Chris, Possibly St. Nicholas, Bristol is one other listed as Abbots Leigh. My 3xgreat grandmother Rosannah LANSDOWN married her second cousin Joseph GREENLAND 11 Sep 1815 @ St. Nicholas. I defer to Josephine because she looked this up for me and I'm sure has a better idea about such things as I do not live in or near Bristol. Thanks for all your hard work on this. Susan -----Original Message----- From: Chris Jefferies Sent: Saturday, February 12, 2011 7:19 AM To: bristol_and_somerset@rootsweb.com ; bristol_and_district@rootsweb.com Subject: [B&S] Update on new Bristol area parish records wrongly lasted asAbbots Leigh Last night I had an email from someone who had a reply from Family Search about 6 hours after my reply with a case ID about 3000 after mine. The reply below is much more sympathetic and is asking for details of the problem.:- "Thank you for contacting FamilySearch concerning incorrect data place entries n the index of Bristol parish registers. We have been examining the known issues for entries for Abbot's Leigh. We would be grateful if you could supply the record details of entries for each of the parishes you refer to which are incorrect. This will enable us to examine the data in detail. Please copy and paste the record details for incorrect entries in order that we can examine the original images for relevant parishes and the film numbers as there is clearly an error." Below are the errors I have been able to identify from comparing info I have with the Family Search data:- Kingswood Marriages 1837- 1901 listed as Abbots Leigh Mangotsfield Marriages 1837-1901 listed as Abbots Leigh Mangotsfield Baptisms listed as Abbots Leigh Pucklechurch baptisms listed as Abbots Leigh Pucklechurch Marriages 1837-1901 listed as Abbots Leigh Westerleigh Marriages 1837-1901 listed as Abbots Leigh Warmley Marriages 1851-1900 listed as Abbots Leigh Hanham Abbots St George Marriages 1847-1888 listed as Abbots Leigh Hanham Christchurch marriages 1889-1901 listed as Abbots Leigh Oldland St Anne Marriages 1861-1901 listed as Abbots Leigh Syston Marriages 1837-1901 listed as Abbots Leigh Wick Marriages 1881- 1901 listed as Abbots Leigh Iron Acton St James marriages 1837-1901 listed as Abbots Leigh Stoke Gifford Marriages 1837-1901 listed as Abbots Leigh Frenchay St John marriages 1837-1901 listed as Abbots Leigh Frampton Cotterell Marriages 1837 - 1901 listed as Abbots Leigh I suspect that for the parishes listed above the Baptism, Marriage and Burial registers have all been added to Family Search under Abbots Leigh. I will email the info above to Family search together with the examples of faulty entries they requested. If anyone has examples of parish register entries wrongly listed as Abbots Leigh please email the details to support@familysearch.org with CaseID:1996686 in the title. The parishes below don't seem to be in Family Search at the moment Bitton Winterbourne Winterbourne Down Abson Filton St Peter Downend Christchurch Chris Jefferies Cheltenham Glos ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to BRISTOL_AND_SOMERSET-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

I've also had problems in trying to make my feedback to Familysearch understood by the LDS. A couple of months ago I noticed that the "new" Bristol data which had previously been available on the British Isles Vital Records was not complete. Several females in my family had been christened as adults and their married names were given as additional information in the BIVR. None of this appears in the new format. I thought it was a pity that the additional information had been omitted because it is by that means that some individuals can be identified. My replies from them twice informed me that the BIVR was no longer available on CD (of which I was aware!) and failed to address the question I had raised. In the end I gave up. Do they really want feedback? I now see that new Bristol data from Bitton (which was not on the BIVR) does not include the age at christening which I know is on the original entry. My 3 x great grandfather, Samuel LONG, was married at Bitton, 21 Feb 1803, the day after he was christened there 20 Feb 1803 and I know the register gives the information that he was 25 when he was christened. Is it worth the hassle to raise this? It is hardly of the magnitude of the Abbots Leigh fiasco!. I'm still waiting for a reply on that one. On another tack, I'm impressed with the speed with which Findmypast acknowledges faults and corrects their data. Perhaps finance has something to do with it! Pat > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Roy Stockdill" <roy.stockdill@btinternet.com> > To: <bristol_and_somerset@rootsweb.com> > Sent: Saturday, February 12, 2011 12:18 AM > Subject: Re: [B&S] Response from Family Search about errors in new > Bristoldata. > > >> On 11 Feb 2011 at 10:58, Chris Jefferies wrote: >> >>> As you will be aware there is a problem with many of the new records >>> added last week to the Family Search "England, Bristol Parish >>> Registers, 1538-1900" database as part of the Indexing project to >>> which I was a contributor. A high proportion, probably many tens of >>> thousands of the new records have been incorrectly attributed to >>> Abbotts Leigh (Holy Trinity). I reported the problem to Family Search >>> telling them the scale of the problem and had a reply below which >>> shows they don't seem to understand and says they are not going to do >>> anything about it at the moment!:- > >> >> At risk of being stoned to death, figuratively speaking, for an >> observation that will >> probably offend some people, could I suggest that FamilySearch has a long >> history of >> either not understanding problems or being unwilling to do anything about >> them, >> particularly when it concerns records from the UK? I have never yet in >> the >> past been >> able to get a sensible answer out of them, so I gave up trying.

