Hampshire records will be on Ancestry!

[kiterunner]

But some images don't seem to be indexed yet. I don't know what percentage but I am guessing a lot of them.

[Phoenix]

It has only turned up in the last couple of hours... and they are saying 466 entries????

[Phoenix]

But... oh the joy of being able to browse, and check all those entries where I never noted witnesses etc. Though I'll miss looking up and gazing into the eyes of a carved angel as one did in the old Record Office.

[Merry]

I couldn't find anything, but then realised, if there's only 10 entries for the name Smith..........

[kiterunner]

In most cases, it seems that you will need to search another index (e.g. FamilySearch) and then browse through the images to find the entry that you want. I don't know whether they have indexed the images but not managed to load the indexes yet, or not actually indexed them yet. I haven't seen any announcements about it yet.

[Phoenix]

Goodness knows how much of the index they have uploaded, but Titchfield at least now appears to be indexed. (Previously only indexed on FMP) Off to hunt for Polings.... I may be some time.

[kiterunner]

Well, although the Card Catalogue still says 466 records, there were 13 Georges on the index yesterday (given name, not surname) and now there are 30,700 Georges. And 9,782 Smiths instead of 10.

[kiterunner]

The Card Catalogue now says 794,719 records for Hampshire Marriages and Banns.

[Phoenix]

The awful thing is that I'm now crying More!

I always used to describe parish register research like french polishing: you have to do a little bit at a time, going carefully through each type of record. Otherwise you are seduced by the 16th century Smiths who are quite unrelated to your 19th century ones.

[kiterunner]

Post-1813 burials have been added:
https://www.ancestry.co.uk/search/collections/62424/