My understanding for St Lawrence and St Peters is that the registers are remarkably intact and remarkably continuous. For St Peters, Bishops transcripts and Archdeacons transcripts gaps for whole Commonwealth period & other gaps listed at http://www.familysearch.org/eng/library/fhlcatalog/supermainframeset.asp?display=titlefilmnotes&columns=*%2C0%2C0&titleno=461886&disp=Archdeacon%27s+transcripts%2C+1560-181++ For St Peters parish registers generally quite good from memory although no details listed http://www.familysearch.org/eng/library/fhlcatalog/supermainframeset.asp?display=titlefilmnotes&columns=*%2C0%2C0&titleno=224407&disp=Parish+registers+for+St.+Peter++ For St Lawrence see http://www.familysearch.org/eng/library/fhlcatalog/supermainframeset.asp?display=titlefilmnotes&columns=*%2C0%2C0&titleno=461735&disp=Archdeacon%27s+transcripts%2C+1560-181++ and http://www.familysearch.org/eng/library/fhlcatalog/supermainframeset.asp?display=titlefilmnotes&columns=*%2C0%2C0&titleno=582141&disp=Parish+registers+for+St.+Lawrence++ As I understand it, local churches generally continued to operate and maintain local registers during the Commonwealth period but the reporting mechanisms were dropped hence no Bishops/Archdeacons transcripts for some years. There are some changes in handwriting as personnel changed and spelling usually in english rather than latin. Hence IGI Batch C047721 which is transcribed from St Peters parish registers has 909 baptisms for the period 1640 to 1660. And IGI Batch C036621 which is transcribed from St Lawrence parish registers has 728 baptisms for period 1640-1653. The main gaps in the registers are due to nonconformance ie people who married, baptised and were buried at non-Anglican venues but this was more an issue in St Lawrence than at St Peters.. The Compton census of 1676 required reports from the clergy see The Compton Census of 1676 By Anne Whiteman, Mary Clapinson for some reports on Thanet. Apparently Nicholas Whyte at St Peters was acceptable to most of the community & was prepared to baptise children with & without marking the cross which meant that the congregation included almost the whole community. So even if some people attended a sermon at the Congregational in what is now the bookshop in Broadstairs they would still attend at St Peters. Whyte also took the view that people not at church were probably at sea and thus did not report for recusancy. I don't know of any registers for the Broadstairs congregation in 17th century but the building has a plaque dated 1601 and it is likely that there were some registers which have not survived. In St Lawrence the church was well enough attended but almost no-one would take communion - that being regarded as a superstition and the non-attenders were not tolerated & were reported for recusancy and harassed through the assizes. Peter Johnson of Ramsgate was notably harassed. http://books.google.com.au/books?id=hvcDAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA510&dq=peter+Johnson+ramsgate&client=firefox-a#v=onepage&q=peter%20Johnson%20ramsgate&f=false gives a bit about Peter Johnson and the foundation of Independent s in Ramsgate. One result of the persecution of non anglicans is that many of the nonconformist registers were lost as people needed to destroy evidence which could put them in gaol or worse - for many years it was a crime to attend non-anglican worship (especially in the era of Charles I and from about 1672 to 1688 there was also much persecution). Even after 1688 there were significant restrictions on non anglican protestant worship and much discrimination against nonanglicans eg could not go to university. Non anglicans were still required to marry only in anglican churches for instance. Barbara Callcott ________________________________ From: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Sent: Tuesday, 4 August, 2009 5:00:45 PM Subject: ISLE-OF-THANET Digest, Vol 4, Issue 179 Today's Topics: 1. Continuity of Thanet Parish Registers (Roger Young) 2. Re: Continuity of Thanet Parish Registers (Anne Peat) 3. Re: Continuity of Thanet Parish Registers (Andy Hedgcock) ) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Message: 1 Date: Mon, 3 Aug 2009 19:21:49 +0100 From: "Roger Young" <[email protected]> Subject: [Isle-of-Thanet] Continuity of Thanet Parish Registers To: <[email protected]> Message-ID: <[email protected]> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Can anyone advise as to whether there any notable gaps in the Parish Registers caused by the 17C Civil War and more importantly