Misinformation in "England Births & Chr 1538-1975" Database combining two Individuals
MPXD-ZCV and G82N-ZQK are two separate women, no matter what FamilySearch in their "England Birth & Christening 1539-1975" database currently claims. There is documented proof that this old, probably IGI-based "record source" is inaccurate.
Both Thomas Harper, Sr. and his son, Thomas Harper, Jr. fathered daughters named "Anne".
(1) Thomas Harper, Sr.'s daughter was a "child" [ie: under age 18] when she was murdered by her brother-in-law William Smith in April 1753, along with her father and brother William. Her Church burial took place on 22 Apr 1753. This Anne was born before her own mother's burial on 2 Mar 1743/1744. [Source: "The register booke of Inglebye iuxta Grenhow : as much as is exstant in the old booke for christenings, weddings and burials since the yeare of our Lord 1539", by John Blackburne, Curate (Canterbury: 1889) [Also Known As: Ingleby Greenhow Register] (Digitized by GOOGLE: Image 192 & 194 of 217)
(2) Anne Harper, whose christening record specifies was the daughter of "Thomas, Jr.", was christened 10 Dec 1745. There is NO evidence of her death, nor burial, in the Church Registers of Ingleby Greenhow Parish [Anglican] [Source: "The register booke of Inglebye iuxta Grenhow : as much as is exstant in the old booke for christenings, weddings and burials since the yeare of our Lord 1539", by John Blackburne, Curate (Canterbury: 1889) [Also Known As: Ingleby Greenhow Register] (Digitized by GOOGLE: Image 114 of 217)
At the very least, please consider deleting the "death information" included in the database reference to the christening of Anne (10 Dec 1745). That *DID NOT* come from the Parish Register, and doesn't belong in a "Birth & Christenings" database, unless mention by the recording cleric at that time. Another option might be to delete this inaccurate "source" altogether. As other partners (such as FindMyPast.com and Ancestry.com) often rely on FamilySearch databases as well, this issue REALLY NEEDS to be rectified. Thank you so much! -- Carolyn G. Depp [aka "StoryCatcher"] cgd.fhlady@gmail.com
"England Births and Christenings, 1538-1975", database, FamilySearch (https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:NP8R-C4Z : 10 April 2021), Anne Harper, 1745.
Answers
-
On occasions I have found it helpful when IGI records also provide a death / burial date - if accurate, this can save time in searching for a marriage (if the death was in infancy) or other later-life events. However, when the death information is wrong obviously it being added (to the wrong person) is of no help at all.
Unfortunately, I can't imagine FamilySearch will be willing to withdraw, or amend, this record. In my experience, changes are not made to indexed collections (old or new), though in some cases the detail can now be edited by the user.
FamilySearch has limited resources, but many users remain disappointed there isn't a dedicated section for dealing with issues like this. Find My Past has a very straightforward process for reporting errors, which (if confirmed as such) will be changed. Although, as a large commercial concern, it will be argued that FMP can afford to employ people to carry out this work, much smaller (free to use) websites - such as FreeBMD & FreeREG - still manage to make a provision for error reporting, too.
Hopefully, in future, FamilySearch will agree on the need for errors to be corrected, but for now you can only add a note to such records, when attaching to IDs in Family Tree - giving an explanation for any inaccuracy contained.
0 -
BTW - it is up to users to take action if two Family Tree IDs have been treated as one. In this case, it appears the IDs remain separate for the two individuals concerned. However, if they had been merged to become one individual, you can "unmerge" them in order to retain their separate identities. Likewise, if both IDs had been attached to the same spouse, the incorrect relationship can be detached.
(Note - these comments are based on my not yet having checked the entries - for the IDs referenced - in Family Tree.)
0 -
The book's index (Film # 007725612 image 226) leads to the following Harper family entries:
1. 1743 May 12 Marr. Thomas Harper and Esther Easby
2. 1744 Feb 8 Chr. Thomas son of Thomas Harper Jun.
3. 1744 Mar 2 Bur. Anne Wife of Thomas Harper.
4. 1745 Dec 10 Chr. Anne dau. of Thomas Harper, Junr.
5. 1751 Jan 3 Bur. Thomas Harper Junr Householder
6. 1754 Apr 22 Bur. Thomas Harper Householder, Willm~ and Anne the son and daughter of Thomas Harper.
(I've used Jan. 1 for the new year in writing the dates, because otherwise I get confuddled trying to put the events in order.)
Based on 2 and 3, 1 is Thomas Junior, and based on 5, 6 is Thomas Senior, so indeed, the identification of 4 with 6 is incorrect. Someone made some unwarranted assumptions when creating the database that's now on FamilySearch. However, as Paul says, this is not an editable index, so the best you can do is to attach the index entry to Thomas Jr.'s daughter (because it is, after all, labeled as a christening), and make a note that the death date is not hers.
0 -
You may also like to join the Community Group for England where you will find more focused help and assistance from others doing similar research.
Hope this helps you with your future research.
0 -
I'm only a volunteer, and I am often discouraged by what seem to be balant errors, but I have tempered my anguish to give the benefit of the doubt in favour the poor enthusiast who follows the misleading hint.
If there are 'some people' in a place with 'vaguely the same name' with parents with ditto, then the poor trusting indivdual is presented with a hint " We think we have found ! " with a lovely big button to press, oooh !
It's too easy.
0
