Burial date on church brass predates value range allowable for field
UK, England, Lancashire—Nonconformist Church Records, 1647–1996 [Part B][MSGC-BG8]
I have picked up a document containing inscriptions found on brasses, tablets, stones etc in a church. One item has date of death as 6 Jun MCCCCXXXV (by my reckoning that is 1435).
Batch is not being accepted for submission as date is outside the defined field range (ie it predates 1497, earliest seemingly allowed). So what do I do?
Also I am sometimes seeing two dates and with contradictory ages..e.g. for Rosamond Osborn there is 23 June 1803 aged 73, but in parentheses: '26 Jun aged 68'. Any comments?
S
Answers
-
Hi @SarahSquire2 -- 1st question, the date MCCCCLXXXV is 1485 - In a separate entry for Rosamond Osborn, I would take the Date of Death as 23 June 1803 Age 73 and leave out the date in parentheses for the researcher to decide if & how to use. Enjoy these wonderful records!
0 -
As noted by @maryellenstevensbarnes1, the correct date is 1485 - (looks like you missed out the L for 50), but as this is still earlier than the 1497 date you mention, has the system accepted this or is it still a problem?
0 -
Barry...Thank you for pointing out my omission re "L"...sad to say that does not persuade the system to accept revision of 1485 ... the 1497 minimum date is apparently defined by FS, not a clue as to why such a specific minimum. Although few in number there are other brass tablets that I am aware of in other churches that go back much earlier...and presumably the odd document too? Curious - screen print below to demonstrate
So what to do? I am already miffed with FS about loss of detail in transcribing locations, so putting in min date as default does not feel correct. I will hold on to the batch for a few more days in case of further ideas as to suitable action.
Mary Ellen - as suggested, I will ignore the date in parenthesis for Rosamond as I can do nothing else.
Thanks S
0 -
We are asking for clarification on what to do in this situation. In the meantime it is suggested to mark the year field blank or wait for an answer if you have time on the batch to wait.
0 -
Hi @SarahSquire2 while you are waiting for an answer, go ahead and index Piers spouse as Margaret maiden name Stanley - when I read this entire entry again, I wondered if the 1485 date is actually for John Bromley? Still, the 1485 won't work for either Piers or John -- but I would say for a researcher having traced Piers with a spouse named Margaret to the Gerard Chapel, the researcher may have other sources with which to fill in the blanks.
0 -
Thank you, I will apply the maiden name, yet to see an answer to the date. I agree with you that the wording is slightly ambiguous as to attribution of the date, and indeed other elements could also be read slightly differently, yet I must make a decision, and I think unless I receive a strong objection I will assign date to Piers.
S
0 -
To add a clarification to my own comment just sent to Mary Ellen...I will wait a couple of days or so for an answer on the date before I fill in the date field.
S
0 -
It doesn't matter if the problem is that the date of 1485 won't go through the quality check. So, all one needs to do is mark the field blank. The project instructions say: Records that are outside of the project date range should still be indexed.
You wouldn't use Stanley for Margaret's maiden name. Per the field helps, we don't assume surnames from others in this project. Since the maiden name isn't directly associated with her given name, nor do any of the words occur which denote maiden name (neé, born as, formerly, etc.) her surname is rendered blank.
This family is very well documented. You can do a google search and find books written about these knights and their lineage.
1 -
The official answer is to mark the field blank if it will not accept the date. Sorry it took so long to answer! My fault for going garden shopping yesterday!!
1
