Devon GENUKI had this very useful: "A 12, 000-item online gazetteer of Devon <http://genuki.cs.ncl.ac.uk/DEV/Gazetteer/> has been produced from White's 1850 book, listing all the places (chapels, churches, farms, hamlets, houses, inns, manors, schools, streets, villages, etc.) and principal organizations named in it, and identifying their town or parish." I see this is available still from the old version - now labelled as 'archived' but not from the new version (or at least not from the same place). Is this to disappear? Or has it moved? Thanks, Teresa

Joy, There are always exceptions and some incumbents were more conscientious than others but I have seen many more questions about inaccuracies in BTs than the other way round. I tend to agree with the Devon Parish Register Source Guide. (http://www.devon.gov.uk/index/councildemocracy/record_office/information_dalss/guide_sources/parish_registers/prbackground.htm) "Where these Bishops Transcripts still survive, they can provide a valuable alternative if there are gaps in the registers themselves." Cheers Paul -----Original Message----- From: Joy Langdon [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: 26 April 2016 21:50 To: Paul Hockie; [email protected] Subject: Re: [DEV] BTs on FamilySearch - a question and a correction Actually, the parish register was not always completed when the event took place. The original instruction in the 16th century was that the entries were to be made every Sunday after Service in the presence of one of the churchwardens (see link on Parish Registers below). The information on the Bishops Transcripts held in the Devon Record Offices says "Some Bishops Transcripts were written out first, and copied up into the register before being sent to the bishop, and some do not contain all the information found in the register, while some contain more" http://www.devon.gov.uk/index/councildemocracy/record_office/family_history_3/bishops_transcripts.htm http://www.devon.gov.uk/index/councildemocracy/record_office/information_dalss/guide_sources/parish_registers/prbackground.htm Regards, Joy ----Original message---- >From : [email protected] Date : 26/04/2016 - 19:47 (GMTST) To : [email protected] Subject : Re: [DEV] BTs on FamilySearch - a question and a correction Jan, I have not heard of Dr Tom Jones or "source snobbery". There is an accepted hierarchy of quality of genealogical data. Prime or Vital information is data recorded when the event took place. Civil registration and Parish Registers are in this category. The next tier are those transcribed or based on vital information, BTs, Census, Poor law, Military and similar records. Following this we have reported information which can include newspapers, books and even family legends. With regards to BTs, they were a lists of BDMs sent to the bishop once a year just after Easter until 1813 when they changed to the calendar year. There were exemptions, omissions and late submissions and completion may be rushed. There are examples of the transcript correcting an entry but the presumption is that the register is correct and that the BT is a "back-up" copy. I don't think I said "reject BTs out of hand" . What I intended to say was that if only the BT exists, then that is the source we have to use. If the registers exist, then we should obtain a copy and, if they exist, compare with the BTs. If they exists, the Registers are, like civil registration, the "legal" entry. Cheers Paul -----Original Message----- ------------------------------------------ The DEVON-L mailing list is co-sponsored by GENUKI/Devon http://www.genuki.org.uk/big/eng/DEV/ and the Devon FHS (http://www.devonfhs.org.uk/ ) List archive for Devon can be found at http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/th/index?list=devon ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message ------------------------------------------ The DEVON-L mailing list is co-sponsored by GENUKI/Devon http://www.genuki.org.uk/big/eng/DEV/ and the Devon FHS (http://www.devonfhs.org.uk/ ) List archive for Devon can be found at http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/th/index?list=devon ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Actually, the parish register was not always completed when the event took place. The original instruction in the 16th century was that the entries were to be made every Sunday after Service in the presence of one of the churchwardens (see link on Parish Registers below). The information on the Bishops Transcripts held in the Devon Record Offices says "Some Bishops Transcripts were written out first, and copied up into the register before being sent to the bishop, and some do not contain all the information found in the register, while some contain more" http://www.devon.gov.uk/index/councildemocracy/record_office/family_history_3/bishops_transcripts.htm