Mistakes in Parish Records

[jillruss]

I'd be interested to know if many people have come across glaring mistakes in Parish Records?

I may be clutching at straws here! 

When I found my ELIZABETH STUBBS (nee SIMON) on the 1841 census she had a couple of lodgers living with her by the name of SIMON - same as her maiden name.

This got my interest and I discovered only one other SIMON family living nearby. It's only a small place - Longford near Moreton Say in Shropshire.

By using the IGI , I discovered that the 2 lodgers were the eldest sons of this other family, headed by THOMAS SIMON.

Now, please stay with me here! This Thomas Simon gave Hodnet, Shrops (near Longford) as his birthplace on the 1841 census, and there is an IGI which gives his baptism in 1793 in Hodnet, son of JOHN SIMON and MARY.

My problem is that there are 6 possible siblings for THOMAS SIMON in Hodnet:-

Mary (1) 1784 died 1785
Anne 1785
John 1787
George 1788
Mary (2) 1791
James 1794

BUT they're all down as children of JOHN SIMON and SARAH, including the last one - James - so there's no question of JOHN snr having remarried!

I can find a likely marriage on the IGI for JOHN and SARAH but nothing for JOHN and MARY.

Finally! my question is - is it likely that the parish clerk made a mistake writing that THOMAS was the son of JOHN and MARY when it should have been JOHN and SARAH? Am I clutching at straws?

What I'm trying to establish, having found that ELIZABETH SIMON ( the one with the lodgers!!) was baptised in 1816 in Moreton Say base born daughter of MARY SIMON, is that this MARY could have been THOMAS' sister, baptised Hodnet in 1791!!!

I hope I've managed to make that all as clear as possible! I'd really appreciate some input on this from some more experienced family historians as I feel as though I'm going round in ever decreasing circles - and we all know what happens then!! 

Jill
 

[MaryA]

It sounds as though is could be a possible mistranscription even read from badly written handwriting.

However, my opinion and I think it would be backed up by the majority of us researchers, would be to use the IGI as a guideline only.  Never take its accuracy for granted until you have looked at the original for yourself.

You are a bit far away from Shropshire to simply nip around the corner to their Record Office but on the LDS Site you can search to find your nearest centre and order a copy of the film to view and make the decision for yourself.  http://www.familysearch.org/Eng/Library/FHC/frameset_fhc.asp?PAGE=library_fhc_find.asp

Mary

[avm228]

Hello Jill,

Well, for what it's worth, there is a family in my tree where upon baptism (according to the PRs, not IGI) the mother's maiden name was recorded as Mary Larthram (child 1); Mary Lanham (child 2); Sarah Larlham (child 3); Mary Lartham (child 4); Molly Latham (child 5).

(It was definitely the same woman each time.  She was my 5x g-grandmother and I still don't know exactly what her name was!).

So it seems entirely possible that parish clerks could and did make errors as to the names of the parents and that Mary and Sarah could be mixed up. Of course this doesn't prove things one way or another in your case, but I wouldn't rule out the possibility that Thomas was a sibling of the other Simon children you have found.

Anna

[PaulaToo]

Hi Jill

You do really need to see the parish records, or have someone look at them for you. This is where a local Family History Society can come in handy. I've just joined Hampshire in hope...but I'm not holding my breath. Some of them will do look ups for you.

Another point, It's been said, the IGI is not perfect. My own experience, John Denchfield married Mary. Right, which Mary, I have a choice, John Denchfield married, Mary Gurney, Mary Garney, Mary Thorn.... Luckily I had access to the records and found it was Mary Gurney.

Looking at those same records, I have also found that sometimes there were mistakes. No not the parish clerk, but the bods involved, and the name of the mother/father is not always the one you would expect. I have one family, mother and daughter who seem to have been literally, anyone's for the asking. Father is not always husband, so in your case, perhaps mother was not wife.

Again, did she have a second name, Mary Sarah/Sarah Mary?

And yes,there were cloth eared clerics, or ones who had their mind elsewhere. Denchfield Baker, occupation ...Baker...He was a butcher for goodness sake, his name was Baker!

Hope this has given you some ideas and not added to the confusion.
Good luck,
Paula

[jillruss]

Thank you all for your helpful suggestions. It seems from what Anna has experienced that Mary could be Sarah, but I'll have to try and check the PRs.

Are the films which you order from the LDS actual photos of the original PRs themselves or a transcription?

I've looked in the telephone directory and there's a LDS Family History centre in Hull which is only about 10 miles away. Is there a limit on how many films you can request, and I suppose you have to give them a bit of notice?

Jill

[JDGen]

The films that you order from LDS are actually filmed copies of the actual registers and not transcriptions.  You may even and see your ancestors own signature on the marriage entry!

Jean

[MaryA]

It is better to telephone ahead and arrange an appointment.

[MarieC]

Sometimes the LDS has not been given permission to film the original parish registers, but they may have secured permission from a records office to film the Bishops Transcripts of these registers (which are obviously transcripts!)  Where possible, they have filmed the originals, but it depends on the attitude of the churches concerned.

There is a small charge for each film you order, but I've never heard of a limit on the number you can order at one time.  I've never tried to order more than two or three at once!

MarieC

[jillruss]

I can't wait to try it out!

I suppose - if the LDS have filmed the original PRs - it's possible that I may find out extra info, as you do sometimes when you find the actual PR? i.e. in a marriage, the parish of each party, whether previously widowed etc.

Wish me luck! Thanks again for the advice - I feel I may have discovered a whole new line of enquiry ( I sound like Sherlock Holmes now, but you know what I mean!)

Jill