On 12 Feb 2011 at 12:49, Amanda Kerby wrote: > Dear Roy, > > Thankyou for your list message, it had me smiling from ear to ear! and > even made me laugh! I so totally agree with you. > > I have corresponded with the LDS before over mistakes I have located, > and more recently with Ancestry regarding one person's donated family > tree CD they have published (without checking the integrity of the > data supplied), which I and one other researcher, know wholeheartedly > to be completely fictitious. With both websites I have always received > responses which make you wonder if they've even read the original > question! Doggedly I replied the last time out of pure frustration, > and finally got a slightly better explanation, but it then prompted a > whole lot more questions! So I gave up. < Many thanks, Amanda. Your support and comments are most welcome and appreciated. Funnily enough, I have never received any comments that make any sense from the LDS either. Frankly, I tend to doubt that the majority of their senior people are even genuine genealogists or family historians. I suspect our friends in the LDS Church in America and their supporters have a problem in understanding the complaints about the way in which they process UK data. They are not, in my view, genealogists at all unless they would care to persuade us otherwise. -- Roy Stockdill Genealogical researcher, writer & lecturer Newbies' Guide to Genealogy & Family History: www.genuki.org.uk/gs/Newbie.html "There is only one thing in the world worse than being talked about, and that is not being talked about." OSCAR WILDE

There have been references to Abbot's Leigh recently. Sharp's Gazetteer of 1852 gave the following information about this parish: 'Portbury hund. NE Somerset. 3m.WNW. of Bristol ... on R. Avon at Rownham ferry, belonged to St. Augustine's abbey. Acres 2150, with limestone quarries; pop. 366'. The population figure of 366 was from the 1841 census. Josephine -- Josephine Jeremiah www.ianandjo.dsl.pipex.com

On Fri, 11 Feb 2011 21:05:47 -0000, Susan Moziar <smoziar@rogers.com> wrote: > The other day when Josephine found this baptism for me, the place was > Holy Nativity, Bedminster. Today, I took a look and the place is now > Knowle, > Holy Nativity, Somersetshire, England. > Can anyone explain why the change from one day to the next, especially > since this is less likely to be correct. Hi Susan, Last Monday, when I looked for the baptism of Arthur James Sheaff HINTON, I used the site, which Chris Jefferies had given us on the 20th. January. I've looked at the same site again and I see that there are two entries for this baptism. The first entry is on on 2nd. July 1887 at Holy Nativity, Bedminster, Somerset, England. The other is on 2nd. July 1887 at Knowle, Holy Nativity, Somersetshire, England. There is a page about Bedminster on the B & A FHS website: http://www.bafhs.org.uk/parishes/bedminster/bedminster.htm On this page there is a reference to Holy Nativity, Knowle being among the new churches built in the parish. So it appears that Holy Nativity Church was in Knowle, but in the parish of Bedminster. Josephine -- Josephine Jeremiah www.ianandjo.dsl.pipex.com

www.pilot.familysearch.org www.beta.familysearch.org Les. #17255 ----- Original Message ----- From: <Lcsearch3528@aol.com> To: <bristol_and_somerset@rootsweb.com> Sent: Friday, February 11, 2011 8:02 PM Subject: [B&S] Family Search and parish records - new link > Hi, there has been many interesting comments re the 'new' family search, > but I could wonder if someone please kindly send me the link to the > correct > web address so that I can find the new one. I keep looking but the old > one just keeps coming up.............I'm obviously just having a 'senior' > moment! > > Thanks, Lin > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > BRISTOL_AND_SOMERSET-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' > without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

