ERO update

[helvissa]

*air punch!* *flash dance mime!*

[megsnan]

Amazing!!  Thank you so much!  Why didn't I think of that?  LOL!  Gosfield, here I come............ before they take them off again!

[smudwhisk]

It's nice to find so many have been updated, just not St Osyth even if you go into each register's entry.   There doesn't seem to be any rhyme or reason to what's been updated and what hasn't since both Weeley and Woodford have been.  Just hope it does get updated since am trying to confirm a few sidelines in there.   Perhaps I'm being a little impatient as it's not the end of December yet.

[Diblet]

Yes, I've noticed a few gaps still. Always the ones I need!!!! 

[smudwhisk]

Yes, I've noticed a few gaps still. Always the ones I need!!!! 

Yes I know the feeling.   There are only three missing PRs for St Osyth so I'm hoping that they will appear in the not too distant future. 

I wanted to check an 1838 marriage which I suspect may be in there as the children were all born there, but baptised at Weeley.  Neither the groom or bride were originally from St Osyth.  Just hope it's not in Weeley as the ERO don't list the post-1837 marriage register at all.  Otherwise I may have to spend some pennies to order the certificate, which have been avoiding since it's a sideline but I'd like to know who the groom put his father down as since he was illegitimate.  Some of my fellow researchers have completely rejected the idea that he was the "eldest" child to the marriage even though they can't find another baptism post marriage.   The issue being that the bride married under one surname variant but the child was baptised under another.  The fact that most of the children including the bride were baptised with one variant, but the mother remarried under the other version and signed the entry seems to have completely gone over their heads.

[Ringrose]

Hi Diblet
You are lucky.I need Halstead to be updated.St Andrews records have been there since the start so with great anticipation I went to Halsteadand tried the churches again.Clicked on view as you suggested and still nothing.I have now contacted SEAX because aim not going to pay any more money if there is nothing of mine there.I will hope for an answer soon and will report back
Ringrose

[Diblet]

Look forward to the ERO's reply Ringrose. Great Ilford's on my list as well as a few others. Still, they did say mid-November to mid-December so I'll give them the benefit of the doubt for this week!

I suppose there could be some parishes that just won't give permission  for their registers to be released into the public domain and we'll never see anyway.

Having said that, there's plenty on already and I've found quite a bit.
 

[megsnan]

I contacted ERO about a mistake on the Wethersfield register last week and they, very helpfully, explained that they have uploaded digital images for those parishes with references from D/P 1 – D/P 292, in numerical instead of alpahbetical order (which is what they did last time). That is why you can find Halstead St Andrews but not Halstead Holy Trinity for example.  They are still uploading through December and, once they have finished, they will be able to update the lists that we see for each parish.

[smudwhisk]

I contacted ERO about a mistake on the Wethersfield register last week and they, very helpfully, explained that they have uploaded digital images for those parishes with references from D/P 1 – D/P 292, in numerical instead of alpahbetical order (which is what they did last time). That is why you can find Halstead St Andrews but not Halstead Holy Trinity for example.  They are still uploading through December and, once they have finished, they will be able to update the lists that we see for each parish.

Hi Megsnan, thanks for that, it explains why the later St Osyth haven't been uploaded as it's D/P-322.   Hopefully they'll get uploaded soon. 

I'm looking forward impatiently for the PRs held at Waltham Forest Archives to appear sometime next year.