Bishop's Transcripts more accurate than Parish Registers (sometimes)

[JamesW]

My g2grandfather, John Henry Adams, was born in 1807 according to all the records I have seen including censuses and Royal Navy lists. The overwhelming concensus of all the records is that he was born in Fareham, Hampshire.

So I went looking for him in the Fareham baptism registers but could only find an entry for John Henry Atkins on 29 Mar 1807 in St Peter and Paul parish, Fareham. His parents were Thomas and Catherine. Searching the baptismal register backwards and forwards from this date, I found four other children born to Thomas and Catherine Adams but no others born to Thomas and Catherine Atkins. I concluded that John Henry Atkins was most likely my John Henry Adams since I had strong reason to believe he should be there, there were no other Atkins births in the parish, making this one somewhat anomalous, and Atkins is a diminutive form of Adams.

Then recently a search at FamilySearch turned up a John Monny Adams, baptized 29 Mar 1807 in St Peter and Paul, Fareham. This record was in the Bishop's Transcripts. I went to the local FHL to see the original record and, lo and behold, it was for John Henry Adams. "Monny" is a transcription error for "Henry" which is somewhat obscurely written. It appears the person who prepared the BT recognized that the register entry was inaccurate and gave the Bishop the correct information.

Here are snips of the two entries so you can see for yourself.

Parish Register

Bishop's Transcript

 

[JamesW]

Follow-up

For some reason the two images do not show in the posting automatically. If you right click on them and choose "open image in new tab" (I'm using Chrome) you can see them.

 

[At home in NZ]

If you right click on them and choose "open image in new tab" (I'm using Chrome) you can see them.

I've done that and I cannot see them, I am being asked to sign in to Google and i don't have an account with Google.

 

[canadianbeth]

I get Error 404 (not found) and I have Chrome and Google

 

[canadianbeth]

I can see them now. They appear at the top and I can click on them there.

 

[JamesW]

My apologies. Google Photos apparently cannot be made completely public, you have to share them one by one with others.

I tried a new post using Imgur.com as the host for the images, but that did not work either. for this post I have uploaded the two files and attached them so you can at least see them. I'll try and find out how to embed snips like this in the post.

 

[peter]

Entries in the baptism and burial registers are almost always copies - copied from the vicar's notes, copied from the sexton's notebook - or else they relay on the vicar's memory (which is probably why the mother's name is often shown incorrectly in the baptism register). So transcription and other errors are going to occur.

Sometimes they were corrected when the Bishop's Transcript was created, even though it was - in theory - a copy of the register entries. In this case you can see that the handwriting is different - perhaps the vicar delegated the task of creating the BT.

Occasionally register entries are recorded in more than one register - they are a number of reasons why this might happen, but it is most common around the time of the change in format in 1813. For example, my ancestor Maria Shearing's 17/3/1811 baptism at St Margaret's, Lee, Kent is not in the register that is online at Ancestry, even though it covers the period and has other entries from the same year, but it is in another register held by the record office (but which is not online).

 

[Pauline]

When I started out in family history, I was advised always to check both register and BTs. Of course,this isn't always practical, and often they haven't both survived.

Having said that, other than relatively minor spelling variations, I haven't very often found differences between the register and BT, and when I have, mostly it has been additional information in the register that was not included in the BT.

One notable exception is the marriage of two of my ancestors in the early 18th century. The register gave the names of the couple and nothing else, from which I had no idea if I had found the right marriage or not. However, the BT also gave the parish of the groom which confirmed beyond reasonable doubt that it was the right marriage.

 

[Chris]

The curate's notes for the chapel of St. Nicholas, Newchurch in Rossendale have survived. They are catalogued in the Archive as "Paper Copies" but there is no doubt that these records by the curate were the basis for the entries by the clerks in the official parchment register and in the BT. The "Paper Copy" invariably gives more information on occupation and abode and interesting the fee the curate charged. There was no fixed fee - it's clear he charged what he judged his parishioner could afford to pay. My ancestor's baptism on 30 Mar 1746 only appears in the "Paper Copy".

His father's surname was variously recorded at his marriage in 1736. The "Paper Copy" records that Edmund Rawstorne of Pendle and Lydia Smith of Rossendale were married at Newchurch on 18 Sep 1736. The abodes of Edmund and Lydia before their marriage are not recorded in the parchment marriage register and Edmund's surname is changed to Ramsbottom. The entry in the BTs is different again. Edmund's surname is recorded as Rawsthorne and Lydia's abode before marriage as Brigg Clough - Bridge Clough a hamlet where the couple lived after their marriage.

 

[Pauline]

For example, my ancestor Maria Shearing's 17/3/1811 baptism at St Margaret's, Lee, Kent is not in the register that is online at Ancestry, even though it covers the period and has other entries from the same year, but it is in another register held by the record office (but which is not online).

Peter, I'm just wondering what record set you are using for Lee? The only images I can find for Lee at this date are in the LMA collection, and those are BTs.

There is an earlier published transcript for Lee, but my folk were in Lee later than this anyway.

 

[peter]

Peter, I'm just wondering what record set you are using for Lee? The only images I can find for Lee at this date are in the LMA collection, and those are BTs.

There is an earlier published transcript for Lee, but my folk were in Lee later than this anyway.

Some of the pages at Ancestry are headed Copy; and some aren't - I couldn't decide whether they were BTs or copies made for some other purpose, so I asked LostCousins member who is a member of NW Kent FHS for help.

I discovered that they have a transcript of baptisms for the period which doesn't include my ancestor, but a helpful member of the society spotted that her baptism does appear in an earlier transcript compiled many years earlier. I subsequently contacted Lewisham Archives who were able to provide a copy of the register page, but haven't further investigated the status of Ancestry's images - by this time I had multiple DNA matches proving the connection.

Since the original registers are held at Lewisham it may well be that Ancestry's images are all BTs. I can't remember whether or not I found them in the LMA catalogue.

 

[Pauline]

Since the original registers are held at Lewisham it may well be that Ancestry's images are all BTs. I can't remember whether or not I found them in the LMA catalogue

I took the references given in the pop-out to the right of the images and double-checked them against the LMA catalogue, and they are listed there as BTs. I also have an ancient CD called London Generations listing details of PRs and BTs at LMA, which concurs

I bought a CD of these Lee images with accompanying transcript from the NWKFHS a good many years ago - and found it very useful until they appeared online. The Bromley ones I bought from them are still serving me well.

 

[peter]

I took the references given in the pop-out to the right of the images and double-checked them against the LMA catalogue

I'd never clicked that icon before - thanks for the tip.