http://www.devon.gov.uk/index/councildemocracy/record_office/information_dalss/guide_sources/parish_registers/prbackground.htm Regards, Joy ----Original message---- >From : [email protected] Date : 26/04/2016 - 19:47 (GMTST) To : [email protected] Subject : Re: [DEV] BTs on FamilySearch - a question and a correction Jan, I have not heard of Dr Tom Jones or "source snobbery". There is an accepted hierarchy of quality of genealogical data. Prime or Vital information is data recorded when the event took place. Civil registration and Parish Registers are in this category. The next tier are those transcribed or based on vital information, BTs, Census, Poor law, Military and similar records. Following this we have reported information which can include newspapers, books and even family legends. With regards to BTs, they were a lists of BDMs sent to the bishop once a year just after Easter until 1813 when they changed to the calendar year. There were exemptions, omissions and late submissions and completion may be rushed. There are examples of the transcript correcting an entry but the presumption is that the register is correct and that the BT is a "back-up" copy. I don't think I said "reject BTs out of hand" . What I intended to say was that if only the BT exists, then that is the source we have to use. If the registers exist, then we should obtain a copy and, if they exist, compare with the BTs. If they exists, the Registers are, like civil registration, the "legal" entry. Cheers Paul -----Original Message----- ------------------------------------------ The DEVON-L mailing list is co-sponsored by GENUKI/Devon http://www.genuki.org.uk/big/eng/DEV/ and the Devon FHS (http://www.devonfhs.org.uk/ ) List archive for Devon can be found at http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/th/index?list=devon ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message ------------------------------------------ The DEVON-L mailing list is co-sponsored by GENUKI/Devon http://www.genuki.org.uk/big/eng/DEV/ and the Devon FHS (http://www.devonfhs.org.uk/ ) List archive for Devon can be found at http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/th/index?list=devon ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Brad, The "supporting organisations" are FMP, Ancestry and the likes and the link does not seem to work even if you have a subscription. However, in addition, the LDS have made available images of microfilms, made by LDS, themselves, and that form the backbone of most record office reading rooms. Most have not been indexed or added to Familysearch but some have been linked to the index. In the US they have links to public image databases. For Devon BTS go to https://familysearch.org/search/image/index#uri=https://familysearch.org/rec api/sord/collection/2515875/waypoints as an example select 005883389 for Charles Plymouth. This is where it may ask you to register or sign in and in the top right corner will show a button labelled "Free Account". It is free and does not commit you to membership of the church. Church members have their own accounts which includes "supporting organisations". Durham is another set of unlinked BTs but some Derbyshire and Warwickshire index entries are linked to LDS owned images with the agreement of the records office. Devon seem to be mixed (or a work in progress). 005883162, St Andrew Plymouth, is an example of a film linked to Familysearch index. On some images, including Devon, download and/or print is blocked. Presumably because Devon CC has also sold them to FMP. Hopefully my previous mail explained how to associate places with film numbers and, as I said, the site seems to prefer Internet Explorer. Cheers Paul -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Brad Rogers via Sent: 26 April 2016 20:44 To: Devon ML Subject: Re: [DEV] BTs on FamilySearch - a question and a correction On Tue, 26 Apr 2016 20:21:51 +0100 Paul Hockie via <[email protected]> wrote: Hello Paul, >With regard to Familysearch, I have noticed that I am asked to sign in >to view images. Don't bother; They're still not available to the likes of us. The option exists for 'supporting organisations', whatever that means. -- Regards _ / ) "The blindingly obvious is / _)rad never immediately apparent" It's a very small world in the middle of a crowd Staring At The Rude Boys - The Ruts ------------------------------------------ The DEVON-L mailing list is co-sponsored by GENUKI/Devon http://www.genuki.org.uk/big/eng/DEV/ and the Devon FHS (http://www.devonfhs.org.uk/ ) List archive for Devon can be found at http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/th/index?list=devon ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Here's the link to the article I mentioned earlier: http://www.bcgcertification.org/skillbuilders/skbld135b.html Skillbuilding: Perils of Source Snobbery >From OnBoard - Newsletter of the BCG Thomas W. Jones, PhD, CG, CGL, “Perils