Hi Steven and all Although your first statement is correct in that not all PR events are on the IGI from extractions, that is often due to differences between the PRs and BTs , the latter of which is where most extractions are taken from Some time ago (a few years) I was prompted to write to the LDS to ask if they deleted any entries from the IGI and under what circumstances I was told they do not remove entries, extractions in particular and would only remove patron entries where it was found there was a problem, an example cited was if a holocaust victim had been entered If there is an IGI entry where more or different information is found at a later date, the first entry is not removed but a second new entry added with the additional/different data Following this thread I was prompted to ask again The reply was that no entries are removed, and confirms what Charlotte described in her post "IGI explanation" They further said that if any duplicated entry was removed it would not be the extracted one as that is considered a primary source whereas the patron submissions are not Whilst it does not help the OP its been an interesting thread Nivard Ovington in Cornwall (UK) > Peter, that fact that a record doesn't show as part of an extracted batch > in > the IGI doesn't mean that it doesn't exist in the original PRs. > Extractions > are not always complete; in particular you have to note the LDS approach > to > duplication. If an extracted record and a user submission are identical, > then the extracted record will be removed from the IGI. So, in this case, > the only way to find out is to look at the PRs themselves. > > (My guess is that it might very well be there, because the bride's age > works > out as 19. When dates are total guesswork, the bride is presumed 21 and > the > groom 25, which is not the case here, so it would appear that some proper > research might have been done.) > > Steven

>From transribed books of parish Registers Parish Register for Charlgrave: 1539-1812 1788 Jan3 Rob Savage(Sundon) Ann Mecraft pageA42 1693 Oc17 Rich Medcroft Sarah Jones Parish Register Hockcliffe:1604-1812 1762 MY2 JN S Jn-Sar Medcraft page E7 Parish Register Leighton Buzzard 1562-1812 1716 Fe25 Hon Meadcroft Sar Prichard (both of Evershall(Eversholt)) page 45 1731 MR21 Jn Medcraft (Westoning) sar Straingo (Toddinton) page 50 In the index for persons in Chalgrave Register it give two references for Flitton In the Hockcliffe index there are four reference for Tilworth. As I only have the three parish above I can't help with the entries for Flitton or Tilworth hope thiss may help kath

Hi, I think one of the problems with searching in Bedfordshire is that all the IGI entries with abbreviated first names have been acquired from the Transcript printed books published by someone in early 1900's, and these books have also been published on microfiche which are available to buy from the Beds Family History Society or the books can be obtained via Inter Library Loan. These transcripts are good, but not perfect. It is quite difficult to see the original parish registers as one is usually directed to the transcripts. Twice I've not been happy with an entry in the IGI/transcripts and have written to the Beds Record Office and asked for a photocopy of the original. On one occasion I still couldn't read the marriage entry and a friend managed to get a second copy which I could read and was quite different from the transcript, i.e. the transcript had said permission to marry was given by parents and guardians, whereas the original gave the name of the guardian which happened to be who I was fairly sure was the girl's step-father, and in my mind thus confirmed that she had been illegitimate and her mother had later married. From Merryl Wells of Bedfordshire. E-Mail: merryl.wells@one-name.org GOONS Mem. No. 1757 Reg. ONS: Bawtree; Gullick/ock, Moist/Moyst Mem. of Wells Assn. (GOONS Reg.). ----- Original Message ----- From: "Gus Tysoe" <gustysoe@tiscali.co.uk> To: <bedford@rootsweb.com> Sent: Tuesday, January 19, 2010 8:05 PM Subject: Re: [BDF] MEDCRAFT LOOK UP PLEASE > Thanks John, > > I live "too far away" to be able to do any sort of swift lookup - I'd have > to order the film through the LDS, and by the time it arrived the subject > would be long dead... > > The chances seem reasonably high that you'll find Ann's marriage - but not > her baptism/birth. > > Gus > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "John Partridge" <john.partridge10@ntlworld.com> > To: <bedford@rootsweb.com> > Sent: Tuesday, January 19, 2010 7:07 PM > Subject: Re: [BDF] MEDCRAFT LOOK UP PLEASE > > >> Has anybody yet checked the Chalgrave PR to see if the Robert Savage >> marriage of 1788 actually exists - or are you just relying on the IGI >> telling us what it has. In my experience some member submission entries >> are >> in fact true. I will take a look tomorrow at Bedford library. >> >> Based on a previous posting in 2006 by the same Ruth perhaps >> >> http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/th/read/BEDFORD/2006-09/1159538037 >> >> - a chap named Bob has/had the PRs so I would expect the marriage to be >> there - but the baptism not. >> >> cheers John >> >> c >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Gus Tysoe" <gustysoe@tiscali.co.uk> >> To: <bedford@rootsweb.com> >> Sent: Tuesday, January 19, 2010 4:21 PM >> Subject: Re: [BDF] MEDCRAFT LOOK UP PLEASE >> >> >>> What might add a little further mystery is that the baptism of a Robert >>> SAVAGE, son of Robert and Ann, on 9 Jun 1789 at Sundon is shown as an >>> Extracted Entry... >>> >>> Ann MEDCALF (so far only reportedly) married on 2 Jan 1788 Robert SAVAGE >>> Junior, consistently reported as being "of Sundon". His birth date is >>> quoted >>> as being 26 Aug 1765 [thus making him exactly 173 years older than me, >>> but >>> with the difference that I have a birth certificate to prove it!] There >>> is >>> no entry for his birth/baptism in Sundon's extractions, although what >>> would >>> seem to be his father's *is*. >>> >>> >>> But before getting *too* carried-away, it may be worthwhile to think >>> quietly >>> about the IGI as a whole. From a FamHister's point of view it certainly >>> has >>> Warts, and even Glaring Flaws [the absence of deaths/burials and >>> incompleteness] but then just what can you find anywhere that's Perfect? >>> Furthermore, it is made *freely* available to all us 'non-believers' >>> when >>> there's no outward and visible reason why it should so be - other, >>> perhaps, >>> than that some of us *might* add to it. >>> >>> Flaws accepted, there's nothing else that begins to approach its >>> coverage >>> and ease of searching. But when all's said and done, it can be no more >>> than >>> a Finding Tool - and having 'found' something in it the entry *still* >>> needs >>> to be confirmed by direct examination of the original entry, which may >>> well >>> contain additional information that doesn't fit the straight-jacket of >>> the >>> indexing system. >>> >>> Be grateful for it - Use it - and CHECK THE ENTRIES [*especially* the >>> burials!] against the Registers.... >>> >>> Gus >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> The List Guidelines >>> >>> http://bedfordrootsweb.blogspot.com/ >>> >>> The Bedfordshire Surnames List >>> >>> http://homepages.ihug.co.nz/~hughw/bedf.html >>> >>> >>> ------------------------------- >>> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to >>> BEDFORD-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the >>> quotes in the subject and the body of the message >> >> >> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> >> >> No virus found in this incoming message. >> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com >> Version: 8.5.432 / Virus Database: 270.14.150/2632 - Release Date: >> 01/19/10 >> 07:34:00 >> >> >> >> >> The List Guidelines >> >> http://bedfordrootsweb.blogspot.com/ >> >> The Bedfordshire Surnames List >> >> http://homepages.ihug.co.nz/~hughw/bedf.html >> >> >> ------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to >> BEDFORD-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the >> quotes in the subject and the body of the message > > > > > The List Guidelines > > http://bedfordrootsweb.blogspot.com/ > > The Bedfordshire Surnames List > > http://homepages.ihug.co.nz/~hughw/bedf.html > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > BEDFORD-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the > quotes in the subject and the body of the message > > ______________________________________________ > This email has been scanned by Netintelligence > http://www.netintelligence.com/email > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 9.0.730 / Virus Database: 270.14.151/2633 - Release Date: 01/19/10 17:49:00

