UK England Gloucestershire 1642 - 1996 Part C Image name : 008219997-00172 Batch ID : M3M9 - KN5
I refer to the above christenings, wondering why there is a prefix entry for the mother but not for the father, when more often than not, it IS the father who has a prefix - such as 'Mr' or 'Revd' etc. I really cannot see the logic behind this because these details are being omitted.
Regards Jean.
Answers
-
I'm not sure since I don't work for FamilySearch. But, I think the logic might be so that when we index the formal name of Mrs. John Jones it allows us to know that John Jones is a female. They probably consider Revd or Reverend as a job title or an appointment, just like Sheriff, Constable, etc.
Given Name: John
Surname: Jones
Prefix: Mrs
4 -
Although @Melissa S Himes answer has been rejected, it is logical as when I was first married (way back in 1969) I was officially referred to Mrs 'John Smith' NOT as Mrs 'Cedar Smith.' That was the official way 'wives of' were addressed until (in the great scheme of things) quite recently. Hence the need for a prefix. To put it bluntly back then in all official records a wife was her husband's chattel. When I was first married even our tax office refused to see me as an individual in my own right, imagine how it was back when many of these records were made. Also in official records to protect a women's good name she took his name, unmarried mothers or 'fallen' women brought scorn not only on themselves but their whole family and they would be treated as pariahs, again the need for the prefix Mrs. (there are of course others). True very few records actually record a prefix and this might not be the reason why a prefix is allowed for in indexing, however there is often more to records than that which is seen at first glance.
All that said it is easy enough to hide the prefix field.
1 -
Thankyou, I find that there are a few prefixes required, particularly in burial batches when someone
is listed as 'child' [without parents names.] People researching their family trees [as I do for others], have no idea that it is a child, unless it is an infant or the age is given. If the record can be viewed that's fine, if not, I feel that an entry box is needed.
1 -
I refer to all Irish records that require a 'residence'. Instead of having to use the 'places' list, which is time consuming due to the huge content - why not a prompt in the residence entry box ? This would make the indexing for most Irish records a lot easier. I think most of you would agree with me in this case as I find the places are usually unreadable. Considering the length of time these records have been waiting to be indexed, I rest my case !
0 -
Any chance of some UK England projects in the near future ?
0