The new site comes up using https://www.familysearch.org/ The old site comes up using http://www.familysearch.org/eng/ Note the difference in the https. Bev ----- Original Message ----- From: "LHIBBARD" <lhibbard@clear.net.nz> To: <bristol_and_somerset@rootsweb.com> Sent: Friday, February 11, 2011 5:32 PM Subject: Re: [B&S] Family Search and parish records - new link > www.pilot.familysearch.org > www.beta.familysearch.org > > Les. > #17255 > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: <Lcsearch3528@aol.com> > To: <bristol_and_somerset@rootsweb.com> > Sent: Friday, February 11, 2011 8:02 PM > Subject: [B&S] Family Search and parish records - new link > > >> Hi, there has been many interesting comments re the 'new' family search, >> but I could wonder if someone please kindly send me the link to the >> correct >> web address so that I can find the new one. I keep looking but the old >> one just keeps coming up.............I'm obviously just having a >> 'senior' >> moment! >> >> Thanks, Lin >> >> ------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to >> BRISTOL_AND_SOMERSET-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' >> without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > BRISTOL_AND_SOMERSET-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' > without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message >

Thanks, that's good to know because when I plugged "Knowle, Holy Nativity, Somersetshire, England" into GOOGLE, I got some place near Didcot, I believe. Susan -----Original Message----- From: Josephine Jeremiah Sent: Friday, February 11, 2011 4:57 PM To: bristol_and_somerset@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [B&S] LDS Site and Wrong Places On Fri, 11 Feb 2011 21:05:47 -0000, Susan Moziar <smoziar@rogers.com> wrote: > The other day when Josephine found this baptism for me, the place was > Holy Nativity, Bedminster. Today, I took a look and the place is now > Knowle, > Holy Nativity, Somersetshire, England. > Can anyone explain why the change from one day to the next, especially > since this is less likely to be correct. Hi Susan, Last Monday, when I looked for the baptism of Arthur James Sheaff HINTON, I used the site, which Chris Jefferies had given us on the 20th. January. I've looked at the same site again and I see that there are two entries for this baptism. The first entry is on on 2nd. July 1887 at Holy Nativity, Bedminster, Somerset, England. The other is on 2nd. July 1887 at Knowle, Holy Nativity, Somersetshire, England. There is a page about Bedminster on the B & A FHS website: http://www.bafhs.org.uk/parishes/bedminster/bedminster.htm On this page there is a reference to Holy Nativity, Knowle being among the new churches built in the parish. So it appears that Holy Nativity Church was in Knowle, but in the parish of Bedminster. Josephine -- Josephine Jeremiah www.ianandjo.dsl.pipex.com ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to BRISTOL_AND_SOMERSET-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

The other day when Josephine found this baptism for me, the place was Holy Nativity, Bedminster. Today, I took a look and the place is now Knowle, Holy Nativity, Somersetshire, England. Josephine said: "According to the new familysearch site that Chris Jefferies gave us on 20th. January, Arthur James Sheaff Hinton was baptized on 2nd. Jul 1887 at Holy Nativity, Bedminster. Father was William James Hinton and mother was Maria." Can anyone explain why the change from one day to the next, especially since this is less likely to be correct. Thanks, Susan

Hi Chris Thanks for sending the reply from Family Search. It appears to me it is more or less a standard reply to people reporting individual errors in the online database. It appears Family Search have not understood the size of their error in attributing so many entries to Holy Trinity church in Abbots Leigh, Bristol, Somerset. I will certainly contact them with some of the many instances in my own Bristol families which should read St Philip & Jacob, Bristol, Holy Trinity, Kingswood and other parishes to the east of the city which lie in South Gloucestershire and came under the Keynsham registration district. I also notice St Luke at Barton Hill, Bristol is listed as being in Somerset instead of Gloucestershire. How many future researchers are going to be on the wrong track and end up in Abbots Leigh churchyard scouring the gravestones for their ancestors who have no connections with that parish at all? I feel sorry for any who will have come a long way, perhaps from USA, Canada, Australia and New Zealand, on a fool's errand. I think the vicar at Abbots Leigh should open a tea shop this spring and summer because I think he's going to see an unusually large number visiting his church. Bernice in Bristol