Re: Alice Paxe father was Thomas Paxe senior could you tell me about his family and that of a John Fint eithr born in Shillington or Northill Bedfordshire REGARDS TONY FLINT > From: bedford-request@rootsweb.com > Subject: BEDFORD Digest, Vol 5, Issue 19 > To: bedford@rootsweb.com > Date: Tue, 19 Jan 2010 12:07:28 -0700 > > > > Today's Topics: > > 1. Re: MEDCRAFT LOOK UP PLEASE (Steven Gibbs) > 2. Re: MEDCRAFT LOOK UP PLEASE (Peter Booth) > 3. Re: MEDCRAFT LOOK UP PLEASE (David) > 4. Re: MEDCRAFT LOOK UP PLEASE (Gus Tysoe) > 5. Re: MEDCRAFT LOOK UP PLEASE (Peter Booth) > 6. Re: MEDCRAFT LOOK UP PLEASE (Jill Blain) > 7. Re: MEDCRAFT LOOK UP PLEASE (Gus Tysoe) > 8. Re: MEDCRAFT LOOK UP PLEASE (John Partridge) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Tue, 19 Jan 2010 09:21:20 -0000 > From: "Steven Gibbs" <steven@sgibbs1.freeserve.co.uk> > Subject: Re: [BDF] MEDCRAFT LOOK UP PLEASE > To: <bedford@rootsweb.com> > Message-ID: <675175CFDB2E4219B43C9549BD5FCD3E@POWERPC> > Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; > reply-type=original > > > > > All the data on IGI for Ann Medcraft comes from user submissions. It > > looks like they are working from a single marriage date. Not sure where > > they > > would have found it. I doesn't appear on Chalgrave PR's. And there are > > four > > other January 1788 marriages, so it's not as though a page is missing. > > Peter, that fact that a record doesn't show as part of an extracted batch in > the IGI doesn't mean that it doesn't exist in the original PRs. Extractions > are not always complete; in particular you have to note the LDS approach to > duplication. If an extracted record and a user submission are identical, > then the extracted record will be removed from the IGI. So, in this case, > the only way to find out is to look at the PRs themselves. > > (My guess is that it might very well be there, because the bride's age works > out as 19. When dates are total guesswork, the bride is presumed 21 and the > groom 25, which is not the case here, so it would appear that some proper > research might have been done.) > > Steven > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 2 > Date: Tue, 19 Jan 2010 23:02:06 +1100 > From: "Peter Booth" <pbo08596@bigpond.net.au> > Subject: Re: [BDF] MEDCRAFT LOOK UP PLEASE > To: <bedford@rootsweb.com> > Message-ID: <004001ca98ff$38c29880$0300a8c0@family> > Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; > reply-type=original > > Steven Gibbs wrote :- > > "Peter, that fact that a record doesn't show as part of an extracted batch > in the IGI doesn't mean that it doesn't exist in the original PRs. > Extractions are not always complete; in particular you have to note the LDS > approach to > duplication. If an extracted record and a user submission are identical, > then the extracted record will be removed from the IGI. So, in this case, > the only way to find out is to look at the PRs themselves." > > I wonder if Steven would mind revealing the source of this information. > I would be very useful to know. > > I struggle to understand why a user submission would take precedence > over an extracted record. > > Peter > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 3 > Date: Tue, 19 Jan 2010 12:12:53 +0000 (GMT) > From: David <david11000carca@yahoo.fr> > Subject: Re: [BDF] MEDCRAFT LOOK UP PLEASE > To: bedford@rootsweb.com > Message-ID: <163410.66445.qm@web26302.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 > > Don't we all Peter! > > But it's a fact all the same. When the LDS had a clean up of the IGI, if a member submission was identical to an extracted entry then it was the extracted entry that was deleted. > > Thus debasing the IGI > > Ours is not to reason why... > > David > > > > > De: Peter Booth <pbo08596@bigpond.net.au> > > > > > ? ? I struggle to understand why a user > > submission would take precedence > > over an extracted record. > > > > ? ? Peter > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The List Guidelines > > > > http://bedfordrootsweb.blogspot.com/ > > > > The Bedfordshire Surnames List > > > > http://homepages.ihug.co.nz/~hughw/bedf.html > > > > > > ------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to BEDFORD-request@rootsweb.com > > with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the > > subject and the body of the message > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 4 > Date: Tue, 19 Jan 2010 12:15:45 -0000 > From: "Gus Tysoe" <gustysoe@tiscali.co.uk> > Subject: Re: [BDF] MEDCRAFT LOOK UP PLEASE > To: <bedford@rootsweb.com> > Message-ID: <C7B5E0FAA5844B8DA8F354D25101A976@Laptop> > Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; > reply-type=original > > Each and all of the 21 IGI entries of Ann MEDCRAFT's Birth/baptism show > merely that she was "of Chalgrave" and quote a flat year number of 1769. The > total absence of any month or day makes it seem extremely unlikely that the > year can be anything other than a 'backwards calculation' of some sort - in > all probability an entry in a Burials Register, but maybe the 1851 [but just > might be later] Census. > > Equally the 17 - where did the other 4 go? - entries of her marriage quote > an exact date of 3 January 1788 which tends to the supposition that it *did* > occur on that date - in which case it should be checked to the Register [or > Bishops Transcript] - *especially* because it doesn't appear in the > Chalgrave extracted marriages. The best that can be said of the entry thus > far is the Scottish Verdict of "not proven". > > I take the point of the relatively-occasional extracted entry being > substituted - but that is covered by the preceding paragraph. > > Gus > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Steven Gibbs" <steven@sgibbs1.freeserve.co.uk> > To: <bedford@rootsweb.com> > Sent: Tuesday, January 19, 2010 9:21 AM > Subject: Re: [BDF] MEDCRAFT LOOK UP PLEASE > > > > > > >> All the data on IGI for Ann Medcraft comes from user submissions. It > >> looks like they are working from a single marriage date. Not sure where > >> they > >> would have found it. I doesn't appear on Chalgrave PR's. And there are > >> four > >> other January 1788 marriages, so it's not as though a page is missing. > > > > Peter, that fact that a record doesn't show as part of an extracted batch > > in > > the IGI doesn't mean that it doesn't exist in the original PRs. > > Extractions > > are not always complete; in particular you have to note the LDS approach > > to > > duplication. If an extracted record and a user submission are identical, > > then the extracted record will be removed from the IGI. So, in this case, > > the only way to find out is to look at the PRs themselves. > > > > (My guess is that it might very well be there, because the bride's age > > works > > out as 19. When dates are total guesswork, the bride is presumed 21 and > > the > > groom 25, which is not the case here, so it would appear that some proper > > research might have been done.) > > > > Steven > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The List Guidelines > > > > http://bedfordrootsweb.blogspot.com/ > > > > The Bedfordshire Surnames List > > > > http://homepages.ihug.co.nz/~hughw/bedf.html > > > > > > ------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > > BEDFORD-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the > > quotes in the subject and the body of the message > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 5 > Date: Tue, 19 Jan 2010 23:52:32 +1100 > From: "Peter Booth" <pbo08596@bigpond.net.au> > Subject: Re: [BDF] MEDCRAFT LOOK UP PLEASE > To: <bedford@rootsweb.com> > Message-ID: <000f01ca9906$44252920$0300a8c0@family> > Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; > reply-type=original > > David, > > Thanks for straightening me out. (How's the weather over there ?) > > Apologies to Steven. I wasn't trying to be critical. > > One can only wonder at the logic of LDS, or lack thereof. > > In some cases I have seen up to a dozen different user submissions for > the same person. And if one matches an extracted entry, the extracted entry > gets deleted, yet all the erroneous ones remain. > > Peter > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 6 > Date: Tue, 19 Jan 2010 13:52:17 -0000 > From: "Jill Blain" <jill.blain1@btopenworld.com> > Subject: Re: [BDF] MEDCRAFT LOOK UP PLEASE > To: <bedford@rootsweb.com> > Message-ID: <618FF48E845240D8AFCCF6C46024FE8D@JillsPC> > Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; > reply-type=original > > One has to remember that the primary purpose of the Church of Latterday > Saints in producing these records is for posthumous baptism. For p.c. > reasons I will make no comment on that! > > Jill > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Peter Booth" <pbo08596@bigpond.net.au> > To: <bedford@rootsweb.com> > Sent: Tuesday, January 19, 2010 12:52 PM > Subject: Re: [BDF] MEDCRAFT LOOK UP PLEASE > > > > David, > > > > Thanks for straightening me out. (How's the weather over there ?) > > > > Apologies to Steven. I wasn't trying to be critical. > > > > One can only wonder at the logic of LDS, or lack thereof. > > > > In some cases I have seen up to a dozen different user submissions for > > the same person. And if one matches an extracted entry, the extracted > > entry > > gets deleted, yet all the erroneous ones remain. > > > > Peter > > > > > > > > > > The List Guidelines > > > > http://bedfordrootsweb.blogspot.com/ > > > > The Bedfordshire Surnames List > > > > http://homepages.ihug.co.nz/~hughw/bedf.html > > > > > > ------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > > BEDFORD-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the > > quotes in the subject and the body of the message > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 7 > Date: Tue, 19 Jan 2010 16:21:10 -0000 > From: "Gus Tysoe" <gustysoe@tiscali.co.uk> > Subject: Re: [BDF] MEDCRAFT LOOK UP PLEASE > To: <bedford@rootsweb.com> > Message-ID: <09A1322673CA41E6A5C6F94DA52138FE@Laptop> > Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; > reply-type=original > > What might add a little further mystery is that the baptism of a Robert > SAVAGE, son of Robert and Ann, on 9 Jun 1789 at Sundon is shown as an > Extracted Entry... > > Ann MEDCALF (so far only reportedly) married on 2 Jan 1788 Robert SAVAGE > Junior, consistently reported as being "of Sundon". His birth date is quoted > as being 26 Aug 1765 [thus making him exactly 173 years older than me, but > with the difference that I have a