This is good news, but will we be able to read them? Years ago, before Bishop Clifford put a ban on viewing Cashel and Emly records in the Nat. Library, I tried to research a particular parish. If I describe the miserable hand writing as like a chicken walked on ink, then walked over the document, it is being too kind. The documents were in Latin and the names all written in Latin, including the comments. Why can't we have the typed up version, like every other civilised society. I don't expect the Nat. Library to do it, and indeed I am very grateful for them taking the trouble to put the originals on line. It is the least the Church could have done. Our ancestors kept the Church in business through good times and bad times. Who paid for the fine houses the clergy lived in? Who paid for their man servant and maid, as most of them had back then? Who supplied them with hay and oats for their horse, before cars were invented or common? Cashel and Emly is a rural diocese, with no city within its bounds. Our farming and business ancestors kept them in comfort while many less fortunate living around them in hovels starved. The entire Church records are now typed up and housed in Heritage Centres. They are still not available for viewing. Bits of these records can be obtained for a stiff fee. When these records were being typed up, an employment scheme was used to do same. Early school leavers were employed in many cases to do the work. A supervisor was employed to see that it was done. The funding came from the tax payers of this country. Many errors were made. An example, my great grandmother was having babies over a period of 52 years. My parents marriage date is five years out, because they misread the number 3 as being an 8. What do I do about this? Maybe I have gone off the point. We just want to know the names of our ancestors. Would be interested to know how others found reading the handwritten script on microfilm. In the article it said, 98 per cent will be available. What does that mean? Betty.

Perhaps the Tipperary Family History Centre in Tipperary Town may be of help with this problem. Carmen D. Pittsburgh Researching Hanley and Reardon/Riordan ----- Original Message ----- From: "Betty Gough via" <cotipperary@rootsweb.com> To: <cotipperary@rootsweb.com> Sent: Tuesday, December 02, 2014 2:50 PM Subject: [COTIPPERARY] R.C. Church records on line........ > This is good news, but will we be able to read them? > Years ago, before Bishop Clifford put a ban on viewing Cashel and Emly > records in the Nat. Library, I tried to research a particular parish. If > I describe the miserable hand writing as like a chicken walked on ink, > then walked over the document, it is being too kind. > The documents were in Latin and the names all written in Latin, including > the comments. > Why can't we have the typed up version, like every other civilised > society. I don't expect the Nat. Library to do it, and indeed I am very > grateful for them taking the trouble to put the originals on line. It is > the least the Church could have done. Our ancestors kept the Church in > business through good times and bad times. Who paid for the fine houses > the clergy lived in? Who paid for their man servant and maid, as most of > them had back then? Who supplied them with hay and oats for their > horse, before cars were invented or common? Cashel and Emly is a rural > diocese, with no city within its bounds. Our farming and business > ancestors kept them in comfort while many less fortunate living around > them in hovels starved. > > The entire Church records are now typed up and housed in Heritage Centres. > They are still not available for viewing. Bits of these records can be > obtained for a stiff fee. When these records were being typed up, an > employment scheme was used to do same. Early school leavers were > employed in many cases to do the work. A supervisor was employed to see > that it was done. The funding came from the tax payers of this country. > Many errors were made. An example, my great grandmother was having > babies over a period of 52 years. My parents marriage date is five > years out, because they misread the number 3 as being an 8. What do I > do about this? > Maybe I have gone off the point. > We just want to know the names of our ancestors. > Would be interested to know how others found reading the handwritten > script on microfilm. > In the article it said, 98 per cent will be available. What does that > mean? > Betty. > > > > > > > > When replying to a message in the digest please do two things: > 1. Change the 'Subject' to that of the message you are replying to. > 2. Delete all the messages above and below the one you are concerned > with. > Thank You. > > All of the past messages of this list can be found in the Archives at > http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/th/index?list=cotipperary > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > COTIPPERARY-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the > quotes in the subject and the body of the message

I have seen some of the Cashel books in the National Library and they take a lot of deciphering. I am not surprised at all that a lot of the transcripts were read incorrectly. At least quarter of the surnames could be read as two or three different names.!! However if you are researching a particular name you get used to seeing it and can spot it, but for someone transcribing name after name it is a different story. Blots, black areas and bad writing aside. This is going to be an improvement as people will be able to recognise their names, and have some idea regarding dates. If 1833 looks very much like that and you know it isn't; then you can work out yourself if it's 38 which a transcriber would not have a clue about. It is going to be a big advantage. Of course you have to bear in mind that Priests and Clergymen did not necessarily write up the books immediately after the event. Sometimes it was only done days afterwards and memories can fail. Peter. -----Original Message----- From: cotipperary-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:cotipperary-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Betty Gough via Sent: 02 December 2014 19:50 To: cotipperary@rootsweb.com Subject: [COTIPPERARY] R.C. Church records on line........ This is good news, but will we be able to read them? Years ago, before Bishop Clifford put a ban on viewing Cashel and Emly records in the Nat. Library, I tried to research a particular parish. If I describe the miserable hand writing as like a chicken walked on ink, then walked over the document, it is being too kind. The documents were in Latin and the names all written in Latin, including the comments. Why can't we have the typed up version, like every other civilised society. I don't expect the Nat. Library to do it, and indeed I am very grateful for them taking the trouble to put the originals on line. It is the least the Church could have done. Our ancestors kept the Church in business through good times and bad times. Who paid for the fine houses the clergy lived in? Who paid for their man servant and maid, as most of them had back then? Who supplied them with hay and oats for their horse, before cars were invented or common? Cashel and Emly is a rural diocese, with no city within its bounds. Our farming and business ancestors kept them in comfort while many less fortunate living around them in hovels starved. The entire Church records are now typed up and housed in Heritage Centres. They are still not available for viewing. Bits of these records can be obtained for a stiff fee. When these records were being typed up, an employment scheme was used to do same. Early school leavers were employed in many cases to do the work. A supervisor was employed to see that it was done. The funding came from the tax payers of this country. Many errors were made. An example, my great grandmother was having babies over a period of 52 years. My parents marriage date is five years out, because they misread the number 3 as being an 8. What do I do about this? Maybe I have gone off the point. We just want to know the names of our ancestors. Would be interested to know how others found reading the handwritten script on microfilm. In the article it said, 98 per cent will be available. What does that mean? Betty. When replying to a message in the digest please do two things: 1. Change the 'Subject' to that of the message you are replying to. 2. Delete all the messages above and below the one you are concerned with. Thank You. All of the past messages of this list can be found in the Archives at http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/th/index?list=cotipperary ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to COTIPPERARY-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message