Incorrect FamilySearch Catalog entry
Hi the catalog entry needs to be corrected on the following page
https://www.familysearch.org/search/catalog/results?count=20&query=%2Bfilm_number%3A874438
Items 1 and 2 point to the same film which matches the item 2 entry.
Search Results for FamilySearch Catalog
PRINT Catalog Print List (0)
1-7 of 7 resultsPrint List
- Item 1: Parish register of St. John, Limerick : christenings,1698-1827, marriages, 1697-1837 and burials, 1607-1837
- Author:Church of Ireland. St. John's Church (Limerick)
- Add
Thanks for your efforts
Regards
Jim
Best Answers
-
@Jim8888 As shown on the catalog landing page, St John Limerick is Church of Ireland. Church of Ireland was the Irish State Protestant Church. Therefore, there is no correlation between this film and the Roman Catholic parish records on the https://registers.nli.ie/ site.
"St. John's Parish Church of the Church of Ireland is no longer in existence. It was merged with St. Lawrence & Holy Trinity in 1854." https://www.familysearch.org/search/catalog/401952
2 -
@Jim8888 I don't know if you are researching Roman Catholic or Protestant ancestors. If you are researching C of I (Protestant Church of Ireland), there is a project underway to digitize the surviving Church of Ireland registers. And the existing Roman Catholic ones, in addition to being on the NLI website, are also searchable on FindMyPast, for free. They are also on Ancestry, but not free to search.
1 -
Some CofI parishes kept a copy in the home parish when they were required to submit their registers to Dublin for safekeeping. Some never sent them to Dublin.
There is work-in-progress of what registers survived. The most recent update to the list was in September of this year. https://www.ireland.anglican.org/cmsfiles/pdf/AboutUs/library/registers/ParishRegisters/PARISHREGISTERS.pdf
John Grenham also has a list of what records survive on his excellent website. https://www.johngrenham.com/browse/county_church.php?cat=Limerick#Limerick
1 -
Best of luck in your continued research @Jim8888
1
Answers
-
In respect of the initial post, I'm not clear just what Jim 8888 thinks is incorrect.
I had a quick look at the file. Item 1 appears to be the register for St John's Limerick, as catalogued above. If you scroll to the end of item 1 you come to item 2, as catalogued above.
It seems to me that both items 1 and 2 are catalogued correctly and that no change is required to the catalogue.
2 -
Thanks for the comment the dates of the marriages do not match in Items 1 and items 2. Also my expectation that item one was the images associated with the description, it an index.
My suggestion is that an archivist review.
Regards
Jim
0 -
Looking at the films for both item 1 and 2 they both point to the same 991 records. I believe this is what the original question is about and am looking into it.
0 -
Looking into this further, Item 1 starts with the first image. Item 2 starts with image 559. This happens with many records. Hope this helps.
0 -
@Jim8888, in case it makes you feel better, you're not the only one who is confused by multi-part films. FamilySearch's own processes fail to take them into account.
Back in the day when "filming" meant actual reels of film (and not digital cameras), camera operators tried to fill each reel to full capacity. If they finished one group of records (like a book or church register volume) but still had room, they'd add a "bookkeeping" image or three, then they would grab the next group of records from the pile and film it, until either the film reel filled up, or they ran out of pages to film (in which case lather, rinse, repeat -- I've seen films with dozens of parts).
The film under discussion has seven parts. The first part is a typewritten transcript of parish registers from St. John's church in Limerick, and it ends on image 557. Then there are three bookmark images, and the second part starts on image 561: a typewritten index to marriages in County Limerick before 1845. And so forth and so on, for a total of 991 images. All of this is in the Catalog, completely correctly.
Decades ago, some parts of some of the books that are on this film were indexed, and those indexes are now online on FamilySearch as parts of the collections "Ireland Births and Baptisms" and "Ireland Marriages". Because the indexes were created straight from the books rather than from the film of the books, there is no direct connection between the film and the online indexes: the film's images all say "No indexes are available", and the search results from the index do not have an image/document link. However, if you click the "Check Image Availability" button on an index detail page, it takes you to the beginning of the film. For the Catalog's purposes, this counts as an association between the film and an index, so the catalog entries for the film all have the magnifying glass ("search this film") icon.
As far as I can tell, there are indexes associated with Parts 1, 3, and 4 of this film, but not with Parts 2, 5, 6, or 7. The Catalog, however, has the magnifying glass on all of the parts, because FamilySearch treats films as singular, homogenous entities. In other words, FS generally fails to take into account -- or outright ignores -- the fact that not everything on a film necessarily came from the same record group. They apply the all-or-nothing approach to everything from access restrictions to index metadata, resulting in lack of access to images that should have no restrictions, and in event location fields in indexes that are in the wrong town of the wrong county. (Be happy that the indexes associated with this film were done from the books: if they had been done from the film, all of the County Loath marriages from Part 3 would be identified as occurring at St. John's, Limerick.)
Too Long; Didn't Read: the Catalog is completely correct. It's just confusing because it's a multi-part film.
4 -
@Julia Szent-Györgyi Thanks for taking the time to make a detailed reply.
Part of my frustration arises from the entry on page 540 of Item 1: Parish register of St. John, Limerick : christenings,1698-1827, marriages, 1697-1837 and burials, 1607-1837 relating to the marriage banns of Bridget Deery and John Barron , when I go to the Catholic Parish Register at the National Library of Ireland to view the image the marriage is not reordered and nor are any of the November entries on that particular page,
Another version of the same index, this time sorted by name, commences at 563 where there is a prefix and the Bridget Deery and John Barron is at 577.
My only conclusion is that the marriage actually occurred at St Munchen's in Limerick city as that was the area that the military was located and where the images at Catholic Parish Register at the National Library of Ireland are missing for that particular year.
No doubt I will find the image some day.
Regards
Jim
0 -
@Áine Ni Donnghaile Thanks very much for your reply. Everything makes sense now. Regards Jim
1 -
@Áine Ni Donnghaile Thanks again for your reply. My interest is the marriage banns of Bridget Deery and John Barron taken on 15 November 1836 at St John's Limerick. I had wrongly assumed that the marriage would have been Catholic as Bridget was a Limerick person christened in the Catholic Church at St Michaels, Limerick, Ireland.
I had worked out that the typed transcript were most likely the work of Rosemary Ffolliott who worked after the Archives fire of 1922 and as such the original records must be somewhere.
The work you have described will most likely cover the record I am interested in - in due course
Once again that for your guidance
Regards
Jim
0 -
@Áine Ni Donnghaile Once again thanks for your interest in my situation. Looking at the lists at those links I am confident that the image of that marriage will be located.
Elizabeth Deary married John Barron and had six children three in Scotland and a further three in New Zealand. John Barron died and Elizabeth married Walter Huntly and had a further three children. The first of these children was Elizabeth Huntly my great grandmother. After she was born Walter Huntley inflicted a fatal wound on a native person Te Kopi and was tried, sentenced and sent to prison for life. There was groundswell of support from Native persons for Walters release. A judge was commissioned to review the case and recommended release. This event and trial is a significant case in New Zealand law.
https://www.ancestry.com.au/family-tree/person/tree/79892228/person/46411196243/facts is a link to my Ancesty page on Elizabeth Deary from there you can access Walter Huntley's page where there is quite a bit of information about his trial and release
0