Houghton/Holywell-cum-Needingworth

[Galium]

Familysearch shows three baptisms in the early 1800s for one of my families, each listed as taking place at Houghton, and also at Holywell-cum-Needingworth with the same date.   The two individuals who lived long enough to be recorded in censuses say they were born at Houghton.

Information on Genuki doesn't seem to suggest that either church is a chapel of the other.  Does anyone know what the reason might be for both places being recorded by Familysearch as where the baptism took place?  (The entries all come from the same batch: C16873-1)

[KGarrad]

My guess would be that the batch contains baptisms from both churches
And FamilySearch is simply confused?

[davidft]

As film 1040635, which is what batch: C16873-1 is on, covers all the following is it possible the parish chest records for one have been confused with the parish registers of the other. only way is to see the film but it is locked on familysearch

Items 1 - 10: Parish chest records for Holywell cum Needingworth, 990-1914
Author:
Holywell cum Needingworth (Huntingdonshire)
Add
Items 11 - 15: Parish registers for Houghton, 1633-1877
Author:
Church of England. Parish Church of Houghton (Huntingdonshire); Church of England. Parish Church of Witton (Huntingdonshire)

[Galium]

Thank you for your helpful replies, KGarrad and davidft. Looks like Houghton is probably the correct place, then, since that's where two of them say they were born. 

[PeterC66]

I research Holywell with Needingworth and have lots of data including all Parish Registers on the website hcnhistory.org.uk.

Family Search does have Holywell with Needingworth for one batch where it should have been Houghton.  This caused me a significant problem several years ago, and I told them but there has been no correction. The two villages are on opposite sides of St Ives.

[Galium]

Thank you for confirming my suspicions, PeterC66.  It did seem a bit strange that the baptisms - and a lot of others I noticed - would have been recorded in both places.  I wonder why Familysearch haven't corrected it.