Just a reminder that many of the more recent Derbyshire PRs, for which images are available on Ancestry, have not been transcribed but can be interrogated by other means. The following may also help new researchers to learn about the various online sources available to them. Today, I've been researching the life of William HIGTON, who appears in the 31 Mar 1901 census, aged 5 months, as the son of James and Elizabeth HIGTON - or was he? There is no relevant birth registered for William HIGTON, but there is a birth in the GRO index for a William Hickton ALLSOP in Belper R.D. In Q4 1900 with no mother's maiden name given, so he was probably illegitimate. Searching for evidence that this William was the adopted son of James and Elizabeth, I looked for a marriage, and found a few including one in Q2 1931 in Belper R.D. to Ellen E Jackson. There was nothing in the Ancestry indexes to expand on this but, on Find My Past, I found a snippet of a news item dated 12 June 1931 in the Ripley and Heanor News and Ilkeston Division Free Press that read "HEAGE HIGTON (South Wingfield)—JACKSON At St. Luke’a «?hutch, Heage, on Saturday, the Rector (Rev. O. A. Tindall) officiated at the marriage of Mr. William Higton, eon of Mr. and Mrs. J. Higton, of South Wingfield, and Miss . . .". That's as much as I could see without a subscription to FMP (I'll look at the page next time I'm in our local library), but it was enough to take me to the Heage PRs on Ancestry. Again, nothing in the Ancestry index but, by using the card catalogue to access the Heage PR images, and then going walkabout, I eventually found in the Marriages and Banns 1894-1912 (!) a marriage on 06 June 1931 between William HIGTON of South Wingfield, son of James Henry HIGTON, and Ellen Eliza JACKSON of Heage, daughter of Joseph JACKSON. I already knew that James Henry was the correct person to be William's (adoptive) father. William and Ellen then appear in the 1939 Register, in South Wingfield, with William's date of birth recorded as 12 Oct 1900. I then found a death in Q2 1975 in Derby R.D., for William Allsop HIGTON, who was born on 12 Oct 1900. So, it appears that the illegitimate child born William Hickton ALLSOP was adopted by James and Elizabeth HIGTON, and conveniently changed his name to William Allsop HIGTON. I could conjecture as to who his father was, but that would need more evidence that, maybe, will appear one day but is not there yet. Not definitive, maybe, but beyond reasonable doubt? That's for others to judge, but I'll accept it until proven otherwise.

Thanks Nick - interesting and informative. Andy. At 22:30 09/07/2018, you wrote: >Just a reminder that many of the more recent Derbyshire PRs, for which images are available on Ancestry, have not been transcribed but can be interrogated by other means. >...

Interesting find Nick The last marriage in that register was 7th July 1934 And the first in that register was Jan 9th 1915 So not very well titled as 1894 - 1912 ;-) Nivard Ovington in Cornwall (UK) On 09/07/2018 22:30, Nick Higton wrote: > Just a reminder that many of the more recent Derbyshire PRs, for which > images are available on Ancestry, have not  been transcribed but can be > interrogated by other means. > > The following may also help new researchers to learn about the various > online sources available to them. >

There are a lot of shortcomings in Ancestry's transcriptions of the Derbyshire PRs, beyond the interpretation of handwriting as it to be expected. Some of the titles of sets of data are just plain wrong - sometimes for inexplicable reasons (as per your comment below); sometimes because they stopped transcribing at a chosen date (usually between 1900 and 1920) but the images continue for many years thereafter, and sometimes because there are a number of different record sets on the same film that they copied (for completely disconnected parishes) and they assumed that all the records on the film belong to the same parish. I posted a number of comments on this last year. I could excuse the errors made by the initial transcriber, but the lack of a checking process feels very sloppy. Nick Higton Higton Heritage (researching the genealogy of the HIGTONs and related families) See my website: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__higton.one-2Dname.net_index.php&d=DwIFaQ&c=kKqjBR9KKWaWpMhASkPbOg&r=YaknIKGQ3o9fStB3h0sMI9MrdNSOVs352NJVvwA-IWw&m=dvNbjg-tE_IS5LNUOWtKx_Pgno-xbKcCDHkm3Dcya-Y&s=FR0F2Cl3Nf00TkvRJAEnSSwCYk486nCrPggxN5mhktw&e= ------ Original Message ------ From: "Nivard Ovington" <ovington.one@gmail.com> To: derbysgen@rootsweb.com Sent: 10/07/2018 09:28:02 Subject: [DBY]Re: Derbyshire PRs on Ancestry not transcribed. >Interesting find Nick > >The last marriage in that register was 7th July 1934 > >And the first in that register was Jan 9th 1915 > >So not very well titled as 1894 - 1912 ;-) > >Nivard Ovington in Cornwall (UK) > >On 09/07/2018 22:30, Nick Higton wrote: >>Just a reminder that many of the more recent Derbyshire PRs, for which >>images are available on Ancestry, have not been transcribed but can >>be interrogated by other means. >> >>The following may also help new researchers to learn about the various >>online sources available to them. >>

Look on the bright side Nick If they had them perfect we wouldn't have anything to do ;-) But yes it would help if there were more quality control But then again, I would rather have them now, warts n all ;-) than wait for the impossible to achieve perfect database Nivard Ovington in Cornwall (UK) On 11/07/2018 15:36, Nick Higton wrote: > There are a lot of shortcomings in Ancestry's transcriptions of the > Derbyshire PRs, beyond the interpretation of handwriting as it to be > expected. > > Some of the titles of sets of data are just plain wrong - sometimes for > inexplicable reasons (as per your  comment below); sometimes because > they stopped transcribing at a chosen date (usually between 1900 and > 1920) but the images continue for many years thereafter, and sometimes > because there are a number of different record sets on the same film > that they copied (for completely disconnected parishes) and they assumed > that all the records on the film belong to the same parish. > > I posted a number of comments on this last year. > > I could excuse the errors made by the initial transcriber, but the lack > of a checking process feels very sloppy. > > Nick Higton > Higton Heritage