|
#1
13-05-10, 13:01
|
||||
|
||||
Pallot's marriage index query
BK6 updated from this thread
If there's a marriage entry on Pallot's and the year is supposed to be covered by the IGI for the parish in question is it more likely the mistake is in the IGI? I can imagine they may have turned over two pages at once as there are no marriages for the year in question at all - mind you, there's only 37 marriages recorded for the decade. What sorts of errors appear in Pallot's? I don't know how the data was collected.
__________________
"Something has been filled in that I didn't know was blank" Matthew Broderick WDYTYA? March 2010 
|
|
#3
13-05-10, 13:15
|
||||
|
||||
|
Post 1754, the entries should be in a printed book and NUMBERED Sso there's no excuse for a missed marriage.
Pre 1754, they could be scrunched up with baptism & burials, or slotted in where ever there was a gap, so much more difficult to extract.
|
|
#4
13-05-10, 13:46
|
||||
|
||||
|
When I was looking for baps. and burials for Merry yesterday, I came across several instances of vicars bemoaning the incompetence of their predecessors and curates for not recording events.
|
|
#5
13-05-10, 14:07
|
||||
|
||||
|
lol UJ!
1797 Phoenix. So, no excuses! Did Pallot use the Prs or the BTs or a combination?
__________________
"Something has been filled in that I didn't know was blank" Matthew Broderick WDYTYA? March 2010
|
|
#6
13-05-10, 15:03
|
||||
|
||||
|
I think he used both and also other sources such as banns, licences, the Gentleman's Magazine, etc. but I can't find something to confirm this right now. I'm pretty sure marriages can be listed on there which didn't actually take place.
|
|
#7
13-05-10, 17:52
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
Aaaaggghhhh, really???  I can't send UJ back to the CRO when he only went there yesterday!! lol 
__________________
"Something has been filled in that I didn't know was blank" Matthew Broderick WDYTYA? March 2010
|
|
#8
13-05-10, 18:10
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
Of course you can.  
__________________
Marg
|
|
#10
13-05-10, 18:28
|
||||
|
||||
|
Ah, this is what it says on the IHGS site:
Now on CD is one of the most important and useful indexes of marriages. For those whose ancestry is lost in London before General Registration this is an essential source. It covers all but two of the 103 ancient parishes of the old City of London for the period 1780 - 1837 - with entries taken from original sources, many now lost. The index has been augmented by entries from other countries, usually transcribed from printed sources. (I think where it says "other countries" it means "counties"!) So it looks as if the London entries are more reliable than the non-London ones.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
