As has been mentioned, surnames missing from 'son of', 'wife of' etc. can make identification time consuming.(Warwickshire records are the same). I might be being helpful for others when I add an alternative, but I'm also transcribing free for Ancestry :)
You certainly have to be creative in your surname search criteria. As an example if you were looking for a baptism for Bernhard Griffiths in 1900 he has been transcribed as Bernhard Willitts ???
I am, however, happy looking through the registers page by page, far more satisfying than an index, but somewhat time consuming and can be a bit of a strain on the eyes.
Simon
-
Found some entries in Witney St Mary where the Ancestry transcriber has entered the first and surname in the first name box and left the surname box blank thus causing the entries not to appear in the search results under a normal search criteria. ::)
-
I have been looking and adding some of Hubby's family from Great Milton Oxfordshire. Just wished they learnt to spell back in the old days,then I would find the records easier lol His family are Auger's and sometimes they spell the name as Augur.
-
I looked but couldn't see where to lodge a correction. Can you guide me, please?
At the bottom of the image, click the people thingy to the right of the page number and the transcribed data comes up at the bottom. Double click the part you want to correct, add the correction and a reason and save. If there are other people that might need correcting as well a box comes up giving you the option to correct those as well. Hope that's understandable!
-
I have just started collecting the records for my Oxfordshire families.
It is wonderful to see the originals - in such beautiful scans - after years with the transcripts.
I would like to say a huge thank you to Wendy and everyone at the OFHS who contributed to this project.
Thank you so much! I'll pass your comments back to OFHS.
It's so exciting to have looked at the Iffley registers in the vicar's kitchen, soup bubbling away not far away, half a century ago, and then to have seen them at the Bodleian, then at the Records Office, then at Oxfordshire History Centre, where they now are, and now for them to be available worldwide!
Wendy
-
I'm just glad I'm not trying to trace travellers!
Like me, just broken a brickwall and confirmed a hunch, not directly related to the PRs being launched on Ancestry but I'm now looking for a marriage in the late 1680s which could either be in North Berkshire (which obviously aren't included although now part of Oxon) or south Oxfordshire. Nothing appearing on Ancestry and nothing on my v1 of the Berkshire FHS marriage index, so its anybody's guess where it is (I do have a number of OFHS west north Berkshire transcripts but not so many over towards the north eastern part of the county). The couple's daughter's marriage is also a problem but I have managed to confirm her maiden name by the fact the parish clerk kindly included it on her son's burial entry (even though he was a married adult) and her parent's names courtesy of a chance view of a Oxfordshire Admon on FindMyPast today. ;D Now if I could just find the marriage and confirm the wife's maiden name (already believe I know the husband's parents based on previous hunch and other Wills) then I can hopefully research some more. :-\
Have you asked OFHS for a search in its N Berks marriage index? (See Surname Search Services on the left at www.ofhs.org.uk )
Wendy
OFHS HelpDesk
-
Combe seem to not have put their records after 1705 on yet.
It wouldn't have been Combe that would have "put them on" - it would have been Ancestry, using the OFHS scans, were there to have been any.
However - you're going to be sadly disappointed. Over a century of Combe registers are lost due to the fire of 1918. The OFHS transcript uses the Bishop's Transcripts to fill in where it can.
If you join OFHS, you'll be given a book explaining what parish registers exist where.
Wendy
OFHS HelpDesk
-
I've not got many relatives from Oxfordshire, but have managed to find most of them in Ancestry's new records - hurrah! Good work all round, and thanks OFHS.
Many thanks, Claire.
Wendy
OFHS HelpDesk
-
I cannot seem to find any parish register entries for Eynesham, have these been put online yet please?
All that searches specifying Evesham come up with are for St Mary's Witney, however the website of St Leonards says the church was built c.1300 and that the registers are available 1653 - 1900.
The images I have seen from St Mary's are excellent, well done OFHS.
Michael.