birth certificate to prove it!] There is > no entry for his birth/baptism in Sundon's extractions, although what would > seem to be his father's *is*. > > > But before getting *too* carried-away, it may be worthwhile to think quietly > about the IGI as a whole. From a FamHister's point of view it certainly has > Warts, and even Glaring Flaws [the absence of deaths/burials and > incompleteness] but then just what can you find anywhere that's Perfect? > Furthermore, it is made *freely* available to all us 'non-believers' when > there's no outward and visible reason why it should so be - other, perhaps, > than that some of us *might* add to it. > > Flaws accepted, there's nothing else that begins to approach its coverage > and ease of searching. But when all's said and done, it can be no more than > a Finding Tool - and having 'found' something in it the entry *still* needs > to be confirmed by direct examination of the original entry, which may well > contain additional information that doesn't fit the straight-jacket of the > indexing system. > > Be grateful for it - Use it - and CHECK THE ENTRIES [*especially* the > burials!] against the Registers.... > > Gus > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 8 > Date: Tue, 19 Jan 2010 19:07:19 -0000 > From: "John Partridge" <john.partridge10@ntlworld.com> > Subject: Re: [BDF] MEDCRAFT LOOK UP PLEASE > To: <bedford@rootsweb.com> > Message-ID: <4981088FB5CF406BAE817856756D55D4@nickdcd9655448> > Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; > reply-type=original > > Has anybody yet checked the Chalgrave PR to see if the Robert Savage > marriage of 1788 actually exists - or are you just relying on the IGI > telling us what it has. In my experience some member submission entries are > in fact true. I will take a look tomorrow at Bedford library. > > Based on a previous posting in 2006 by the same Ruth perhaps > > http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/th/read/BEDFORD/2006-09/1159538037 > > - a chap named Bob has/had the PRs so I would expect the marriage to be > there - but the baptism not. > > cheers John > > c > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Gus Tysoe" <gustysoe@tiscali.co.uk> > To: <bedford@rootsweb.com> > Sent: Tuesday, January 19, 2010 4:21 PM > Subject: Re: [BDF] MEDCRAFT LOOK UP PLEASE > > > > What might add a little further mystery is that the baptism of a Robert > > SAVAGE, son of Robert and Ann, on 9 Jun 1789 at Sundon is shown as an > > Extracted Entry... > > > > Ann MEDCALF (so far only reportedly) married on 2 Jan 1788 Robert SAVAGE > > Junior, consistently reported as being "of Sundon". His birth date is > > quoted > > as being 26 Aug 1765 [thus making him exactly 173 years older than me, but > > with the difference that I have a birth certificate to prove it!] There is > > no entry for his birth/baptism in Sundon's extractions, although what > > would > > seem to be his father's *is*. > > > > > > But before getting *too* carried-away, it may be worthwhile to think > > quietly > > about the IGI as a whole. From a FamHister's point of view it certainly > > has > > Warts, and even Glaring Flaws [the absence of deaths/burials and > > incompleteness] but then just what can you find anywhere that's Perfect? > > Furthermore, it is made *freely* available to all us 'non-believers' when > > there's no outward and visible reason why it should so be - other, > > perhaps, > > than that some of us *might* add to it. > > > > Flaws accepted, there's nothing else that begins to approach its coverage > > and ease of searching. But when all's said and done, it can be no more > > than > > a Finding Tool - and having 'found' something in it the entry *still* > > needs > > to be confirmed by direct examination of the original entry, which may > > well > > contain additional information that doesn't fit the straight-jacket of the > > indexing system. > > > > Be grateful for it - Use it - and CHECK THE ENTRIES [*especially* the > > burials!] against the Registers.... > > > > Gus > > > > > > > > > > The List Guidelines > > > > http://bedfordrootsweb.blogspot.com/ > > > > The Bedfordshire Surnames List > > > > http://homepages.ihug.co.nz/~hughw/bedf.html > > > > > > ------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > > BEDFORD-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the > > quotes in the subject and the body of the message > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > Version: 8.5.432 / Virus Database: 270.14.150/2632 - Release Date: 01/19/10 > 07:34:00 > > > > ------------------------------ > > To contact the BEDFORD list administrator, send an email to > BEDFORD-admin@rootsweb.com. > > To post a message to the BEDFORD mailing list, send an email to BEDFORD@rootsweb.com. > > __________________________________________________________ > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to BEDFORD-request@rootsweb.com > with the word "unsubscribe" without the quotes in the subject and the body of the > email with no additional text. > > > End of BEDFORD Digest, Vol 5, Issue 19 > ************************************** _________________________________________________________________ Got a cool Hotmail story? Tell us now http://clk.atdmt.com/UKM/go/195013117/direct/01/