of Source Snobbery,” OnBoard 18 (May 2012). Dr Jones is the author of Mastering Genealogical Proof: http://www.ngsgenealogy.org/cs/mastering_genealogical_proof Cheers, Jan Jan Murphy [email protected] ----Original message---- > >From : [email protected] > Date : 26/04/2016 - 19:47 (GMTST) > To : [email protected] > Subject : Re: [DEV] BTs on FamilySearch - a question and a correction > > Jan, > > I have not heard of Dr Tom Jones or "source snobbery". There is an > accepted hierarchy of quality of genealogical data. Prime or Vital > information is data recorded when the event took place. Civil registration > and Parish Registers are in this category. The next tier are those > transcribed or based on vital information, BTs, Census, Poor law, > Military and similar records. > Following this we have reported information which can include newspapers, > books and even family legends. > With regards to BTs, they were a lists of BDMs sent to the bishop once a > year just after Easter until 1813 when they changed to the calendar year. > There were exemptions, omissions and late submissions and completion may > be rushed. There are examples of the transcript correcting an entry but the > presumption is that the register is correct and that the BT is a "back-up" > copy. > > I don't think I said "reject BTs out of hand" . What I intended to say was > that if only the BT exists, then that is the source we have to use. If the > registers exist, then we should obtain a copy and, if they exist, compare > with the BTs. If they exists, the Registers are, like civil registration, > the "legal" entry. > > Cheers > > Paul >

On Tue, 26 Apr 2016 20:21:51 +0100 Paul Hockie via <[email protected]> wrote: Hello Paul, >With regard to Familysearch, I have noticed that I am asked to sign in >to view images. Don't bother; They're still not available to the likes of us. The option exists for 'supporting organisations', whatever that means. -- Regards _ / ) "The blindingly obvious is / _)rad never immediately apparent" It's a very small world in the middle of a crowd Staring At The Rude Boys - The Ruts

With regard to Familysearch, I have noticed that I am asked to sign in to view images. Registration is via the home Page and is not restricted to church members. I have also noticed that the site has problems with Firefox and I have to use Internet Explorer, particularly for images. The way I find specific image files, that are not indexed or linked, is to search the "Catalog" by place and "Any" Family History Centre. Note places are indexed and will appear as "England, Devon, parish" if they are in the catalogue. The search will produce a list of record categories, select "Church Records" and then any entry that includes, in this case, "Bishops Transcripts". The entry will show a DILM/DGS number. Note this number down. Go back to the main search page and in the world map, under Research by location, hover over the UK (It turns yellow) and select. A box will open and select England. On the new page near the bottom select "Show all xx collections". Select "England, Devon Bishop's Transcripts, 1558-1887" and then, near the bottom, "Browse through xxxxx Images". This will reveal a list of numbers, one, of which, should be the number from the catalogue. Select this and the cleaned up microfilm will be revealed. Note if you are searching the index tick the small box next to any "place" (Birthplace, Marriage Place, etc ) it will restrict the search to the exact place. A hit may save time searching the images. They are many ways of achieving the same result. This works for me. Cheers Paul -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Martin Beavis via Sent: 26 April 2016 17:31 To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [DEV] BTs on FamilySearch - a question and a correction Just a few days ago I was trying to get my head around the FamilySearch Catalog. They don't make it easy. The second of these links seems relevant to this thread, including correspondence between users and FS: https://familysearch.org/wiki/en/Introduction_to_the_Family_History_Library_ Catalog https://familysearch.org/blog/en/news-flash-digitized-microfilm-drawer-compu ter/ FS do things differently for their five BT collections and there is no simple list matching Devon parishes to film numbers, but in a roundabout way we can extract that correlation from one interface and use it in another, and get other useful information in the process. A CATALOG search for Place = Devon, FHC = Online takes you to http://tinyurl.com/FS-Cat-Devon-Online. Don't get too excited about the long dropdown list of resources because you cannot access many of them from this page. The blue link to Places within Devon opens a list of over 600 parishes. Choose any parish of interest, say East Allington, and click through Church Records to Bishop's Transcripts, which you still cannot access, but