-
I cannot seem to find any parish register entries for Eynesham, have these been put online yet please?
All that searches specifying Evesham come up with are for St Mary's Witney, however the website of St Leonards says the church was built c.1300 and that the registers are available 1653 - 1900.
The images I have seen from St Mary's are excellent, well done OFHS.
Michael.
Thank you for your congratulations.
Yes, there are a lot of registers for Eynsham.
To find the registers of a specfic Oxfordshire parish, go to the tecord set - eg
http://search.ancestry.co.uk/search/db.aspx?dbid=61056
for the early registers and on the right of the page is a drop down menu under "browse this collection". Eynsham is there, with links to each of the registers, and similarly for the later data sets.
Wendy
-
Hi Wendy,
Many thanks for your information and very clear instructions - although I was unable to find the person(s) I am looking for the Evesham images are even better than those for Witney!
What a marvellous resource your society has provided,
Very gratefully, Michael.
Added on 8th Oct: Re below, you are quite right Wendy, it should have been 'Eynsham'. (A perfect example of brain fade after an hour's close study of the records).
-
Hi Wendy,
Many thanks for your information and very clear instructions - although I was unable to find the person(s) I am looking for the Evesham images are even better than those for Witney!
What a marvellous resource your society has provided,
Very gratefully, Michael.
Thank you for your kind words!
Eynsham, Oxfordshire, isn't Evesham, Gloucestershire, though - but I think you mean Eynsham!!
I suggest you start a new thread with details of the person that's eluding you - or use the OFHS helpdesk.
Wendy
-
Hi Wendy,
Many thanks for your information and very clear instructions - although I was unable to find the person(s) I am looking for the Evesham images are even better than those for Witney!
What a marvellous resource your society has provided,
Very gratefully, Michael.
There appear to be issues with indexing of Eynsham, particularly pre 1812. I was looking for a baptism from 1809 that I know is in the parish for a relative and had to browse the register to find it. However, the only save options are to save a web link to a tree or to download a copy. So they are on there, just you have to browse the registers the old fashioned way for now. :-\
-
There appear to be issues with indexing of Eynsham, particularly pre 1812. I was looking for a baptism from 1809 that I know is in the parish for a relative and had to browse the register to find it. However, the only save options are to save a web link to a tree or to download a copy. So they are on there, just you have to browse the registers the old fashioned way for now. :-\
I've had to go looking for several people the old-fashioned way. But when I find them, I always go to the index at the bottom and have a look why I couldn't find it. It's often some mangled form of the name, which I can correct (provided it wasn't the vicar who mangled it at the time!). But sometimes the entry's been missed off the index, and there's no way to put it on.
If you can find the entry in the index, and you highlight it, it will then put the name at the top of the page, and you can then add it to your tree in the normal way.
-
There appear to be issues with indexing of Eynsham, particularly pre 1812. I was looking for a baptism from 1809 that I know is in the parish for a relative and had to browse the register to find it. However, the only save options are to save a web link to a tree or to download a copy. So they are on there, just you have to browse the registers the old fashioned way for now. :-\
[/quote]
Having found the entry, did you find it then in the index by clicking on the two green people?
-
Having found the entry, did you find it then in the index by clicking on the two green people?
That wasn't available, it was effectively "greyed out" as you couldn't click on it, suggesting they haven't been indexed.
-
Having found the entry, did you find it then in the index by clicking on the two green people?
That wasn't available, it was effectively "greyed out" as you couldn't click on it, suggesting they haven't been indexed.
If you give me the image number, OFHS can raise it with Ancestry.
-
I can't seem to find any records for Caversham - is this because the registers are at BRO ?
So far, I've not managed any successful searches for baptisms at Hook Norton.
There seems to be a problem with the way that Ancestry have indexed Watlington - it doesn't appear in the drop down box as you type in the name until you start to enter Oxfordshire and then it appears as Watlington, Oxford, Oxfordshire. If you search the records, they are shown as Watlington, Oxfordshire - it suggests that Ancestry need to do a little tweak to their dataset search.