The new Bristol records gave me hope that I might at last find a birth/bap for my 3g-gmother HARRIET JENKINS. Marriage/census records show she was "of Redcliffe', father James and born c1815.   I didn't find her but did find another Harriet Jenkins at Redcliffe with different father and baptism a bit late, so I remain hopeful. If anyone has anything on this family please let me know !   Francis Auckland, NZ

On 11 Feb 2011 at 10:58, Chris Jefferies wrote: > As you will be aware there is a problem with many of the new records > added last week to the Family Search "England, Bristol Parish > Registers, 1538-1900" database as part of the Indexing project to > which I was a contributor. A high proportion, probably many tens of > thousands of the new records have been incorrectly attributed to > Abbotts Leigh (Holy Trinity). I reported the problem to Family Search > telling them the scale of the problem and had a reply below which > shows they don't seem to understand and says they are not going to do > anything about it at the moment!:- > At risk of being stoned to death, figuratively speaking, for an observation that will probably offend some people, could I suggest that FamilySearch has a long history of either not understanding problems or being unwilling to do anything about them, particularly when it concerns records from the UK? I have never yet in the past been able to get a sensible answer out of them, so I gave up trying. It seems to me there are two problems..... 1) The LDS Church does NOT undertake genealogical research and transcribing of data for the same reasons that we non-members - which means the vast majority of family historians - do. They do it principally to support their own religious beliefs, which I certainly don't intend to take issue with here. Furthermore, I tend to doubt that many of the programmers in Utah are actually genealogists and family historians at all. They are probably clean-cut, wide-eyed eager young Mormons who are told they are doing an important job for their church and the interests of the wider world of family history simply pass them by or are ignored. I suspect they don't understand why it is so important to us to get the parish right, even less do they care. 2) They are based in a deeply insular and parochial part of America and probably know less about the geography of the UK than does even the average American !!! And, before the bricks start coming my way, let me say that I happen to know someone who is the head of an LDS Family History Centre in England and she agrees with me. She told me once that hardly anybody in a senior position in Utah even owns a passport! -- Roy Stockdill Genealogical researcher, writer & lecturer Newbies' Guide to Genealogy & Family History: www.genuki.org.uk/gs/Newbie.html "There is only one thing in the world worse than being talked about, and that is not being talked about." OSCAR WILDE

As you will be aware there is a problem with many of the new records added last week to the Family Search "England, Bristol Parish Registers, 1538-1900" database as part of the Indexing project to which I was a contributor. A high proportion, probably many tens of thousands of the new records have been incorrectly attributed to Abbotts Leigh (Holy Trinity). I reported the problem to Family Search telling them the scale of the problem and had a reply below which shows they don't seem to understand and says they are not going to do anything about it at the moment!:- "The UK Bristol project is currently showing as completed and is going through the end completion process. Once a project is completed FamilySearch does not, at this time, have the functionality in place to accept corrections or additions to its individual database entries without reloading the entire collection. However, a future feature is under consideration that would accept corrections or additions to the searchable index. Both the original index and the correction to the index would be searchable, thus preserving the ability to locate original indexes and images as well as the corrected or added patron entries. We hope when this feature is in place you will contact us and give us the correct information that you feel should be on these records. " Someone suggested that Family Search are more likely to take notice if lots of people complain about the problem so can I ask as many of you as possible to contact Family Search to complain about the problem and giving examples of incorrect parish. Below is the email address and the feedback web page. support@familysearch.org https://help.familysearch.org/help/contact I have found many family events in the latest batch and even when the parish is obviously incorrect there is usually much more useful info than in the equivalent FreeBMD entry. Chris Jefferies Cheltenham Glos

Searching through the 1623 Somerset Visitations I came across the following latin abbreviations:- ar.ent.  and   arm. Would I be correct in thinking that they relate to the right to bear arms etc or am I way off the beam? Many thanks for any help, Janet :0)

