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

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

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