Genealogists' Forum - We have branches everywhere!



Go Back   Genealogists' Forum - We have branches everywhere! > Research > Family History News and Information

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 12-02-15, 07:57
kiterunner's Avatar
kiterunner kiterunner is online now
Administrator
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Nottingham
Posts: 25,271
Arrow Gloucestershire Parish Registers - ancestry

With images. Doesn't include Bristol.

Gloucestershire Baptisms, Marriages and Burials 1538-1813

Gloucestershire Baptisms 1813-1913

Gloucestershire Marriages 1754-1938

Gloucestershire Burials 1813-1988

Gloucestershire Confirmations 1834-1913
__________________
KiteRunner

Family History News updated 29th Feb
Findmypast 1871 census update
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 12-02-15, 09:44
anne fraser's Avatar
anne fraser anne fraser is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 538
Default

Thanks for that Kite. It should be useful.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 12-02-15, 09:55
Just Gillian Just Gillian is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 322
Default

Brilliant Kate, thanks!

I've been able to confirm the bigamous marriage of one of OH's, and the birth of a son to that marriage.

I was surprised that Prosser had been transcribed as Proper - I'd have expected the transcribers to have been aware of the common fs substitute for ss.

Viv once kindly photocopied a load of correspondence for me at Somerset RO, including a wonderful letter from the groom's sister to his existing wife telling her "he has married another". Unknown to all his family, that marriage was also bigamous as he had a wife in the US at the time!

The groom returned to his Somerset wife long enough to have two more children before deserting her again, but I've never been able to find out what happened to the Gloucestershire bride.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 12-02-15, 10:57
kiterunner's Avatar
kiterunner kiterunner is online now
Administrator
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Nottingham
Posts: 25,271
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Just Gillian View Post
I was surprised that Prosser had been transcribed as Proper - I'd have expected the transcribers to have been aware of the common fs substitute for ss.
Sorry to say it has ancestry's usual poor standard of transcription. I've already submitted numerous corrections for the few records I've looked at. Though to be fair, I was looking at 17th century records.
__________________
KiteRunner

Family History News updated 29th Feb
Findmypast 1871 census update
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 12-02-15, 15:09
Rick Rick is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 338
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kiterunner View Post
Sorry to say it has ancestry's usual poor standard of transcription. I've already submitted numerous corrections for the few records I've looked at. Though to be fair, I was looking at 17th century records.
I was just looking at a page where you could also see the dates from the page before and every single entry has been mistranscribed.

Also the Stinchcombe composite register is there, but it hasn't been indexed. Not sure if that's a one-off omission or they haven't finished indexing.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 12-02-15, 15:35
Mary from Italy's Avatar
Mary from Italy Mary from Italy is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: N. Italy
Posts: 3,727
Default

I'm currently looking at 17th-century records for another county, and Ancestry's transcriptions are appalling. Apart from mistranscribed names, a whole page has been entered under the wrong year. The odd thing is that the FamilySearch transcriptions for the same records are good, although they're all done by volunteers, whereas Ancestry's transcribers are presumably paid.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 12-02-15, 15:42
kiterunner's Avatar
kiterunner kiterunner is online now
Administrator
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Nottingham
Posts: 25,271
Default

I expect the paid transcribers are expected to complete a certain number of records per hour and don't get much time to ponder over the handwriting, whereas volunteers can spend ages deciphering each record till they are satisfied with it.
__________________
KiteRunner

Family History News updated 29th Feb
Findmypast 1871 census update
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 12-02-15, 15:51
Rick Rick is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 338
Default

The composite registers look like BTs to me. All in the same hand and they include marriages from post 1754 (which are duplicated in the new style registers).
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 12-02-15, 16:29
Mary from Italy's Avatar
Mary from Italy Mary from Italy is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: N. Italy
Posts: 3,727
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kiterunner View Post
I expect the paid transcribers are expected to complete a certain number of records per hour and don't get much time to ponder over the handwriting, whereas volunteers can spend ages deciphering each record till they are satisfied with it.
I expect that's true, but you'd think they'd get some kind of training in old handwriting. Many of the mistakes I've seen were glaringly obvious.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 12-02-15, 18:20
Just Gillian Just Gillian is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 322
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kiterunner View Post
Sorry to say it has ancestry's usual poor standard of transcription. I've already submitted numerous corrections for the few records I've looked at. Though to be fair, I was looking at 17th century records.
The two I looked at both needed corrections - the second one was a glaringly obvious "i", rather than the transcribed "e".

There are many Propers in the marriages and baptisms. The ones I've since viewed would all appear to be Prossers.

It's great to have the records available online but I'm glad I've been using Ancestry long enough to be able allow for mistranscriptions in my searches. My annoyance at the fact that the paid for product is so often substandard never lessens!
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 10:45.


Hosted by Photon IT

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7 PL3
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.