Isn't that because there was one register for females and one for males? Cheers Helen ----- Original Message ----- From: "Roy Stockdill" <roy.stockdill@btinternet.com> To: <ENG-YKS-BRADFORD@rootsweb.com> Sent: Tuesday, October 30, 2007 5:22 AM Subject: Re: [YKS-BRADFORD] IGI records for Bradford > From: Margaret Elliott <meelliott@btinternet.com> > >> I am confused by the IGI records for Bradford. Batch numbers >> J107655 and K107655 would both appear to be Bishop's transcripts for >> the Parish church 1790-1812. However they seem to have different >> records. For example I have sons William and Thomas born to Samuel >> Lister in 1794 and 1796 in one batch, and daughters Sarah and Hannah >> born to Samuel Lister in 1796 and 1797 in the other. >> >> Am I missing something obvious? >> >> Regards >> Margaret> > > Yes! If you enter the batch numbers on their own, plus the region British > Isles and nothing else, you will get the entire list extracted from the > BTs > for those dates (the technique I described the other day on a different > topic). > > You will then see that all the entries in the J batch are males and all > the > entries in the K batch are females. For some reason best known to the > LDS Church, this is how they chose to extract them. > > -- > 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

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? Cheers Helen ----- Original Message ----- From: "Roy Stockdill" <roy.stockdill@btinternet.com> To: <ENG-YKS-BRADFORD@rootsweb.com> Sent: Tuesday, October 30, 2007 5:22 AM Subject: Re: [YKS-BRADFORD] IGI records for Bradford > From: Margaret Elliott <meelliott@btinternet.com> > >> I am confused by the IGI records for Bradford. Batch numbers >> J107655 and K107655 would both appear to be Bishop's transcripts for >> the Parish church 1790-1812. However they seem to have different >> records. For example I have sons William and Thomas born to Samuel >> Lister in 1794 and 1796 in one batch, and daughters Sarah and Hannah >> born to Samuel Lister in 1796 and 1797 in the other. >> >> Am I missing something obvious? >> >> Regards >> Margaret> > > Yes! If you enter the batch numbers on their own, plus the region > British > Isles and nothing else, you will get the entire list extracted from > the > BTs > for those dates (the technique I described the other day on a > different > topic). > > You will then see that all the entries in the J batch are males and > all > the > entries in the K batch are females. For some reason best known to the > LDS Church, this is how they chose to extract them. > > -- > 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 ------------------------------- 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

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