scroll down to Film Notes telling you that film 4376173 at Granite Mountain contains BTs for Baptisms, marriages and burials, 1608-1609, 1614-1615, 1617, 1622, 1628, 1641, 1656, 1664, 1666, 1668-1682, 1687-1690, 1695, 1697-1698, 1700-1702, 1708-1709, 1712, 1714-1715, 1719-1732, 1734-1737, 1743-1747, 1749-1797, 1802-1811. Note the film number and copy and paste those dates for your subsequent reference. Navigate back and repeat for other parishes of interest. Open a new window and go to Devon BTs at https://familysearch.org/search/collection/2515875. From this page try searching for any person (who must necessarily have been indexed) to see if you get lucky. Otherwise search for Life Event = Any in, say, Warkleigh (which has been indexed) and get 286,056 indexed results (for the whole of Devon) of which the first 415 are in Warkleigh (because that is how FS prioritises search results). All of those indexed records link to a matching image, but you must be free-logged-in to FS to view the free images. You can refine that search by adding a last name or choosing a different life event. Now search for Any life event in East Allington and get the same 286,056 results (in alphabetical order of last name) but no records in that parish because it has not yet been indexed. That too-small number of 286,056 is just the BMD records (including 2 people for each M) in the minority of parishes that have been indexed, so until they are all indexed (yielding a very much larger number of records) we must resort to clicking on "Browse through 93,511 images" of BT pages to get 522 film numbers (or just open http://tinyurl.com/FS-DevonBTs-FilmNos in another window) and choose 4376173 for East Allington to open and browse 159 pages of those unindexed BTs. Whatever you find, remember that BTs were supplied as loose sheets so some years might be missing as noted above or may not have been properly archived or may no longer be legible - take a look at my Elizabeth Beavis at https://familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:Q2M3-6CTY. Does anyone know a better approach? Regards - Martin Beavis -----Original Message----- From: Jan Murphy via Sent: Sunday, April 24, 2016 8:50 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [DEV] BTs on FamilySearch - a question and a correction I've been keeping an eye on the collection "England, Devon Bishop's Transcripts, 1558-1887" https://familysearch.org/search/collection/2515875 since it was added -- the "Browse all Published Collections" page says the collection was updated on 16 Feb 2016. As Theresa said, cicking through to the images, right now you only get the digital file numbers. When I first tried to access the collection, I couldn't view it remotely -- I got a message that I had to be at a FHC. But trying it again this morning, I can now view the images. Several people at FamilySearch have said that FS has recently changed the procedure they have for putting images online. It used to be that collections weren't put up until they were indexed. Now they are putting up the images to browse first, and linking up the index later, after the indexing is done. There are also intermediate steps like introducing named waypoints. Presumably linking up the individual parishes in the collection to the place entry in the catalog is part of the process, but I don't know in what order they do all these steps. Adrian suggests that "cataloguing is ahead of loading" -- I would guess that the basic catalog entry for a collection has to be made public before the images are, or we wouldn't have an access point to get at the images. But there's no telling what the workflow is for the behind-the-scenes server-side work. And Adrian's correct -- Hugh Wallis' site and the Archer Software site are concerned with the IGI, which won't necessarily cover all the parishes in the new images. In a webinar last week about the history and future of the FHL, research specialist Jason Harrison said that the new collections are digitally imaged, and hard drives go into in the Granite Vault. The goal is to eventually have all the microfilms digitally imaged, too. Re: Paul Hockie's comments about the BTs -- I would repeat Dr. Tom Jones' caution against source snobbery. If both BTs and Registers exist for the same records, I will always consult both. It's likely that the clerk making the BT was far more familiar with the handwriting of the person who wrote the register than we can be -- with the BTs we have a second opinion about what the register said, which can be valuable. There are also some cases where the person making copies for the BTs added information which was not on the original registers, or made corrections to them, and if you always skip the BTs in favor of the registers you would miss that information. We should consider that the BTs are secondary when we evaluate the information in them, but I wouldn't make that