The other parishes I've searched seem to be OK and the scans are first class - quite a lot of mis-transcriptions though ::)
-
There seems to be a problem with the way that Ancestry have indexed Watlington - it doesn't appear in the drop down box as you type in the name until you start to enter Oxfordshire and then it appears as Watlington, Oxford, Oxfordshire. If you search the records, they are shown as Watlington, Oxfordshire - it suggests that Ancestry need to do a little tweak to their dataset search.
And Hardwick is down as Harwick cum Tusmore - I'm entering "Harwick" in the Keywords box to search it!
-
I can't seem to find any records for Caversham - is this because the registers are at BRO ?
yes - you'll need to use the OFHS transcripts, but sadly there are no scans in these datasets.
So far, I've not managed any successful searches for baptisms at Hook Norton.
There are the following registers or part registers in the datasets.
The 1538-1812 dataset has:
1550 - 1753
1729 - 1787
1754 - 1812
1788 - 1812
1812
The baptisms, 1813-1915, dataset has:
1813 - 1854
1855 - 1911
The marriages and Banns, 1754-1930, dataset has:
Year Range
1754 - 1813
1813 - 1837
1823 - 1855
1837 - 1917
1856 - 1892
1892 - 1930
The burials, 1813-1965, dataset has:
1813 - 1867
There seems to be a problem with the way that Ancestry have indexed Watlington - it doesn't appear in the drop down box as you type in the name until you start to enter Oxfordshire and then it appears as Watlington, Oxford, Oxfordshire. If you search the records, they are shown as Watlington, Oxfordshire - it suggests that Ancestry need to do a little tweak to their dataset search.
Yes, I see what you mean - I'll include it in the OFHS comments list.
The other parishes I've searched seem to be OK and the scans are first class -
Thank you from OFHS
Wendy
-
Having found the entry, did you find it then in the index by clicking on the two green people?
That wasn't available, it was effectively "greyed out" as you couldn't click on it, suggesting they haven't been indexed.
The one I was looking for was Image 52 of 1776-1812, but the whole dataset appear to have the button greyed out as checked a few random pages.
If you give me the image number, OFHS can raise it with Ancestry.
-
Hi Wendy,
The images I've seen so far on Ancestry have been ist class. Well done to the OFHS.
However, I do have a problem in that if I select eg; Bampton and choose page one(1), I get the front cover of the register and am then unable to select the right arrow to see page 2, 3 or whatever. I've noticed this on several occaisions with different parishes.
Another item I feel you may like to take up with Ancestry is when checking for Checkendon the marriage register 1756 - 1812 appears to open OK but is headed "1900 United States Federal Census" a screenshot is attached for convenience.
Alan
-
The new Oxon Ancestry records have several garbled versions of surnames and I have to browse some to get the record I want once I check the parish is on there. Also it seems at the moment you cannot search parents for the baptisms post 1813 yet the "Add family member" feature was there the other day and I could easily search parents a few days ago.
-
Hi Alan -
Hi Wendy,
The images I've seen so far on Ancestry have been ist class. Well done to the OFHS.
Thank you :-)
Another item I feel you may like to take up with Ancestry is when checking for Checkendon the marriage register 1756 - 1812 appears to open OK but is headed "1900 United States Federal Census" a screenshot is attached for convenience.
Alan
I can't replicate that. Can you now?
Wendy
-
Hi Alan -
Hi Wendy,
However, I do have a problem in that if I select eg; Bampton and choose page one(1), I get the front cover of the register and am then unable to select the right arrow to see page 2, 3 or whatever. I've noticed this on several occaisions with different parishes.
Nor can I replicate this. Can you give me a specific register where this happens, please?
Thanks!
Wendy
-
Hi Wendy,
Yes I can - but I believe the trick is to ensure a year is placed in the "box" before doing a search.