Steven Gibbs wrote :- "Peter, that fact that a record doesn't show as part of an extracted batch in the IGI doesn't mean that it doesn't exist in the original PRs. Extractions are not always complete; in particular you have to note the LDS approach to duplication. If an extracted record and a user submission are identical, then the extracted record will be removed from the IGI. So, in this case, the only way to find out is to look at the PRs themselves." I wonder if Steven would mind revealing the source of this information. I would be very useful to know. I struggle to understand why a user submission would take precedence over an extracted record. Peter

Thanks John, I live "too far away" to be able to do any sort of swift lookup - I'd have to order the film through the LDS, and by the time it arrived the subject would be long dead... The chances seem reasonably high that you'll find Ann's marriage - but not her baptism/birth. Gus ----- Original Message ----- From: "John Partridge" <john.partridge10@ntlworld.com> To: <bedford@rootsweb.com> Sent: Tuesday, January 19, 2010 7:07 PM Subject: Re: [BDF] MEDCRAFT LOOK UP PLEASE > Has anybody yet checked the Chalgrave PR to see if the Robert Savage > marriage of 1788 actually exists - or are you just relying on the IGI > telling us what it has. In my experience some member submission entries > are > in fact true. I will take a look tomorrow at Bedford library. > > Based on a previous posting in 2006 by the same Ruth perhaps > > http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/th/read/BEDFORD/2006-09/1159538037 > > - a chap named Bob has/had the PRs so I would expect the marriage to be > there - but the baptism not. > > cheers John > > c > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Gus Tysoe" <gustysoe@tiscali.co.uk> > To: <bedford@rootsweb.com> > Sent: Tuesday, January 19, 2010 4:21 PM > Subject: Re: [BDF] MEDCRAFT LOOK UP PLEASE > > >> What might add a little further mystery is that the baptism of a Robert >> SAVAGE, son of Robert and Ann, on 9 Jun 1789 at Sundon is shown as an >> Extracted Entry... >> >> Ann MEDCALF (so far only reportedly) married on 2 Jan 1788 Robert SAVAGE >> Junior, consistently reported as being "of Sundon". His birth date is >> quoted >> as being 26 Aug 1765 [thus making him exactly 173 years older than me, >> but >> with the difference that I have a birth certificate to prove it!] There >> is >> no entry for his birth/baptism in Sundon's extractions, although what >> would >> seem to be his father's *is*. >> >> >> But before getting *too* carried-away, it may be worthwhile to think >> quietly >> about the IGI as a whole. From a FamHister's point of view it certainly >> has >> Warts, and even Glaring Flaws [the absence of deaths/burials and >> incompleteness] but then just what can you find anywhere that's Perfect? >> Furthermore, it is made *freely* available to all us 'non-believers' when >> there's no outward and visible reason why it should so be - other, >> perhaps, >> than that some of us *might* add to it. >> >> Flaws accepted, there's nothing else that begins to approach its coverage >> and ease of searching. But when all's said and done, it can be no more >> than >> a Finding Tool - and having 'found' something in it the entry *still* >> needs >> to be confirmed by direct examination of the original entry, which may >> well >> contain additional information that doesn't fit the straight-jacket of >> the >> indexing system. >> >> Be grateful for it - Use it - and CHECK THE ENTRIES [*especially* the >> burials!] against the Registers.... >> >> Gus >> >> >> >> >> The List Guidelines >> >> http://bedfordrootsweb.blogspot.com/ >> >> The Bedfordshire Surnames List >> >> http://homepages.ihug.co.nz/~hughw/bedf.html >> >> >> ------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to >> BEDFORD-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the >> quotes in the subject and the body of the message > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > Version: 8.5.432 / Virus Database: 270.14.150/2632 - Release Date: > 01/19/10 > 07:34:00 > > > > > The List Guidelines > > http://bedfordrootsweb.blogspot.com/ > > The Bedfordshire Surnames List > > http://homepages.ihug.co.nz/~hughw/bedf.html > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > BEDFORD-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the > quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Has anybody yet checked the Chalgrave PR to see if the Robert Savage marriage of 1788 actually exists - or are you just relying on the IGI telling us what it has. In my experience some member submission entries are in fact true. I will take a look tomorrow at Bedford library. Based on a previous posting in 2006 by the same Ruth perhaps http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/th/read/BEDFORD/2006-09/1159538037 - a chap named Bob has/had the PRs so I would expect the marriage to be there - but the baptism not. cheers John c ----- Original Message ----- From: "Gus Tysoe" <gustysoe@tiscali.co.uk> To: <bedford@rootsweb.com> Sent: Tuesday, January 19, 2010 4:21 PM Subject: Re: [BDF] MEDCRAFT LOOK UP PLEASE > What might add a little further mystery is that the baptism of a Robert > SAVAGE, son of Robert and Ann, on 9 Jun 1789 at Sundon is shown as an > Extracted Entry... > > Ann MEDCALF (so far only reportedly) married on 2 Jan 1788 Robert SAVAGE > Junior, consistently reported as being "of Sundon". His birth date is > quoted > as being 26 Aug 1765 [thus making him exactly 173 years older than me, but > with the difference that I have a birth certificate to prove it!] There is > no entry for his birth/baptism in Sundon's extractions, although what > would > seem to be his father's *is*. > > > But before getting *too* carried-away, it may be worthwhile to think > quietly > about the IGI as a whole. From a FamHister's point of view it certainly > has > Warts, and even Glaring Flaws [the absence of deaths/burials and > incompleteness] but then just what can you find anywhere that's Perfect? > Furthermore, it is made *freely* available to all us 'non-believers' when > there's no outward and visible reason why it should so be - other, > perhaps, > than that some of us *might* add to it. > > Flaws accepted, there's nothing else that begins to approach its coverage > and ease of searching. But when all's said and done, it can be no more > than > a Finding Tool - and having 'found' something in it the entry *still* > needs > to be confirmed by direct examination of the original entry, which may > well > contain additional information that doesn't fit the straight-jacket of the > indexing system. > > Be grateful for it - Use it - and CHECK THE ENTRIES [*especially* the > burials!] against the Registers.... > > Gus > > > > > The List Guidelines > > http://bedfordrootsweb.blogspot.com/ > > The Bedfordshire Surnames List > > http://homepages.ihug.co.nz/~hughw/bedf.html > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > BEDFORD-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the > quotes in the subject and the body of the message -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 8.5.432 / Virus Database: 270.14.150/2632 - Release Date: 01/19/10 07:34:00

