I'm impressed by the progress being made by FamilySearch Indexers on the collection England, Yorkshire Marriage Bonds and Allegations, 1613-1887.
Nearly 11,000 records were added between the 14th and the 19th. The information transcribed is:
Name:
Event Type:
Event Date:
Event Place:
Event Place (Original):
Age:
Birth Year (Estimated):
Spouse's Name:
Spouse's Age:
Spouse's Birth Year (Estimated):
You do have to go to a FHC to see the original.
42346 2/14/2020 1
England, Yorkshire Marriage Bonds and Allegations, 1613-1887 44471 2/15/2020 181
England, Yorkshire Marriage Bonds and Allegations, 1613-1887 45836 2/16/2020 187
England, Yorkshire Marriage Bonds and Allegations, 1613-1887 53043 2/19/2020 192
England, Yorkshire Marriage Bonds and Allegations, 1613-1887 53043 2/19/2020 193
20 February 2020
FamilySearch making great progress on England, Yorkshire Marriage Bonds and Allegations, 1613-1887
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
Exactly what I've been working on these past couple of days. One of these days I will have my 5th and 6th great grandparents documented!The bad news is I had to prune a couple who ended up being in the wrong place.
Hi. Are these records also on Ancestry.com or are they unique to Fam.Search? Thanks!
I've been spending a lot of time recently at Ancestry and Family Search downloading documents and/or rechecking previous searches. What I have encountered at both sites is the repetition of a particular record, often with image, which I believe is totally unnecessary other than to pad their numbers. It is not just one or two but hundreds. I wish they would concentrate on getting more different records online and stop bragging about the numbers.
I started tracing my family history in 1980 and spent the next 25-30 years trying to find the marriage of my paternal gg grandparents. All I had to go on was the groom's name, the given name of his wife (source: Canadian censuses), and the name and birthyear of the eldest child. During that time I found from private correspondence that they were from Yorkshire, but the marriage still eluded me until someone gave me a possible surname for the wife. I then trolled FamilySearch for her marriage and !bingo! there it was with my gg grandfather's 4-letter surname mistranscribed. I inspected the image and saw that the transcriber had compressed the last two letters 'l' and 'e' into a 'd'. That transcription had been done so long ago that it was on the IGI. If FamilySearch had not retained and published original images, I would still be in the dark as to who my gg grandmother really was.
Post a Comment