Karen I just did a search for your Anna using the New Search, and found 2 results. But the film number was 1596484. When I checked the film number in the catalogue, it showed 4 parish registers - Avonmouth, St Agnes, Bristol, St Andrew-Montpelier, Bristol and the Chapelry of Redland. Bev ----- Original Message ----- From: "Karen Palandri" <karen.palandri@orange.fr> To: <bristol_and_somerset@rootsweb.com> Sent: Friday, February 11, 2011 2:53 AM Subject: Re: [B&S] Problem with NEW Bristol Parish Records on Family Search > Hello, > > It seems that all the transcriptions for Bristol have been lumped in to > the > same church, not just St Philip and Jacob. > > Also can anyone explain why I have found 2 burials for the same person on > the IGI site with different film numbers: > > Name: Ann Maria Fear Sage Event: BURIAL Event Date: 21 Sep 1901 Event > Place: > Redland, Gloucestershire, England Gender: Age: 73 Christening Date: > Marriage > Date: Marital Status: Burial Date: Father: Mother: Spouse: Spouse's > Marital > Status: Spouse's Father: Spouse's Mother: Film Number: 4185521 Digital > Folder Number: 4185521 Image Number: 00033 > > Name: Ann Maria Fear Sage Event: BURIAL Event Date: 21 Sep 1901 Event > Place: > Redland, Gloucestershire, England Gender: Female Age: 73 Christening Date: > Marriage Date: Marital Status: Burial Date: Father: Mother: Spouse: > Spouse's > Marital Status: Spouse's Father: Spouse's Mother: Film Number: 4185524 > Digital Folder Number: 4185524 Image Number: 00034 > > Karen > Lyon, France >

Hi Karen I think you mean the family search site not the IGI? I would guess there are two different sources - This is from their description of the database which is England Deaths and Burials (not the IGI)that I found the entries on. "....compilation of a variety of sources, including the following: *Family Records *Church Records *Civil Registration" So one, for instance, could be a Church/civil record and the other a patron submission perhaps using the Church record. Regards Lyn In Oz. > -----Original Message----- > From: bristol_and_somerset-bounces@rootsweb.com > [mailto:bristol_and_somerset-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf > Of Karen Palandri > Sent: Friday, 11 February 2011 2:53 AM > To: bristol_and_somerset@rootsweb.com > Subject: Re: [B&S] Problem with NEW Bristol Parish Records on > Family Search > > Hello, > > It seems that all the transcriptions for Bristol have been > lumped in to the same church, not just St Philip and Jacob. > > Also can anyone explain why I have found 2 burials for the > same person on the IGI site with different film numbers: > > Name: Ann Maria Fear Sage Event: BURIAL Event Date: 21 Sep > 1901 Event Place: > Redland, Gloucestershire, England Gender: Age: 73 Christening > Date: Marriage > Date: Marital Status: Burial Date: Father: Mother: Spouse: > Spouse's Marital > Status: Spouse's Father: Spouse's Mother: Film Number: > 4185521 Digital Folder Number: 4185521 Image Number: 00033 > > Name: Ann Maria Fear Sage Event: BURIAL Event Date: 21 Sep > 1901 Event Place: > Redland, Gloucestershire, England Gender: Female Age: 73 > Christening Date: > Marriage Date: Marital Status: Burial Date: Father: Mother: > Spouse: Spouse's Marital Status: Spouse's Father: Spouse's > Mother: Film Number: 4185524 Digital Folder Number: 4185524 > Image Number: 00034 > > Karen > Lyon, France > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > BRISTOL_AND_SOMERSET-request@rootsweb.com with the word > 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body > of the message

Thanks Les. Lin In a message dated 11/02/2011 07:33:15 GMT Standard Time, lhibbard@clear.net.nz writes: www.pilot.familysearch.org www.beta.familysearch.org Les. #17255 ----- Original Message ----- From: <Lcsearch3528@aol.com> To: <bristol_and_somerset@rootsweb.com> Sent: Friday, February 11, 2011 8:02 PM Subject: [B&S] Family Search and parish records - new link > Hi, there has been many interesting comments re the 'new' family search, > but I could wonder if someone please kindly send me the link to the > correct > web address so that I can find the new one. I keep looking but the old > one just keeps coming up.............I'm obviously just having a 'senior' > moment! > > Thanks, Lin > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > BRISTOL_AND_SOMERSET-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' > without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to BRISTOL_AND_SOMERSET-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Hi, there has been many interesting comments re the 'new' family search, but I could wonder if someone please kindly send me the link to the correct web address so that I can find the new one. I keep looking but the old one just keeps coming up.............I'm obviously just having a 'senior' moment! Thanks, Lin