a reason to reject them out of hand. Jan Murphy [email protected] ------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------ The DEVON-L mailing list is co-sponsored by GENUKI/Devon http://www.genuki.org.uk/big/eng/DEV/ and the Devon FHS (http://www.devonfhs.org.uk/ ) List archive for Devon can be found at http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/th/index?list=devon ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Jan, I have not heard of Dr Tom Jones or "source snobbery". There is an accepted hierarchy of quality of genealogical data. Prime or Vital information is data recorded when the event took place. Civil registration and Parish Registers are in this category. The next tier are those transcribed or based on vital information, BTs, Census, Poor law, Military and similar records. Following this we have reported information which can include newspapers, books and even family legends. With regards to BTs, they were a lists of BDMs sent to the bishop once a year just after Easter until 1813 when they changed to the calendar year. There were exemptions, omissions and late submissions and completion may be rushed. There are examples of the transcript correcting an entry but the presumption is that the register is correct and that the BT is a "back-up" copy. I don't think I said "reject BTs out of hand" . What I intended to say was that if only the BT exists, then that is the source we have to use. If the registers exist, then we should obtain a copy and, if they exist, compare with the BTs. If they exists, the Registers are, like civil registration, the "legal" entry. Cheers Paul -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Jan Murphy via Sent: 24 April 2016 20:50 To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [DEV] BTs on FamilySearch - a question and a correction I've been keeping an eye on the collection "England, Devon Bishop's Transcripts, 1558-1887" https://familysearch.org/search/collection/2515875 since it was added -- the "Browse all Published Collections" page says the collection was updated on 16 Feb 2016. As Theresa said, cicking through to the images, right now you only get the digital file numbers. When I first tried to access the collection, I couldn't view it remotely -- I got a message that I had to be at a FHC. But trying it again this morning, I can now view the images. Several people at FamilySearch have said that FS has recently changed the procedure they have for putting images online. It used to be that collections weren't put up until they were indexed. Now they are putting up the images to browse first, and linking up the index later, after the indexing is done. There are also intermediate steps like introducing named waypoints. Presumably linking up the individual parishes in the collection to the place entry in the catalog is part of the process, but I don't know in what order they do all these steps. Adrian suggests that "cataloguing is ahead of loading" -- I would guess that the basic catalog entry for a collection has to be made public before the images are, or we wouldn't have an access point to get at the images. But there's no telling what the workflow is for the behind-the-scenes server-side work. And Adrian's correct -- Hugh Wallis' site and the Archer Software site are concerned with the IGI, which won't necessarily cover all the parishes in the new images. In a webinar last week about the history and future of the FHL, research specialist Jason Harrison said that the new collections are digitally imaged, and hard drives go into in the Granite Vault. The goal is to eventually have all the microfilms digitally imaged, too. Re: Paul Hockie's comments about the BTs -- I would repeat Dr. Tom Jones' caution against source snobbery. If both BTs and Registers exist for the same records, I will always consult both. It's likely that the clerk making the BT was far more familiar with the handwriting of the person who wrote the register than we can be -- with the BTs we have a second opinion about what the register said, which can be valuable. There are also some cases where the person making copies for the BTs added information which was not on the original registers, or made corrections to them, and if you always skip the BTs in favor of the registers you would miss that information. We should consider that the BTs are secondary when we evaluate the information in them, but I wouldn't make that a reason to reject them out of hand. Jan Murphy [email protected] ------------------------------------------ The DEVON-L mailing list is co-sponsored by GENUKI/Devon http://www.genuki.org.uk/big/eng/DEV/ and the Devon FHS (http://www.devonfhs.org.uk/ ) List archive for Devon can be found at http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/th/index?list=devon ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Which Wrefords were you particularly looking for?

