Hi Nick The question you have to ask is what came first the parish register or bishops transcript copy As in all things where humans are involved they will change the system to their liking In many case the BTs were found to be the original copy and the parish register the copy Added to that the person who filled in and or copied the BTs varied enormously in skill and work ethics, some did them on a rolling basis, some from notes, some at the end of the year (some not at all or patchily) If the original was filled in by several hands at various times, then the clerk or church warden copied up the BTs (or PRs) that person may have had more knowledge of the flock Think of a case and it probably happened somewhere Nivard Ovington in Cornwall (UK) On 26/01/2015 19:54, Nick Higton via wrote: > If information is in the BTs that is not in the PRs, it begs a > question as to reliability, as the former was supposed to be > extracted from the latter. Of course, it’s probable that the writer > of the BTs (at the end of the year to which the PRs refer) knew the > family concerned, but there could also be a suspicion of re-writing > history, for example, to legitimise an illegitimate birth, or even > create some claim to an estate. The motives of the writer at the time > need to be considered.