Hi, I can't lay my hands on the information at the moment but I printed out a list of events which affected genealogy and church records etc. One of the items was a tax on entries for Baptisms, marriages and deaths resulted in people avoiding christening children until after this tax was repealed from memory a period of at least 8 years (can't remember the date), however it did make me realise we have to keep in mind that a christening date is not a birth date and it could be one explanation why several children in a family were christened at once. Roy has also pointed out how children were baptised in bulk ready for the 1837 registration. Also how gypsies sometimes did mass baptisms. I want to keep this particular line of information for reference so I will be hunting it up, it gave some real insight into the problems we may encounter going further backwards. It also seems to me that the best most of us can hope to achieve is getting back into the mid 1500s. Once we exhaust the BDM and Census data we are back to the traditional forms of research so it is helpful to discuss these matters. Jean in S. Australia. ----- Original Message ----- From: <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Friday, March 19, 2010 7:58 PM Subject: Re: [WRY] IGI differs from parish record > > Thank you all for such interesting and comprehensive inputs. I should say > that I have checked the full IGI record which includes patron submissions > (7309916) and Bishops Transcripts (M007493) and the problem is not that > they provide a misleading entry, but that the entry I wanted to share with > other researchers (who probably don't have the PR transcriptions made by > CFHS) is not included. > > I hadn't been aware of what seems to be a fairly widespread acceptance > that 10-20% of entries could be missing, and I hadn't thought of the > possibility that BTs could have lost a page or two on the way to York. > Both are things I shall have to be aware of in future, along with that > ever-present possibility of human error. I've done it myself: writing out > a list, you go back to a line where you thought you'd stopped only to > realise on checking that it wasn't the same line. But I DO check, and I > would think the LDS do too, I don't think of them as careless. > >