How to index surnames UK, England, Herefordshire—Bishop's Transcripts, 1583–1754 [Part C][MS2Y-562]
Please can someone give me some help with understanding the instructions for surnames in the Herefordshire Bishops' Transcripts?
In the Purple circle instructions for the Mother's surname it says "If only 1 surname was recorded for both parents, type the parents' surname in this field. If a surname was recorded for the child but not for the parents, index the child’s surname in this field. This is an exception to the General Indexing Guidelines.." which implies that the mother should be given the surname recorded for the child or the father (if the same) even if it is not specifically recorded for her. The project instructions however, say something different. The example given for a handwritten baptism record, which this is, does not give the mother a surname when she was listed as "and Jane, his wife".
Which is correct?
We are researching this.1
Just following along. This really goes towards the other question on the Middlesex parish records as well.0
This has just been updated. Questions really do get answered. Now to go see what the update on it says!1
- "If a surname was recorded for the child but not for the parents, index the surname of the child for both of the parents. This is an exception to the General Indexing Guidelines and should not be applied to other projects."
Just a tiny addition to the above good information. If the child is documented as illegitimate I do not add the child and the father's last name to the mother's name. I leave that blank unless there is another last name for the mother.0
Thanks @annewandering. Good to see things moved along so quickly!
Now everything matches!
I think the parish on these is Neen Savage which is located in Shropshire. (a hour between them) But there isn't any Neen or Nun Savage parishes in Herefordshire according to this FS wiki article.
Many thanks for all your helpful comments. It's good that the written instructions have been updated (and so speedily!) but the anomaly of the example given in the project instructions "how to index a handwritten Baptismal record" still remains. The entry: Thomas, son of Thomas Gwatkin (i think it's Gwatkin, a known Herefordshire name, rather than Gnatkin) and Jane, his wife, was baptised .... is indexed for our information as:
Child's Given Names: Thomas
6. Sex: Male
7. Father's Given Names: Thomas
8. Father's Surname: Gnatkin
9. Mother's Given Names: Jane
So neither Thomas (the son) nor Jane (the mother) has a surname. Whilst I agree that the son, according to the written instructions, shouldn't be given a surname, surely the mother should. Most indexers I have come across ARE giving the child a surname in this sort of entry, though, so it would be helpful, I think, if the sample could be indexed with "blanks" as well as accepted information to underline the point. It would need to be right, of course!
This does reflect all that has been said on the "Christenings" correspondence from the MIddlesex project. Writing instructions is incredibly difficult to make them intelligible to all, comprehensive and unambiguous. Examples are a far more effective way, but too often there will be a paragraph of writing about various options, with only one example and that, usually, of the most basic of those options. These handwritten records are so diverse with all sorts of variations, so the more help that is given, the better.
I do miss the old "Indexing Chat" page, and I think getting used to the new "Search" section will take some doing.
Thanks for all the help
I don't think the example is an anomaly, but I do think it is Gwatkin. The son doesn't have a surname listed, only the father does. So, neither the son, nor the mother get a surname indexed. The field helps for the Mother and Father surnames now both reflect the rule. This is the standard for most indexing projects, when the configurations are " Jane, the wife of Thomas Gwatkin", or" Thomas Gwatkin and his wife, Jane", Jane's surname is blank.3