Just a few days ago I was trying to get my head around the FamilySearch Catalog. They don't make it easy. The second of these links seems relevant to this thread, including correspondence between users and FS: https://familysearch.org/wiki/en/Introduction_to_the_Family_History_Library_Catalog https://familysearch.org/blog/en/news-flash-digitized-microfilm-drawer-computer/ FS do things differently for their five BT collections and there is no simple list matching Devon parishes to film numbers, but in a roundabout way we can extract that correlation from one interface and use it in another, and get other useful information in the process. A CATALOG search for Place = Devon, FHC = Online takes you to http://tinyurl.com/FS-Cat-Devon-Online. Don't get too excited about the long dropdown list of resources because you cannot access many of them from this page. The blue link to Places within Devon opens a list of over 600 parishes. Choose any parish of interest, say East Allington, and click through Church Records to Bishop's Transcripts, which you still cannot access, but scroll down to Film Notes telling you that film 4376173 at Granite Mountain contains BTs for Baptisms, marriages and burials, 1608-1609, 1614-1615, 1617, 1622, 1628, 1641, 1656, 1664, 1666, 1668-1682, 1687-1690, 1695, 1697-1698, 1700-1702, 1708-1709, 1712, 1714-1715, 1719-1732, 1734-1737, 1743-1747, 1749-1797, 1802-1811. Note the film number and copy and paste those dates for your subsequent reference. Navigate back and repeat for other parishes of interest. Open a new window and go to Devon BTs at https://familysearch.org/search/collection/2515875. From this page try searching for any person (who must necessarily have been indexed) to see if you get lucky. Otherwise search for Life Event = Any in, say, Warkleigh (which has been indexed) and get 286,056 indexed results (for the whole of Devon) of which the first 415 are in Warkleigh (because that is how FS prioritises search results). All of those indexed records link to a matching image, but you must be free-logged-in to FS to view the free images. You can refine that search by adding a last name or choosing a different life event. Now search for Any life event in East Allington and get the same 286,056 results (in alphabetical order of last name) but no records in that parish because it has not yet been indexed. That too-small number of 286,056 is just the BMD records (including 2 people for each M) in the minority of parishes that have been indexed, so until they are all indexed (yielding a very much larger number of records) we must resort to clicking on "Browse through 93,511 images" of BT pages to get 522 film numbers (or just open http://tinyurl.com/FS-DevonBTs-FilmNos in another window) and choose 4376173 for East Allington to open and browse 159 pages of those unindexed BTs. Whatever you find, remember that BTs were supplied as loose sheets so some years might be missing as noted above or may not have been properly archived or may no longer be legible - take a look at my Elizabeth Beavis at https://familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:Q2M3-6CTY. Does anyone know a better approach? Regards - Martin Beavis -----Original Message----- From: Jan Murphy via Sent: Sunday, April 24, 2016 8:50 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [DEV] BTs on FamilySearch - a question and a correction I've been keeping an eye on the collection "England, Devon Bishop's Transcripts, 1558-1887" https://familysearch.org/search/collection/2515875 since it was added -- the "Browse all Published Collections" page says the collection was updated on 16 Feb 2016. As Theresa said, cicking through to the images, right now you only get the digital file numbers. When I first tried to access the collection, I couldn't view it remotely -- I got a message that I had to be at a FHC. But trying it again this morning, I can now view the images. Several people at FamilySearch have said that FS has recently changed the procedure they have for putting images online. It used to be that collections weren't put up until they were indexed. Now they are putting up the images to browse first, and linking up the index later, after the indexing is done. There are also intermediate steps like introducing named waypoints. Presumably linking up the individual parishes in the collection to the place entry in the catalog is part of the process, but I don't know in what order they do all these steps. Adrian suggests that "cataloguing is ahead of loading" -- I would guess that the basic catalog entry for a collection has to be made public before the images are, or we wouldn't have an access point to get at the images. But there's no telling what the workflow is for the behind-the-scenes server-side work. And Adrian's correct -- Hugh Wallis' site and the Archer Software site are concerned with the IGI, which won't necessarily cover all the parishes in the new images. In a webinar last week about the history and future of the FHL, research specialist Jason Harrison said that the new collections are digitally imaged, and hard drives go into in the Granite Vault. The goal is to eventually have all the microfilms digitally imaged, too. Re: Paul Hockie's comments about the BTs -- I would repeat Dr. Tom Jones' caution against source snobbery. If both BTs and Registers exist for the same records, I will always consult both. It's likely that the clerk making the BT was far more familiar with the handwriting of the person who wrote the register than we can be -- with the BTs we have a second opinion about what the register said, which can be valuable. There are also some cases where the person making copies for the BTs added information which was not on the original registers, or made corrections to them, and if you always skip the BTs in favor of the registers you would miss that information. We should consider that the BTs are secondary when we evaluate the information in them, but I wouldn't make that a reason to reject them out of hand. Jan Murphy [email protected] ------------------------------------------

Hi List, I live in New Zealand and I am researching the Purfield family who where living in Buenos Aires in the late 1890’s until the family returned to England in 1914, settling at 37 Springfield Rd., Torquay, Devon. They were Henry and Adelaide Purfield nee’Robinson and their 4 children, Mabel Rose, Herbert Henry, Horace and Dora Edith. The deaths of these people I found all living and dying in and around Torbay and Newton Abbot. I know it is a long shot but I am trying to find any descendants of this family and wondered if Torquay had a free community newspaper that I could write an article asking this question. I would dearly love to get a photo of Adelaide as she is my Gt. Grandmother coming from a previous marriage while in Buenos Aires. It would just put a face to my research. If anyone else has any suggestions I would be so grateful. Thank you Best wishes Valerie Compton.

