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