Thanks Lyn for this possible explanation Karen -----Original Message----- From: bristol_and_somerset-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:bristol_and_somerset-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Lyn Sent: jeudi 10 février 2011 21:50 To: bristol_and_somerset@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [B&S] Problem with NEW Bristol Parish Records on Family Search Hi Karen I think you mean the family search site not the IGI? I would guess there are two different sources - This is from their description of the database which is England Deaths and Burials (not the IGI)that I found the entries on. "....compilation of a variety of sources, including the following: *Family Records *Church Records *Civil Registration" So one, for instance, could be a Church/civil record and the other a patron submission perhaps using the Church record. Regards Lyn In Oz. > -----Original Message----- > From: bristol_and_somerset-bounces@rootsweb.com > [mailto:bristol_and_somerset-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Karen > Palandri > Sent: Friday, 11 February 2011 2:53 AM > To: bristol_and_somerset@rootsweb.com > Subject: Re: [B&S] Problem with NEW Bristol Parish Records on Family > Search > > Hello, > > It seems that all the transcriptions for Bristol have been lumped in > to the same church, not just St Philip and Jacob. > > Also can anyone explain why I have found 2 burials for the same person > on the IGI site with different film numbers: > > Name: Ann Maria Fear Sage Event: BURIAL Event Date: 21 Sep > 1901 Event Place: > Redland, Gloucestershire, England Gender: Age: 73 Christening > Date: Marriage > Date: Marital Status: Burial Date: Father: Mother: Spouse: > Spouse's Marital > Status: Spouse's Father: Spouse's Mother: Film Number: > 4185521 Digital Folder Number: 4185521 Image Number: 00033 > > Name: Ann Maria Fear Sage Event: BURIAL Event Date: 21 Sep > 1901 Event Place: > Redland, Gloucestershire, England Gender: Female Age: 73 Christening > Date: > Marriage Date: Marital Status: Burial Date: Father: Mother: > Spouse: Spouse's Marital Status: Spouse's Father: Spouse's > Mother: Film Number: 4185524 Digital Folder Number: 4185524 Image > Number: 00034 > > Karen > Lyon, France > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > BRISTOL_AND_SOMERSET-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' > without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to BRISTOL_AND_SOMERSET-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Hello Bev, Thanks for looking in to this for me. Both deaths say that they were at Redland and were definitely for the same person. Karen -----Original Message----- From: bristol_and_somerset-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:bristol_and_somerset-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of bev bonning Sent: jeudi 10 février 2011 22:12 To: bristol_and_somerset@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [B&S] Problem with NEW Bristol Parish Records on Family Search Karen I just did a search for your Anna using the New Search, and found 2 results. But the film number was 1596484. When I checked the film number in the catalogue, it showed 4 parish registers - Avonmouth, St Agnes, Bristol, St Andrew-Montpelier, Bristol and the Chapelry of Redland. Bev ----- Original Message ----- From: "Karen Palandri" <karen.palandri@orange.fr> To: <bristol_and_somerset@rootsweb.com> Sent: Friday, February 11, 2011 2:53 AM Subject: Re: [B&S] Problem with NEW Bristol Parish Records on Family Search > Hello, > > It seems that all the transcriptions for Bristol have been lumped in to > the > same church, not just St Philip and Jacob. > > Also can anyone explain why I have found 2 burials for the same person on > the IGI site with different film numbers: > > Name: Ann Maria Fear Sage Event: BURIAL Event Date: 21 Sep 1901 Event > Place: > Redland, Gloucestershire, England Gender: Age: 73 Christening Date: > Marriage > Date: Marital Status: Burial Date: Father: Mother: Spouse: Spouse's > Marital > Status: Spouse's Father: Spouse's Mother: Film Number: 4185521 Digital > Folder Number: 4185521 Image Number: 00033 > > Name: Ann Maria Fear Sage Event: BURIAL Event Date: 21 Sep 1901 Event > Place: > Redland, Gloucestershire, England Gender: Female Age: 73 Christening Date: > Marriage Date: Marital Status: Burial Date: Father: Mother: Spouse: > Spouse's > Marital Status: Spouse's Father: Spouse's Mother: Film Number: 4185524 > Digital Folder Number: 4185524 Image Number: 00034 > > Karen > Lyon, France > ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to BRISTOL_AND_SOMERSET-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message