By entering a year, it took me to the appropriate year page and I can then select the person and the register will then open.
My example was; Checkendon registers.
I went to this address;
http://search.ancestry.co.uk/search/db.aspx?dbid=61056
on the right side I selected "Browse this collection"> selected parish of Checkendon> then eg; 1802-1812
and got the front cover showing in a red badge Baptisms & Burials.
From that point I could not go further. If I selected the little right arrow nothing happens nor if I enter a new page in the button at the bottom of the screen. The show/hide film strip works but you cannot get the chosen page to open.
With regard to the Checkendon register showing the "1900 US Federal Census" over the marriage pages (as per my screenshot) - they must have rectified it as all now shows correctly.
Thanks for all your help.
Alan
-
Another item I feel you may like to take up with Ancestry is when checking for Checkendon the marriage register 1756 - 1812 appears to open OK but is headed "1900 United States Federal Census" a screenshot is attached for convenience.
Alan
I can't replicate that. Can you now?
Wendy
That has intermittently occurred on Ancestry for some years with all sorts of records. Usually doesn't last long and its only the header on the webpage that is incorrect.
-
Alan -
Hi Wendy,
My example was; Checkendon registers.
I went to this address;
http://search.ancestry.co.uk/search/db.aspx?dbid=61056
on the right side I selected "Browse this collection"> selected parish of Checkendon> then eg; 1802-1812
and got the front cover showing in a red badge Baptisms & Burials.
From that point I could not go further. If I selected the little right arrow nothing happens
It's been suggested to me that it's very probably an issue between Ancestry and your browser. OFHS reccomends you report this to Ancestry with full details, including your browser. Permutations you could try first would be another browser, and/or another computer. Interesting to know if it happens with other counties?
Various of the beta-testing team had a look, and couldn't replicate the problem.
Wendy
-
And Hardwick is down as Harwick cum Tusmore - I'm entering "Harwick" in the Keywords box to search it!
Well, sadly one that seems to be an OFHS error - we don't know how!
We've put it on the report list - thanks for flagging it up!
Wendy
OFHS HelpDesk
-
Hi Wendy,
Well, I'm using an iMac (late 2015) and I've just tried getting the images using these browsers;
Safari, Firefox, Chrome, Operea Developer - all were the same and wouldn't go forward.
Using Opera (Version 40.0.2308) and I'm now able to go forward/backwards and read the pages. All good now so I must remember to use this browser in future.
I haven't tried other counties recently although I believe Gloucestershire have some original registers to view and from memory they all work well using Safari.
Thanks for your help.
Alan
-
I believe Ancestry are aware of known issues with using Safari with the website. My Aunt has a Mac and was advised last year by Ancestry to use Chrome rather than Safari because it wasn't a recommended browser. :-\ From what I've heard it works intermittently.
-
Dear Wendy,
I have found that some pages of burials are missing from the Wroxton image set for 1548 - 1812.
Burials start with October 1548 on the right-hand side page of Image 78 and run to January 1565 on that page.
Image 79 begins with 1600 on the right-hand side page. It's clear from the soak-through on the left page of Image 79 that records from 1592 to 1599 and 1600 are on the previous right-hand side page.
Examples of records from the missing years (taken from the Banbury-002 CD transcripts) are Henry COLEMAN (buried October 28 1580) and Isabell COLEMAN (buried May 5 1582).
Thank you for your help.
