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/