Genealogists' Forum - We have branches everywhere!



Go Back   Genealogists' Forum - We have branches everywhere! > Research > Family History General Discussion

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 22-05-22, 11:36
Phoenix's Avatar
Phoenix Phoenix is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 6,617
Default The value of the image and browsing

I've spent a happy hour (or so!) attaching Sussex images to Best Mate's tree.

Doing so, I discovered on one line I had the husband 30 years older than the wife (possible, but unlikely)

The wife was buried in 1837 - but when I checked this image, this was actually the burial of her daughter.

As I definitely had not found the family in 1841 (and I rechecked - none are in the village) I browsed the burials.

And there it is: a five year gap from 22 Dec 1829 - Feb 1835, when it looks as if the parish merely had an officiating minister. I suspect three or four family burials fell into this black hole.

If we merely use indexes, we miss potential solutions to our problems.
__________________
The chestnuts cast their flambeaux
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 22-05-22, 12:34
Olde Crone Olde Crone is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 4,768
Default

I agree, Phoenix. Years ago I was much employed trying to find burials for a branch who fell off the face of the earth and eventually I assumed those years were lost from the records.

This was in the days when I visited family search centres regularly and one day I idly scrolled to the end of the films register - and lo and behold, there was the information that the church had been struck by lightning (!)and in the five years it took to rebuild, the congregation went to another church just outside the parish boundary.... and there were my missing people! No one ever seemed to have married up the records.

I have since found many an answer to a seemingly insurmountable brick wall, just by looking at images, not transcripts. I have "found" an imaginary baptism, transcribed by someone who wished to make my 2 x ggf look legitimate. He wasn't and no such baptism is in the records. And I was present in a family search centre when the manager announced proudly that she never transcribed anything "upsetting".

OC
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 22-05-22, 12:50
Phoenix's Avatar
Phoenix Phoenix is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 6,617
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Olde Crone View Post
And I was present in a family search centre when the manager announced proudly that she never transcribed anything "upsetting".

OC
__________________
The chestnuts cast their flambeaux
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 22-05-22, 13:29
Olde Crone Olde Crone is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 4,768
Default

Yes, Phoenix! Her justification was that it people really wanted to know the truth, they would look at the records for themselves but she wasn't going to encourage the nosey by publishing unfortunate things on line for people to gossip about!I

Just remembered another - a baptism which literally hundreds of people have taken as gospel for this particular gateway ancestor. When I looked at the actual record it was a supplementary page at the back of the register, headed "children born but NOT baptised" - there was a fine for that. Ok, hair splitting I suppose, but it led me to look much later for an adult baptism, which I found in unpublished records two counties away.

OC
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 22-05-22, 14:07
Phoenix's Avatar
Phoenix Phoenix is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 6,617
Default

I have to say that when one of my distant cousins said "Did you know we have a relation who was a paedophile???!! I said yes, but I'm not advertising the fact.

The story was syndicated, so anyone with access to newspapers could pick it up, and the immediate family may well have been aware of the man's unfortunate predeliction for little girls, but that's not something for idle curiosity.
__________________
The chestnuts cast their flambeaux
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 22-05-22, 14:33
Olde Crone Olde Crone is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 4,768
Default

Oh certainly wouldn't publicise that, I really meant the stuff recorded in church registers - illegitimacy mostly, and gallops up the aisle with a midwife in attendance, all well over 100 years ago. Why would people not interested in family history bother to look for those things!

OC
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 11:47.


Hosted by Photon IT

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