-
I have also found problems with the indexing
a whole page of Banbury is indexed to 1696 instead of Jan - March 1796. The full right hand page of the image in the link below. I submitted corrections but seems the search engine does not use submitted dates so basically I wasted my time, still have to search the names in a century out to find the baptisms. Left hand page and next page are OK.
http://interactive.ancestry.co.uk/61056/PAR021_1_R1_4_097?pid=1210044&backurl=//search.ancestry.co.uk//cgi-bin/sse.dll?_phsrc%3DEGz3766%26_phstart%3DsuccessSource%26usePUBJs%3Dtrue%26indiv%3D1%26db%3DOxfordshireEarlyParish%26gss%3Dangs-d%26new%3D1%26rank%3D1%26gsln%3Dbay*%26gsln_x%3D1%26msbdy%3D1696%26msbdy_x%3D1%26msbpn__ftp%3DBanbury,%2520Oxfordshire,%2520England%26msbpn%3D86777%26msbpn_PInfo%3D8-%257C0%257C0%257C3257%257C3251%257C0%257C0%257C0%257C5280%257C86777%257C0%257C0%257C%26msbpn_x%3D1%26msbpn__ftp_x%3D1%26MSAV%3D1%26uidh%3Di74%26pcat%3D34%26fh%3D0%26h%3D1210044%26recoff%3D%26ml_rpos%3D1&treeid=&personid=&hintid=&usePUB=true&_phsrc=EGz3766&_phstart=successSource&usePUBJs=true#?imageId=PAR021_1_R1_4_097 (http://interactive.ancestry.co.uk/61056/PAR021_1_R1_4_097?pid=1210044&backurl=//search.ancestry.co.uk//cgi-bin/sse.dll?_phsrc%3DEGz3766%26_phstart%3DsuccessSource%26usePUBJs%3Dtrue%26indiv%3D1%26db%3DOxfordshireEarlyParish%26gss%3Dangs-d%26new%3D1%26rank%3D1%26gsln%3Dbay*%26gsln_x%3D1%26msbdy%3D1696%26msbdy_x%3D1%26msbpn__ftp%3DBanbury,%2520Oxfordshire,%2520England%26msbpn%3D86777%26msbpn_PInfo%3D8-%257C0%257C0%257C3257%257C3251%257C0%257C0%257C0%257C5280%257C86777%257C0%257C0%257C%26msbpn_x%3D1%26msbpn__ftp_x%3D1%26MSAV%3D1%26uidh%3Di74%26pcat%3D34%26fh%3D0%26h%3D1210044%26recoff%3D%26ml_rpos%3D1&treeid=&personid=&hintid=&usePUB=true&_phsrc=EGz3766&_phstart=successSource&usePUBJs=true#?imageId=PAR021_1_R1_4_097)
And in a similar vain to the son/daughter of comment previously made there are no surnames for many at Alkerton. Have a search for burials in Alkerton 1806 - get 10 results all just first names, no surnames despite them being recorded as son of Bloggs. There are clearly only 5 burials for 1806, see attached image. Charlotte and Hannah are earlier in 1804 and Jeremiah 1807. The handwriting is quite clear and legible.
Experimenting further. Perform a Search for All Oxfordshire, England, Church of England Baptism, Marriages, and Burials, 1538-1812 results for John with the exact box ticked. There are 168 pages with 50 persons a page =8400 people with no surname, it is on the 168th page that surnames start with John Aakre-Burial-10 Mar 1714-Swalcliffe [where his name & date is from is a mystery as the image shows that the 10 Mar 1714 has been mouse or damp nibbled away so seems a work of fiction]. Anyway of those 168 pages they do appear in some sort of date order and the earliest ones do look like arabic handwriting for the 1500's but skip forward at random eg page 12 and I can read one I selected that page. Page 23 John Burial 7 Dec 1653 Burford, Oxfordshire and the surname is Munday. Multiply that kind of proportion by all the other William James Mary's etc and there must be over 100000 surnames missing.
http://search.ancestry.co.uk/cgi-bin/sse.dll?_phsrc=EGz3928&_phstart=successSource&usePUBJs=true&db=OxfordshireEarlyParish&gss=angs-d&new=1&rank=1&msT=1&gsfn=john&gsfn_x=1&MSAV=1&uidh=i74&gl=&gst=&hc=50&fh=8350&bsk=BEHDumgIgADugAABqpQ-61-&pgoff=11
I used 'Report an issue' with the Gloucestershire, England, Church of England Baptisms, Marriages and Burials, 1538-1813 about two weeks ago and that the drop down box which shows Sherrington, Wiltshire should be Shenington, Gloucestershire (pre 1844, subsequently Oxfordshire). They are the Bishops Transcripts that match the Oxfordshire Parish ones just published. If use keyword Shenington instead of Location will bring up the BT too but they don't show if loaction Shenington, Oxfordshire is used. Heard nothing back and situation remains unchanged and they say report issue is the correct thing to do for 'Problems with records, inlcuding missing, unreadable, or incorrect images.'
