Thank you to everyone who replied to me regarding ROBERT WESTGARTH marriage information Jan ----- Original Message ----- From: <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, August 01, 2007 8:04 AM Subject: ENG-DURHAM Digest, Vol 2, Issue 148 > > > Today's Topics: > > 1. Re: MARRIAGE CONFIRMATION ([email protected]) > 2. Re: MARRIAGE CONFIRMATION - 2 ([email protected]) > 3. Re: MARRIAGE CONFIRMATION (Nivard Ovington) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2007 06:04:47 EDT > From: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [ENG-DURHAM] MARRIAGE CONFIRMATION > To: [email protected] > Message-ID: <[email protected]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" > > > In a message dated 30/07/2007 22:17:13 GMT Daylight Time, > [email protected] > writes: > > As the marriage is from an extraction it is likely to be correct > > > Sorry, Nivard, but I have to disagree. I would have said "as the > marriage is from an extraction is can be no more than a transcript, > subject to the > human error of the transcriber, and is therefore possibly incorrect". > Add to > this the terrible reputation for inaccuracy of the IGI and I would > probably > have gone further and said "any IGI information must be regarded as > dubious > until such time as it has been checked against the original record or a > good > facsimile of it". > > The original questioner didn't mention the parish (!) but from my 1992 > microfiche edition of the IGI I see that it was Newcastle St Andrew. It > appears in the index to St Andrew's marriages compiled by the late Alan > Angus for > the NDFHS, and available from them (see ndfhs.org.uk) as microfiche or > CD. > It will also appear on the Original Indexes fiche/CD, now available via > the > NFDHS's Ancestral Indexes service. It was included in Herbert Maxwell > Wood's > transcript of St Andrew's parish registers, made for the DNPRS and now in > Newcastle Central Library (temporary premises in Newcastle Civic Centre) > and that > is also available on microfiche from Northfiche. My own database, > mainly, > in this case, taken from Alan Angus' material, simply lists the parties, > suggesting that the wedding was after the calling of Banns, as was usual, > and not > by Licence. However, you could always check on the existence of a > Marriage > Bond, just to be sure. > > If the wedding was after Banns then there is not likely to be much you > can do to tell which of several possible Robert Westgarths it was, so you > could do worse than to try to identify the various Westgarth families in > the > 1660s and 1670s, using the Hearth Tax Returns - a set of records that > should task > most people's ability at palaeography! Apart from that, if the family > were > in a position to leave Wills then they also could be a worthwhile source. > > One final point - if the dates of their children's baptisms do not > "fit", then (a) be certain you have made due allowance for the Julian > Calendar > still being in use and (b) do try to look at a facsimile of the original > (ie a > microfilm, not a typed or hand-written transcript), as often an entry of > baptism can itself be read reasonably easily but the dates have been > pushed into > the binding, through later re-binding of the book, and can be very > difficult > to make out. Add to that the sometimes rather haphazard order of entries > and > their distribution across several pages, and I can quite understand how > dates > can be doubtful. Sometimes a neatly typed transcript can give the > misleading impression that all was easy to read and only a facsimile can > bring home > how much doubt there has to be about eg the dates. > > Geoff Nicholson > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 2 > Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2007 06:19:28 EDT > From: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [ENG-DURHAM] MARRIAGE CONFIRMATION - 2 > To: [email protected] > Message-ID: <[email protected]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" > > In a message dated 30/07/2007 19:45:26 GMT Daylight Time, > [email protected] writes: > > Could anyone confirm a marriage date for me I have a > ROBERT WESTGARTH D.O.B. 12 SEP 1675 born in NEWCASTLE son of JOHN & MARY > STEWART > I believe he married a ANN KAY the date according to I.G.I. is 04 APR > 1697 > I would like confirmation because it makes their children incorrect > > > > > Further to my earlier reply, if this marriage causes problems for you, > have > you seen the marriage of Robert Westgarth and Margaret Potts, also at > Newcastle St Andrews, on 10 May 1701? Might that be more suitable? > > Geoff Nicholson > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 3 > Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2007 11:39:13 +0100 > From: "Nivard Ovington" <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [ENG-DURHAM] MARRIAGE CONFIRMATION > To: <[email protected]>, <[email protected]> > Message-ID: <[email protected]> > Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; > reply-type=original > > Hi Geoff > > Points taken and understood, however I still stand by my statement that as > an extraction it is likely to be correct however I should have made it > more > obvious that you need to make absolutely sure that the original has been > transcribed correctly (which I alluded to but did not make as obvious as I > should) > > Of the entries on the IGI from extractions I have checked, I have found > them > to be correct (that is of course a small sample and does not mean they are > all correct) > > Where the entry is a patron submission it is often very far from correct, > many assumptions being made as to the age at which marriage occurred, the > place of marriage, birth etc > > It is fair to say that whatever the source, the original document should > always be checked to ensure the transcription is accurate > > Thanks for yours though, wise words as usual > > Best wishes Nivard Ovington, in Cornwall (UK) > > >> As the marriage is from an extraction it is likely to be correct >> >> >> Sorry, Nivard, but I have to disagree. I would have said "as the >> marriage is from an extraction is can be no more than a transcript, >> subject to the >> human error of the transcriber, and is therefore possibly incorrect". >> Add to >> this the terrible reputation for inaccuracy of the IGI and I would >> probably >> have gone further and said "any IGI information must be regarded as >> dubious >> until such time as it has been checked against the original record or a >> good >> facsimile of it". > > > > ------------------------------ > > To contact the ENG-DURHAM list administrator, send an email to > [email protected] > > To post a message to the ENG-DURHAM mailing list, send an email to > [email protected] > > __________________________________________________________ > 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 > email with no additional text. > > > End of ENG-DURHAM Digest, Vol 2, Issue 148 > ****************************************** >