the subsequent Commonwealth, or was there a basic continuity during the period 1642 to 1660? I am writing up my family history at the moment and as background want to assess the extent to which the records reflect the impact of the puritan movement in Thanet. My impression is that there are no notable gaps, or obvious insertions of the missing years after the Restoration. But I do not have copies of all 7 parishes to hand. certainly Lewis writing in the 1720/30s does not make much of an issue of war and Commonwealt affecting Thanet. Many thanks. Roger Young ------------------------------ Message: 2 Date: Mon, 3 Aug 2009 19:37:09 +0100 From: Anne Peat <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [Isle-of-Thanet] Continuity of Thanet Parish Registers To: [email protected] Message-ID: <[email protected]> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed; delsp=yes As I understand it, during the Commonwealth the registration of births, marriages and deaths became a civil matter, and the Justices of the Peace rather than parishes registered them.. Many of these were destroyed after the restoration. But I don't know how that affected Thanet in particular. Anne On 3 Aug 2009, at 19:21, Roger Young wrote: > Can anyone advise as to whether there any notable gaps in the Parish > Registers caused by the 17C Civil War and more importantly the > subsequent Commonwealth, or was there a basic continuity during the > period 1642 to 1660? > I am writing up my family history at the moment and as background > want to assess the extent to which the records reflect the impact of > the puritan movement in Thanet.. My impression is that there are no > notable gaps, or obvious insertions of the missing years after the > Restoration. But I do not have copies of all 7 parishes to hand. > certainly Lewis writing in the 1720/30s does not make much of an > issue of war and Commonwealt affecting Thanet. > Many thanks. > Roger Young > > ------------------------------- ------------------------------ Message: 3 Date: Mon, 3 Aug 2009 19:39:57 +0100 From: "Andy Hedgcock" <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [Isle-of-Thanet] Continuity of Thanet Parish Registers To: <[email protected]> Message-ID: <[email protected]> Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; reply-type=original Hi Roger Not good news. "Thomas Cromwell first ordered the keeping of parish registers of baptisms, marriages and burials in 1538, though only a very few registers actually date so early. Further instructions were issued in 1598 to keep new parchment registers and copy up the entries from the earlier paper registers, but many were only copied from 1558, the first year of Queen Elizabeth?s reign. Many surviving registers only date from the sixteenth or seventeenth centuries, and where they survive there are often gaps, sometimes of years, especially during the Civil war and Interregnum from 1642 to 1660. Gaps in the registers can sometimes be overcome by consulting copies made from the registers and sent every year (from 1598) to the Bishop in each diocese, called Bishop?s Transcripts. These are now deposited in those county record offices that also act as diocesan record offices. There are, however, gaps in the transcripts as well." But if you can give me specific areas I can check in Phillimore's Atlas & Index of Parish Registers for you. HTH Andy ----- Original Message ----- From: "Roger Young" <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, August 03, 2009 7:21 PM Subject: [Isle-of-Thanet] Continuity of Thanet Parish Registers > Can anyone advise as to whether there any notable gaps in the Parish > Registers caused by the 17C Civil War and more importantly the subsequent > Commonwealth, or was there a basic continuity during the period 1642 to > 1660? > I am writing up my family history at the moment and as background want to > assess the extent to which the records reflect the impact of the puritan > movement in Thanet. My impression is that there are no notable gaps, or > obvious insertions of the missing years after the Restoration. But I do > not have copies of all 7 parishes to hand. certainly Lewis writing in the > 1720/30s does not make much of an issue of war and Commonwealt affecting > Thanet. > Many thanks. > Roger Young > > ------------------------------- > 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 > > ____________________________________________________________________________________ Access Yahoo!7 Mail on your mobile. Anytime.. Anywhere. Show me how: http://au.mobile.yahoo.com/mail