Hallo All Adding to Bob's comments, some of the indexed St Mary's Staines registers have been classified as being in the City of London - presumably somebody confused them with St Mary Staining that is in the City. And one register is for a completely different church.(Sorry can't find my note for this.) The 1894 baptisms have been indexed as 1854. If anybody finds the real 1854 records I would be pleased to hear from you. And a note for possible assistance. Staines was in the ancient county of Middlesex, and previous Ancestry records are indexed under Middlesex. However, when numerous county boundaries were changed on April 1st 1974, Staines and a chunk of west Middlesex were transferred to the county of Surrey. The general policy amongst CROs and libraries has been to transfer records into the archives of their new local/county authority. How the LMA came to keep the Staines PRs instead of transferring them to Surrey I don't know, but as usual 'the exception proves the rule'. The LMA indexes all its records under boroughs, but because Staines is no longer within the metropolitan area its records are indexed under its new county authority - Surrey. Some of the search boxes in the historic documents section have a field for Borough, presumably because this section of the Ancestry data base is a joint project with the LMA whom one assumes are maintaining their Borough indexing system. I have not seen this explained anywhere on the Ancestry site although LMA users will be familiar with this arrangement. So for clarity, when searching for Staines at the 'Essential Ancestry' level, key in Middlesex. When searching at 'Premium Ancestry' co-project with the LMA, key in Surrey. Or just put Staines in the keyword field. I don't know how this works at worldwide subscription level. I tried to contact Ancestry via the feedback form but my attempt was rejected on the grounds of my email address not being valid .....? Maybe the better route to tackle the indexing problems is to contact the project officer at the LMA/Guildhall as the LMA seems to have got the hang of indexing things. Arguably they have had a bit more practice! Hilary > Message: 1> Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2009 08:45:54 +0100 > From: "Bob Douglas" <bob@cotswan.plus.com> > Subject: Re: [SRY] Ancestry.com and London Metropolitan > Archives >     recordscorrections > To: <eng-surrey@rootsweb.com> > Message-ID: <C001A38B7D174699BFA69C133D8FAC0C@NEW> > Content-Type: text/plain;    > charset="us-ascii" > > > A useful list Cliff > > Please note that St Mary's Staines records (in the > unindexed section) are in > two places > There is a St Mary's Staines in the main Menu, and if one > then clicks on > Surrey, there are some more. > > I hope to report here on the Laleham records too. > I am not on the Middlesex list but anything I post may be > forwarded to that > list if anyone wishes > Bob