The images are excellent full marks for effort and quality for those to OFHS but Ancestry's indexing leaves very much to be desired!
-
Actually need to amend previous comment re-Alkerton 1806. Jeremiah, Ann and Charlotte do appear listed under 1806 if the corresponding image is opened but are Baptisms NOT Burials. Surnames again present and legible yet missing from index.
-
Hi jon_ni
I'm sorry but the images you've posted have been removed to prevent breaches of copyright.
Small portions only are allowed for deciphering purposes.
As to the transcriptions, this is a common failing with Ancestry.
I've been looking at the London & Middlesex records since 2009 when they first went online.
They were not complete then and still aren't, records have been attached to the wrong churches and despite sending emails they are still wrong, and the transriptions can be poor.
I have also reported the situation, as have the LMA who hold the originals.
The standard reply, if you do get one, is this
Please understand that while we receive a large volume of error submissions to our queue, they represent a very small percentage of the total number of records on Ancestry. Due to the volume of error submissions, fixes to errors on Ancestry are posted firstly in the order of those which affect the greatest number of users, and thereafter in the order in which they are reported. This also depends on employee resources. For this reason, there is no foreseeable timeframe as to when these changes will be made. We appreciate your patience.
-
Dear Wendy,
Further to my reply #89 on this thread regarding pages of burials missing from the Wroxton image set for 1548 - 1812, there is also at least one page of burials missing between 1685 and 1688.
Image 86 finishes with the burial of Christopher COX on June 13, 1685.
Image 87 commences with the burial of Jane, the wife of John CAKEBREAD on June 15, 1688.
The transcripts list approximately twenty burials between these two. For example, Temperance, the wife of Edward LUCAS on March 9, 1686.
Thank you for your help.
-
Dear Wendy,
Further to my reply #89 on this thread regarding pages of burials missing from the Wroxton image set for 1548 - 1812, there is also at least one page of burials missing between 1685 and 1688.
Image 86 finishes with the burial of Christopher COX on June 13, 1685.
Image 87 commences with the burial of Jane, the wife of John CAKEBREAD on June 15, 1688.
The transcripts list approximately twenty burials between these two. For example, Temperance, the wife of Edward LUCAS on March 9, 1686.
Thank you for your help.
Thanks for the information!
Wendy
-
Is it me or are there real problems with how the search results on the Oxfordshire 1538-1812 data set are currently showing? I don't remember having this problem when I last searched the collection some weeks back.
I'm trying to search for Sabin entries in Wardington (I know some of the marriage registers in the 1700s are missing from a previous post on this thread) by putting Sabin in the surname and Wardington in the keyword (I don't use "place" because haven't found it very reliable in the past) but I'm getting results with entries from other parishes (but not with surname of Wardington) and lots of entries missing which I've found by browsing. :-\ I've also tried narrowing down by including the parent's first names but that gives me entries for completely different couples. :-X
If I do the same in the Northamptonshire collection I don't have any issues.
Its really annoying because I'm struggling to find the entries I'm looking for without having to browse the whole register. :-X
-
It was doing the same thing for me on the PCC Wills yesterday - just would not produce a search by parish. I mean, to search for Towcester and get Kent, Gloucester and Middlesex. is some feat!
8)
-
Thanks PrawnCocktail, glad its not just me. I did wonder if it was just for the Oxfordshire collection but obviously not.