18th Century Ancestors lacking parents Tryphena PARTRIDGE Married Roger PARTRIDGE, 7 Sep 1731, East Worlington of Thelbridge when married 3 Children, baptized Bow or Nymet Rowland Resided Clannaborough Buried 11 Sep 1782 Elizabeth LAKE Married William WREFORD,8 Jul 1742, Clannaborough listed as Mrs. Elizabeth Lake 8 Children Buried 4 Aug 1798, Clannaborough Sarah PERREM Married William JONES, 1 Jan 1772, South Molton spinster, signed with mark No other Perrem's found in South Molton 5 Children, bapt. South Molton Buried 9 Dec 1807, South Molton Elizabeth DART married Silvanus WREFORD, 18 Jun 1786 10 Children, 1 born in 1784 prior to marriage of Bow als Nymet Tracy

Hello Carl I too have STONEMAN forears. They were from Coldridge. See details on my family history web-site at: - http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~adrianp/stoneman/stoneman.html Adrian On 25/04/2016 16:08, Carl Dunn via wrote: > DUNN-SNELL-JONES-WREFORD-GOULD-PERREM > > STONEMAN-DART-COTTEY-PARTRIDGE-CREMER-LAKE > ------------------------------------------ >

DUNN-SNELL-JONES-WREFORD-GOULD-PERREM STONEMAN-DART-COTTEY-PARTRIDGE-CREMER-LAKE

I have both Gould's and Partridge families that immigrated to the US in the 1600's; extended Lake family beginning with John Lake b 1760 who married Susanna Ealls/Ells/Eales around 1783. What Lake family members are you looking for? Sent from my iPhone > On Apr 25, 2016, at 11:08 AM, Carl Dunn via <[email protected]> wrote: > > DUNN-SNELL-JONES-WREFORD-GOULD-PERREM > > STONEMAN-DART-COTTEY-PARTRIDGE-CREMER-LAKE > ------------------------------------------ > The DEVON-L mailing list is co-sponsored by GENUKI/Devon > http://www.genuki.org.uk/big/eng/DEV/ > and > the Devon FHS (http://www.devonfhs.org.uk/ ) > List archive for Devon can be found at http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/th/index?list=devon > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Just a couple of points. Bishops Transcripts should be regarded as secondary sources and the Registers should be used where they still exist. BTs do not always contain a full transcript and are prone to transcription errors and missing entries. With regard to microfilm, most RO use LDS copies. The online images have been cleaned up and are far more legible than any I have seen via film. The only exception I have seen so far is Birmingham who offer reader/scanners with inbuilt image enhancement software. Cheers Paul -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Adrian Bruce via Sent: 24 April 2016 17:06 To: Teresa Goatham Cc: [email protected] Subject: Re: [DEV] BTs on FamilySearch - a question and a correction There's a mention of "British Digital" or some such similar phrase to indicate which group something is in. However, one parish that I checked (or its film) was in that lot but its images weren't online yet, so it looks like cataloguing is ahead of loading. Actually I do have to thank you for highlighting this facility. I have to show that my Marley ancestor went from Bishops Nympton to Barnstaple mid 1700s and didn't get there from some other parish. I suspect it would be faster to go through a microfilm than the BT images online - but since I've never been past Bristol RO physically, the BT images may be the only option for a while. Though even then, there's a lot of parishes to look at. (Why does Devon have so many parishes? :-) We make do with a lot less in Cheshire!) ------------------------------------------ The DEVON-L mailing list is co-sponsored by GENUKI/Devon http://www.genuki.org.uk/big/eng/DEV/ and the Devon FHS (http://www.devonfhs.org.uk/ ) List archive for Devon can be found at http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/th/index?list=devon ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

The issue with Hugh's site is that while it does have a number of Devon parishes, there's a lot that have been loaded into FamilySearch since that (wonderful) work was done. And since the later version (Archer?) as well, I think.