What might add a little further mystery is that the baptism of a Robert SAVAGE, son of Robert and Ann, on 9 Jun 1789 at Sundon is shown as an Extracted Entry... Ann MEDCALF (so far only reportedly) married on 2 Jan 1788 Robert SAVAGE Junior, consistently reported as being "of Sundon". His birth date is quoted as being 26 Aug 1765 [thus making him exactly 173 years older than me, but with the difference that I have a birth certificate to prove it!] There is no entry for his birth/baptism in Sundon's extractions, although what would seem to be his father's *is*. But before getting *too* carried-away, it may be worthwhile to think quietly about the IGI as a whole. From a FamHister's point of view it certainly has Warts, and even Glaring Flaws [the absence of deaths/burials and incompleteness] but then just what can you find anywhere that's Perfect? Furthermore, it is made *freely* available to all us 'non-believers' when there's no outward and visible reason why it should so be - other, perhaps, than that some of us *might* add to it. Flaws accepted, there's nothing else that begins to approach its coverage and ease of searching. But when all's said and done, it can be no more than a Finding Tool - and having 'found' something in it the entry *still* needs to be confirmed by direct examination of the original entry, which may well contain additional information that doesn't fit the straight-jacket of the indexing system. Be grateful for it - Use it - and CHECK THE ENTRIES [*especially* the burials!] against the Registers.... Gus

