> IGI has a batch record I036410 for the above christening to parents > Robert Bettles & Martha. > > What is strange is that there in no source information other than the > batch number. Can anyone explain? "I" batch numbers are extractions done by LDS volunteers. No quality checking seems to have been done, so the accuracy of these extractions is very much in doubt. This batch appears to be a selection of baptisms and marriages from the period 1813-37, which were not previously on the IGI. Whereas a cursory look at this particular batch suggests it may be reasonably reliable, others I have found have been totally incompetent. For example, somebody transcribed the banns register for St Mary, Lambeth, thinking it was the marriage register. Steven

Hi Steven, I am interested in St. Mary's Lambeth and seeing your comment below, are you saying that the 'marriages' for that parish on the IGI are really banns, or was the transcription elsewhere? From Merryl Wells of Luton, Beds. 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: "Steven Gibbs" <steven@sgibbs1.freeserve.co.uk> To: <bedford@rootsweb.com> Sent: Saturday, February 27, 2010 1:21 PM Subject: Re: [BDF] Sarah or Sally BETTLES - ch 1818 Milton Ernest > >> IGI has a batch record I036410 for the above christening to parents >> Robert Bettles & Martha. >> >> What is strange is that there in no source information other than the >> batch number. Can anyone explain? > > "I" batch numbers are extractions done by LDS volunteers. No quality > checking seems to have been done, so the accuracy of these extractions is > very much in doubt. This batch appears to be a selection of baptisms and > marriages from the period 1813-37, which were not previously on the IGI. > > Whereas a cursory look at this particular batch suggests it may be > reasonably reliable, others I have found have been totally incompetent. > For > example, somebody transcribed the banns register for St Mary, Lambeth, > thinking it was the marriage register. > > 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 > > ______________________________________________ > 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: 9.0.733 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2712 - Release Date: 02/26/10 19:39:00

> > Hi Steven, > > I am interested in St. Mary's Lambeth and seeing your comment below, are > you > saying that the 'marriages' for that parish on the IGI are really banns, > or > was the transcription elsewhere? I'm not sure exactly what has happened, but I pulled all the relevant entries out of Ancestry's London Metropolitan Archives databases for my one-namer. Several marriages that I had previously taken from the IGI with an "I" batch number only showed up in the banns register and not in the actual marriage register. Several of these "missing" marriages then appeared at a different church. Of course very many of the entries in the banns register referred to marriages that later took place at St Mary's, but the date given on the IGI was that of the third reading of the banns, not of the marriage itself, so it seems a reasonable assumption that the banns register was used in error. Steven