However...you should never, ever rely solely on online records. Always look at the original. On ancestry there is a long, long line of people hooked up to one family based on IGI records. When I looked at the original records (which suddenly appeared on ancestry recently) it turned out that the one couple having children was not just "one" couple, it was several couples with the same names having children baptized in the same church during the same time frame. In my own Essex line I have a man listed on the burial page when it is obviously a baptism (should have been put on the opposite page)...which no online index would have picked up correctly. Also, lots of times there are additional details in the registers, even notes, and not always nice ones! I had one line in Derbyshire where the vicar did his own census a couple of times pre 1841...it was wonderful! My only criticism of the ERO is that they started in the 1500's as opposed to going c1837 (or even c1800) backwards. If I knew who was who in 1500, I could turn out the light and go to bed.... Sylvia formerly Collier Row now in a very wet Seattle ----- Original Message ----- From: "Steve" <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Sunday, April 10, 2011 9:18 AM Subject: Re: [Ess] APART from SEAX good news > And as a 3rd option http://www.freereg.org.uk/ who certainly do have some > registers not yet on SEAX > > Cheers > Steve > > On 09/04/2011 23:30, geejay wrote: >> To all those complaining about the availability of registers on SEAX,.. >> FREE... [after a lot of hard work.]. >> >> Have you ever thought of looking on the LDS [Familysearch.org] Library >> catalogue to see if they have the ones you want? [order and view at your >> local LDS FHC] . They have a few non-conformist registers on film. >> >> Of course it will cost you a small amount to order the films, but then >> you might be able to find what you want, copy it, and maybe do some >> indexing or transcribing while you have the film. In turn helping some >> one else. >> Yours in Genealogy, >> Jan, >> in sunny QLD, Australia >> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >> Any problems, please contact the List Admin: [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 message >> > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > Any problems, please contact the List Admin: [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 message >

I agree, If I went by on line records I would mistakingly believe I know my 4 gt grandmother's maiden name. However there were 2 maybe 3 couples by the same name having kids around the same time and place...distinguished by the fathers' occupations and addresses which do not appear on the on line records. Having checked the records, unfortunately for me, her maiden name still eludes me, therefore the marriage and the number of children she may have had. The online images of burial records allowed me to find her death, if I had tried ordering death certificates I believe I may have ordered more than 7 before I would have given up...she had a middle name which had never appeared on any of the children's christening records or the 1841 census where she fortunately appears with a known daughter. A grandson and many descendents moved to or were born in Essex including my mum. The perils of a commom name. Best wishes, Dorri ---------------------------------------- > From: [email protected] > To: [email protected]; [email protected] > Date: Sun, 10 Apr 2011 11:35:29 -0700 > Subject: Re: [Ess] APART from SEAX good news > > However...you should never, ever rely solely on online records. Always look > at the original. On ancestry there is a long, long line of people hooked up > to one family based on IGI records. When I looked at the original records > (which suddenly appeared on ancestry recently) it turned out that the one > couple having children was not just "one" couple, it was several couples > with the same names having children baptized in the same church during the > same time frame. In my own Essex line I have a man listed on the burial > page when it is obviously a baptism (should have been put on the opposite > page)...which no online index would have picked up correctly. Also, lots of > times there are additional details in the registers, even notes, and not > always nice ones! I had one line in Derbyshire where the vicar did his own > census a couple of times pre 1841...it was wonderful! My only criticism of > the ERO is that they started in the 1500's as opposed to going c1837 (or > even c1800) backwards. If I knew who was who in 1500, I could turn out the > light and go to bed.... Sylvia formerly Collier Row now in a very wet > Seattle

On 10 April 2011 20:35, sylvia <[email protected]> wrote: > My only criticism of > the ERO is that they started in the 1500's as opposed to going c1837 (or > even c1800) backwards. But in my case I´m so happy they have put the earlier ones first. So depends on one´s point of view. All Essex researchers have to be extremely grateful that the ERO are making their records available on line. A pity other counties don´t do the same as I´m really stuck with my Kentish ancestors. Diane