singhals wrote: > My stand was (and is) -- (1) if you're going to give the parish you > should ALSO give the rest of the locale (St. John's Parish is not a > unique GPS point, after all). (2) if you give a parish (or Parish) in > one place, give it in all places or at the very least say (parish not > known). Giving a baptismal record from St Worrisom Parish, then a > Marriage record from Alimony-upon-Thames, and a burial from London, > Middlesex, England, UK causes those not familiar with the ins and outs > of London civil and ecclesiastical geography untold --and unnecessary-- > grief. Sadly, it may well be that parish is all there is in the original. IME in the Lord Hardwicke Act registers only the parish is named. It would be quite possible for someone to have their marriage recorded as simply All Hallows, Almondbury, and their children's baptisms as Holy Trinity, Holmfirth. Holmfirth was a chapel-of-ease serving parts of two parishes and held baptisms for both but not marriages. I've seen that actual circumstance cause confusion to someone posting in an online forum. Just to add to the confusion it would be quite consistent have then been buried in yet another church when the larger parish was split up in the C19th. In such cases there's not substitute for becoming familiar with those ins and outs. That's why I think there needs to be a standard and sufficiently complex data model for dealing with civil and ecclesiastical hierarchies of places and the way they change with time, so that they can be posted online by those who are familiar with them. Your genie program of choice would then be able to download and parse the data to show the affiliations of the place at the appropriate time. -- Ian The Hotmail address is my spam-bin. Real mail address is iang at austonley org uk