Hi George This is an Ancestry issue, and, alas, not the only example. They have made a complete dogs dinner of their indexing of the Marylebone parishes. If you look carefully at the images of the register which *purport* to be that of St Marylebone Parish Church (i.e. the parent church for the ancient parish) for the year in question, they are actually images of the registers of St Mark's, St Barnabas and St Mary (Bryanston Square)! I am guessing that, as the marriage in question is not thrown up by a name search, the relevant pages for St Marylebone have not been scanned. All that being said, it is highly unlikely that there will be any difference at all between the church register entry and the copy you already have (other than the former having original signatures). Best wishes Caroline > > I know this is not a "SURREY" subject but on looking for a marriage > entry in the St Marylebone Parish Church register for 15th January 1888 > I expected to see my grandparents' entry, however, it's not there. > > The pages are consecutively numbered and none appear to be missing. > > I have a copy of their marriage certificate from the St Marylebone > Register Office with clearly written dates etc. > > Is there an explanation why a civil copy exists and not a parish one? > > George > Rainham, Kent. > > > *************************************** > Send your List messages using **PLAIN TEXT** and always **TRIM AWAY** > superfluous old messages in replies. > > List Admin can be contacted at: Eng-Surrey-admin@rootsweb.com. > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to ENG-SURREY- > request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in > the subject and the body of the message

And images of Christ Church, Stafford Street, as well -- all under the same tab! Judy London, UK -----Original Message----- From: eng-surrey-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:eng-surrey-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Caroline Bradford This is an Ancestry issue, and, alas, not the only example. They have made a complete dogs dinner of their indexing of the Marylebone parishes. If you look carefully at the images of the register which *purport* to be that of St Marylebone Parish Church (i.e. the parent church for the ancient parish) for the year in question, they are actually images of the registers of St Mark's, St Barnabas and St Mary (Bryanston Square)! I am guessing that, as the marriage in question is not thrown up by a name search, the relevant pages for St Marylebone have not been scanned. All that being said, it is highly unlikely that there will be any difference at all between the church register entry and the copy you already have (other than the former having original signatures). Best wishes Caroline > > I know this is not a "SURREY" subject but on looking for a marriage > entry in the St Marylebone Parish Church register for 15th January 1888 > I expected to see my grandparents' entry, however, it's not there. > > The pages are consecutively numbered and none appear to be missing. > > I have a copy of their marriage certificate from the St Marylebone > Register Office with clearly written dates etc. > > Is there an explanation why a civil copy exists and not a parish one? > > George > Rainham, Kent.

hm! stand up the real St Marylebone Parish Register! And if you're trying to find St Andrew's Lambeth, it's hidden in amongst All Saints Laleham SRY! I'm not sure how long this oversight extends, but i've been all the way through the 1860s and all files are affected. Ancestry would have you believe that they only have St Andrews Lambeth bapt images for 1899-1906 when in fact they have far more. If you key in a bapt which comes up as in Laleham All Saints, scroll down to the foot of the window and you may well see St Andrew's Coin St, Lambeth. If this is the case, when you open the file, the top of the register page reassures you that Ancestry have indexed them wrongly. . I'll post the notes i made, under a new subject heading, in the hope that it helps someone's research le durachd Fionnghal > This is an Ancestry issue, ...They have made > a complete dogs dinner of their indexing of the Marylebone > parishes.  If you > look carefully at the images of the register which > *purport* to be that of > St Marylebone Parish Church (i.e. the parent church for the > ancient parish) > for the year in question, they are actually images of the > registers of St > Mark's, St Barnabas and St Mary (Bryanston Square)!

Unfortunately this may be due partly to the way a small proportion of the microfilms in use at LMA have been put together. The same X reference number in the indexes at LMA often contains more than one register from one parish: but users are sometimes confused by the presence on the same film (and therefore with the same X reference number) of a book from a completely different parish. Whilst it is clearly Ancestry's responsibility to index and identify records they are publishing on their own website, it must make their life a tad more difficult if LMA sources have tied together a Surrey parish with a Middlesex one! The question is how to solve the problem and who should solve it. JK

JK, While I take your point, I think you're letting Ancestry off the hook here. As far as I can see, the marriage registers for these particular Marylebone parishes are all on different films at the LMA. This is only one example among several where registers from different parishes have been incorrectly "merged" by Ancestry. It is vital for users to look at what is written at the top of the image, and not rely on Ancestry's labelling. For transcribed entries (baptisms/burials after 1813, marriages after 1754) the LMA call-mark is included in the Source Citation at the foot of each transcription. Should there still be any doubt, this number can be checked against the LMA catalogue to identify the correct parish. As for the earlier (untranscribed) registers for both Surrey and Middlesex, a substantial number have been wrongly described by Ancestry, as Cliff Webb has already shown. Any list members who missed this discussion last year might want to look at the Surrey and Middlesex List archives (around the end of September 09). Judy London, UK -----Original Message----- From: eng-surrey-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:eng-surrey-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of J K gen Unfortunately this may be due partly to the way a small proportion of the microfilms in use at LMA have been put together. The same X reference number in the indexes at LMA often contains more than one register from one parish: but users are sometimes confused by the presence on the same film (and therefore with the same X reference number) of a book from a completely different parish.