Hi listers, As an LDS person I'll see if I can make it make more sense. Even though the duplicates of Ann's birthyear listings give researchers no additional info, they do contain info of value to the church, namely the dates, etc of the ordinance work done from them. In New Family Search we are combining the duplication in our own families. It is like putting it all in a folder for each person with the outside of the folder having the correct info or most correct. The other listings are not removed just organized. I believe when the extraction was done, it was checked against the existing IGI and for those who already had ordinances performed, those items were removed so as not to duplicate work, however I have seen cases where both exist. I have been told by a researcher that some extraction listings were removed later which seems strange and I can't explain it. When patron submissions have an exact christening (baptism) date and place they will mostly be reliable, but as others have said it is always best to verify a date from this source which applies to other sources as well. Happy researching, Charlotte -----Original Message----- From: bedford-request@rootsweb.com To: bedford@rootsweb.com Sent: Tue, Jan 19, 2010 12:07 pm Subject: BEDFORD Digest, Vol 5, Issue 19

One has to remember that the primary purpose of the Church of Latterday Saints in producing these records is for posthumous baptism. For p.c. reasons I will make no comment on that! Jill ----- Original Message ----- From: "Peter Booth" <pbo08596@bigpond.net.au> To: <bedford@rootsweb.com> Sent: Tuesday, January 19, 2010 12:52 PM Subject: Re: [BDF] MEDCRAFT LOOK UP PLEASE > David, > > Thanks for straightening me out. (How's the weather over there ?) > > Apologies to Steven. I wasn't trying to be critical. > > One can only wonder at the logic of LDS, or lack thereof. > > In some cases I have seen up to a dozen different user submissions for > the same person. And if one matches an extracted entry, the extracted > entry > gets deleted, yet all the erroneous ones remain. > > Peter > > > > > The List Guidelines > > http://bedfordrootsweb.blogspot.com/ > > The Bedfordshire Surnames List > > http://homepages.ihug.co.nz/~hughw/bedf.html > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > BEDFORD-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the > quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Each and all of the 21 IGI entries of Ann MEDCRAFT's Birth/baptism show merely that she was "of Chalgrave" and quote a flat year number of 1769. The total absence of any month or day makes it seem extremely unlikely that the year can be anything other than a 'backwards calculation' of some sort - in all probability an entry in a Burials Register, but maybe the 1851 [but just might be later] Census. Equally the 17 - where did the other 4 go? - entries of her marriage quote an exact date of 3 January 1788 which tends to the supposition that it *did* occur on that date - in which case it should be checked to the Register [or Bishops Transcript] - *especially* because it doesn't appear in the Chalgrave extracted marriages. The best that can be said of the entry thus far is the Scottish Verdict of "not proven". I take the point of the relatively-occasional extracted entry being substituted - but that is covered by the preceding paragraph. Gus ----- Original Message ----- From: "Steven Gibbs" <steven@sgibbs1.freeserve.co.uk> To: <bedford@rootsweb.com> Sent: Tuesday, January 19, 2010 9:21 AM Subject: Re: [BDF] MEDCRAFT LOOK UP PLEASE > > >> All the data on IGI for Ann Medcraft comes from user submissions. It >> looks like they are working from a single marriage date. Not sure where >> they >> would have found it. I doesn't appear on Chalgrave PR's. And there are >> four >> other January 1788 marriages, so it's not as though a page is missing. > > Peter, that fact that a record doesn't show as part of an extracted batch > in > the IGI doesn't mean that it doesn't exist in the original PRs. > Extractions > are not always complete; in particular you have to note the LDS approach > to > duplication. If an extracted record and a user submission are identical, > then the extracted record will be removed from the IGI. So, in this case, > the only way to find out is to look at the PRs themselves. > > (My guess is that it might very well be there, because the bride's age > works > out as 19. When dates are total guesswork, the bride is presumed 21 and > the > groom 25, which is not the case here, so it would appear that some proper > research might have been done.) > > Steven > > > > > > > The List Guidelines > > http://bedfordrootsweb.blogspot.com/ > > The Bedfordshire Surnames List > > http://homepages.ihug.co.nz/~hughw/bedf.html > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > BEDFORD-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the > quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Don't we all Peter! But it's a fact all the same. When the LDS had a clean up of the IGI, if a member submission was identical to an extracted entry then it was the extracted entry that was deleted. Thus debasing the IGI Ours is not to reason why... David > De: Peter Booth <pbo08596@bigpond.net.au> > >     I struggle to understand why a user > submission would take precedence > over an extracted record. > >     Peter > > > > > > > > > > The List Guidelines > > http://bedfordrootsweb.blogspot.com/ > > The Bedfordshire Surnames List > > http://homepages.ihug.co.nz/~hughw/bedf.html > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to BEDFORD-request@rootsweb.com > with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the > subject and the body of the message >

Ruth, The place to look is the Hugh Wallis batch site http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~hughwallis/IGIBatchNumbers/CountyBedford.htm#C Here all you need is a surname. The Chalgrave christening batches cover 1539-1871 and there is not a single Medcraft listed. Even the marriage batches have only a single Medcroft marriage 100 years earlier. All the data on IGI for Ann Medcraft comes from user submissions. It looks like they are working from a single marriage date. Not sure where they would have found it. I doesn't appear on Chalgrave PR's. And there are four other January 1788 marriages, so it's not as though a page is missing. I hope somebody else can come up with some enlightened suggestions. Peter

