« Reply #56 on: Monday 13 May 19 11:57 BST (UK) »
Coombs, I have explained why it appears as banns rather than marriage - it is what transcribers are told to do. They have no choice in the matter. As far as I remember there were boxes to fill in transcribed information, e.g. name, date etc. The type of record, e.g. Baptism, Banns, Marriage, Burial, was already completed and unchangeable, as was the place of the event.
If you were lucky there was a notes section, where additional information could be added, but not with the ones I was doing.
That is why on transcriptions you see the bare minimum of information in places like ancestry and Familysearch. At sites like FreeReg, there will often be extra information in notes.
So, in lots of sites, banns will appear as marriages. You just have to accept it and rightly grumble about it, but I don't think it will change, and is not considered an error as such by any of the sites.
Why not give your hand at transcribing some records, everyone? Hard work, and I didn't do it for very long, but it does give insights into how things are done.
Regards Margaret
I know you have explained it by now, I do not need you to say that you have explained it. I am just saying it is still not right, and is very misleading. Anyway I have not come on here for a slanging match.
Researching:
LONDON, Coombs, Roberts, Auber, Helsdon, Fradine, Morin, Goodacre
DORSET Coombs, Munday
NORFOLK Helsdon, Riches, Harbord, Budery
KENT Roberts, Goodacre
SUSSEX Walder, Boniface, Dinnage, Standen, Lee, Botten, Wickham, Jupp
SUFFOLK Titshall, Frost, Fairweather, Mayhew, Archer, Eade, Scarfe
DURHAM Stewart, Musgrave, Wilson, Forster
SCOTLAND Stewart in Selkirk
USA Musgrave, Saix
ESSEX Cornwell, Stock, Quilter, Lawrence, Whale, Clift
OXON Edgington, Smith, Inkpen, Snell, Batten, Brain