There's a mention of "British Digital" or some such similar phrase to indicate which group something is in. However, one parish that I checked (or its film) was in that lot but its images weren't online yet, so it looks like cataloguing is ahead of loading. Actually I do have to thank you for highlighting this facility. I have to show that my Marley ancestor went from Bishops Nympton to Barnstaple mid 1700s and didn't get there from some other parish. I suspect it would be faster to go through a microfilm than the BT images online - but since I've never been past Bristol RO physically, the BT images may be the only option for a while. Though even then, there's a lot of parishes to look at. (Why does Devon have so many parishes? :-) We make do with a lot less in Cheshire!)

Thank you Adrian, no this is just what I wanted to know. You weren't missing anything, it was me, I hadn't noticed this way of using the catalogue. (In other browsable collections I have used the browse link has taken me to a list of parishes not film numbers so I haven't needed this before). I am surprised things aren't more 'joined up', i.e. once I find the film no. in the catalogue it is plain text not a link. Also, there is no clue on the pages as to what is available online and what isn't, you just have to take the film no. and do a search for it on the BT 'browse' page (I've just compared Dawlish - images available, and Kingskerswell - images not yet there). I thought at first when your answer made it seem so simple I had wasted my time trying a few film no.s in the catalogue, but given this I am quite glad I have the overall picture. Teresa On 24/04/2016 16:13, Adrian Bruce wrote: > Am I missing something with what you want to know? The FS Catalogue > can be searched by place-name or film/fiche, so it is possible to find > the films for each place. Deciding what's been indexed and what's had > just images put up is another ball game. > > I just tried to use the catalogue to search for Abbots Bickington, for > no reason other than it's the first one on the list. It does try to > prompt you with a name partway through - I accepted the prompt because > I'm not sure that access via another version would work. That gave me > (from memory) 4 or so headings, one of which contained several items > including the BTs and it was clear that this lot was in the images, at > least. > > I've not given detail on the steps because I'd need to try several > options to work out the significant differences between the imaged > parishes and the image-less ones. But I suspect you can try a few and > find what you need. It's just that you have to do it parish by parish. > > Adrian > > On 24 April 2016 at 14:09, Teresa Goatham via <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > > ...... They are clearly alphabetical and it hasn't been too much > trouble > to find what I want but does anyone know if there is a list > linking the > parish to the no.? > >

Am I missing something with what you want to know? The FS Catalogue can be searched by place-name or film/fiche, so it is possible to find the films for each place. Deciding what's been indexed and what's had just images put up is another ball game. I just tried to use the catalogue to search for Abbots Bickington, for no reason other than it's the first one on the list. It does try to prompt you with a name partway through - I accepted the prompt because I'm not sure that access via another version would work. That gave me (from memory) 4 or so headings, one of which contained several items including the BTs and it was clear that this lot was in the images, at least. I've not given detail on the steps because I'd need to try several options to work out the significant differences between the imaged parishes and the image-less ones. But I suspect you can try a few and find what you need. It's just that you have to do it parish by parish. Adrian On 24 April 2016 at 14:09, Teresa Goatham via <[email protected]> wrote: > ...... They are clearly alphabetical and it hasn't been too much trouble > to find what I want but does anyone know if there is a list linking the > parish to the no.? >