> > All the data on IGI for Ann Medcraft comes from user submissions. It > looks like they are working from a single marriage date. Not sure where > they > would have found it. I doesn't appear on Chalgrave PR's. And there are > four > other January 1788 marriages, so it's not as though a page is missing. Peter, that fact that a record doesn't show as part of an extracted batch in the IGI doesn't mean that it doesn't exist in the original PRs. Extractions are not always complete; in particular you have to note the LDS approach to duplication. If an extracted record and a user submission are identical, then the extracted record will be removed from the IGI. So, in this case, the only way to find out is to look at the PRs themselves. (My guess is that it might very well be there, because the bride's age works out as 19. When dates are total guesswork, the bride is presumed 21 and the groom 25, which is not the case here, so it would appear that some proper research might have been done.) Steven

Hi, Is SKS able to a lookup for Ann MEDCRAFT born abt 1769 in chalgrave, Bedfordshire, Parents and siblings if possible please Ruth

Kevin and Debbie, As I said earlier, the ancestral lines of George Northwood can be found in submitted trees at http://wc.rootsweb.ancestry.com/cgi-bin/igm.cgi?op=Search&includedb=&lang=en&ti=&surname=northwood&stype=Exact&given=george&bplace=&byear=1874&brange=0&dplace=&dyear=&drange=0&mplace=&myear=&mrange=0&father=&mother=&spouse=&skipdb=&period=All&submit.x=Search Gillian Vella looks to have done his maternal line and Warren Loxley the Northwood side. Neither have traced any marriages or subsequent events for George. With various branches of my ancestors living in Maulden since about 1500, I invariably can identify with nearly every local surname on one side branch or another. My Northwood connection goes back to the 1789 marriage of Austin Bass to George Northwood. Their son Austin Bass married my great grandfather's sister Eunice Cox in 1811. If people want the data they can contact me off list so I can send lengthy attachments. Peter

> Sorry, it was late last night, I didn't fill in the details. I have a marriage certificate from the GRO for a marriage between George Northwood and Kate Summerfield in Maulden Meeting 1907. George is a bricklayers labourer, resident of Snow Hill, Maulden. His father's name is Joseph, railway labourer (which ties in with the 1901 census). George's age is given as 30, which is 3 years too young but he seems to have recovered the missing 3 years by the 1911 census - perhaps he was trying to impress his young bride. Kate Summerfield was 23, domestic servant, resident of Maulden and her father was Philip George Summerfield, road labourer. The witnesses were Philip George Summerfield and Minnie Rose Summerfield. This does appear to me to be the couple Kevin is interested in. My Mother was a Northwood - John Northwood, born about 1737, was my 5x great grandfather and I have been researching the Northwood family for some years. Deb ----------------------------------------- Planet Ink Club is a great way to save money and help the environment. Join today (http://www.planetinkclub.com) This message has been scanned by Supanet for viruses and dangerous content using ClamAV and SpamAssassin.

Kevin, Talking of strange findings. You're in luck. There are two submitted trees on Rootsweb for much of this family. One has many generations of the Northwood family, the other has a similar number of generations or the Downing family. So you get both branches. I've shared data with one of the submitters Warren Loxley over many years and found his research to be very accurate. Peter

Kevin, I have some Maulden Northwoods on indirect lines. I found a likely marriage between Joseph Northwood and Mary Downing in 1858 in Flitton. From 1881 census, Joseph was born c1835, but there are a couple of possibilities. Do you know Joseph's parents as yet? Peter Booth in Sydney

Hi Kevin I am researching the NORTHWOOD line and although George Northwood is quite a distant connection for me I do have a copy of his marriage certificate to Kate Summerfield which I will happily scan for you if it is of use to you. Deb Chambers > Peter, > > Firstly thanks for the information. The NORTHWOOD line is not on one > of the direct lines I am researching - However, I have them back to > the Mid 1700's. > > The reason I am doing work on the Northwood's is because it would > appear ( from another researcher who has proven reliable on other > parts of the family) that George Northwood married Katie SUMMERFIELD > and the Summerfields are on one of my direct lines. Katie is the > product of a marriage between two Summerfileds (2nd Cousins) her > father being Philip George Summerfield (born: 1860, Maulden) and > Martha Summerfield (born: 1859, Maulden) and is bioth my wife's: > > 1st Cousin 2x Removed and 3rd Cousin 2x Removed. > > Given that the above is not an isolated case with the Bedfordshire > side of the family I decided many moons ago to not just research the > direct lines but also look at the relationships between the different > families. I no longer think of a family tree but rather a family shrub > with lots of off-shoots and more then the occasional crossing branch. > > Regards > > Kevin > > > > The List Guidelines > > http://bedfordrootsweb.blogspot.com/ > > The Bedfordshire Surnames List > > http://homepages.ihug.co.nz/~hughw/bedf.html > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > BEDFORD-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the > quotes in the subject and the body of the message > ----------------------------------------- Planet Ink Club is a great way to save money and help the environment. Join today (http://www.planetinkclub.com) This message has been scanned by Supanet for viruses and dangerous content using ClamAV and SpamAssassin.