However, if you mean that parish registers were divided into males and > females that is complete nonsense! In over 30 years in family history I > have yet to see a baptismal register divided by the sexes. It simply > didn't > happen. > Ooooh Roy you do like putting people "straight". Could you possibly try to do it without appearing to want to put people down. I made a query - a polite answer pointing out I was in error would have sufficed. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Roy Stockdill" <roy.stockdill@btinternet.com> To: <eng-yks-bradford@rootsweb.com> Sent: Wednesday, October 31, 2007 12:14 AM Subject: Re: [YKS-BRADFORD] IGI records for Bradford > From: Margaret Elliott <meelliott@btinternet.com> > >> You are correct! >> >> Thank you >> >> Margaret >> On 29 Oct 2007, at 23:47, HELEN wrote: >> >> Isn't that because there was one register for females and one for >> males?> > > I don't think so, unless you mean that the Mormon extractions to the |IGI > have been divided into males and female entries, which I have already > pointed out. > > However, if you mean that parish registers were divided into males and > females that is complete nonsense! In over 30 years in family history I > have yet to see a baptismal register divided by the sexes. It simply > didn't > happen. > > -- > Roy Stockdill > Editor, Journal of One-Name Studies > Guild of One-Name Studies website: www.one-name.org > Newbies' Guide to Genealogy & Family History: > www.genuki.org.uk/gs/Newbie.html > > "There is only one thing in the world worse than being talked about, > and that is not being talked about." > OSCAR WILDE > > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > ENG-YKS-BRADFORD-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without > the quotes in the subject and the body of the message