HR duplicate Virginia & England sources
I have been doing research on my ancestry that goes into the middle 1600 & 1700's in Virginia. While we were still a colony of England, were records recorded in England as well as in Virginia? I am finding the exact same information in both sources & sometimes the England source is the only source for one child in a family & then there will be both sources for another child in the same family. I hope that you can help me with this question.
Christine Knowland
Best Answers
-
That film - 1040763, Item 13 - is restricted, meaning I cannot view it from home. It is important to view the actual record to know what is written rather than relying on the indexed extract.
Based on your example of Humphrey Bates, without seeing the record, I think it is likely two different people, with two separate families.
1 -
@Christine Knowland to answer your question, no, births recorded in Virginia were not also recorded in England. The situation @Áine Ní Donnghaile described is the usual culprit.
Incorrect indexing is happening more now, as more indexing is being done by computer. I wonder about the review process. When we correct the indexing of a single record, are we helping to train the computer? I hope so.
0
Answers
-
Can you share a specific? It's usually much easier to answer a specific question about a source than to reply in a general way.
And - I've found that some records for members of my family who were born in Texas in the 1880s (so well after the Colonial Era), are coded as being births in England. It's an error in the coding or indexing, not a duplicate record.
Example: James Richard Burgess b 1885, in Texas - shown with a birth in a specific place in England
https://familysearch.org/pal:/MM9.1.1/V52V-RGX
And with his actual birth place in Texas https://familysearch.org/pal:/MM9.1.1/VRSG-5H1
It's the same record - same film number.
1 -
Edited one post to remove personally identifiable information.
1 -
An example of information in Virginia & England records---were Virginia records also sent to England while still a Colony of England?
Humphrey Bates-born 1742 in North Carolina & died 1821 in NC
Parents---Humphrey Bates b 1712 in York Co VA & Sarah Leggett b 1717 in York VA
Entry in English records...England: Select Births & Christenings 1538-1975...
Humphrey Bates baptized 1 Jan 1744 in Stafford ENG
Parents-Humphrey Bates & Sarah
FHL #1040763 Item 13
1 -
@Áine Ní Donnghaile did you notice the index pages you linked, both of them, are now marked as retired? "This record was a duplicate and has been retired. We recommend using the most current copy." I am not sure what we are supposed to do with that information. Do you know?
0 -
Yes, I did notice they are now retired. They were not retired when I first encountered them some years ago. The unretired (not necessarily newer) version(s) show birth in Texas. And that incorrect index is still on Ancestry, not showing retired.
I've had the "retired" version in other records. Often it is an index format that has less info - no image number or no certificate number. There was a thread a few months ago from someone who was quite upset that some indexed records are marked retired. In every instance I've encountered, the existing version does not lose any detail and usually has more detail than the retired version.
James Richard's record is a delayed registration, recorded in 1948, for his ~1885 birth.
I doubt there is an indexing error in the OP's question. I suspect it is a family of a similar name.
0 -
I doubt there is an indexing error in the OP's question. I suspect it is a family of a similar name.
If the OP's comment with details is a fair example, then I agree it is just a case of a family with similar names around the same time. The names may match but the event dates and places do not.
1
