I need an expert on the Cumberland Parish Records.
Batch #MQ3Z-7Z in looking at this record I'M seeing Deaths of individuals of the Parish community with the same names, giving multiple dates. Is the correct?
Example: Agnus Dawson 4/11/1582 and 10/2/1595 Are Two different individuals?
Answers
-
Your batch number is short a digit/letter, so we can't view the batch in question.
0 -
So sorry MQ3Z-7Z8
0 -
How do you know they are deaths? Is there a previous image that tells you that?
0 -
I don’t know they are death or burials.
I reviewed the previous and following pages and there is no listing as to the type of event.
0 -
Melissa Himes, I think you are wonderful. You have helped me in the past.
This is Lloyd's first venture into the help community. He is my T&FH leader in my ward.
We pondered over this batch together yesterday. 1- It is not marriages because there are not husband and wives. 2- It is not birth or christenings because there are no parents. 3- That only leaves deaths or burials.
We were amazed that it was all alphabetized. And we decided that it was a compilation of a ton of records. It is a very curious page isn't it!
1 -
Hi @Vern_1 Thanks for the compliment. This collection has become quite a problem for many, and will continue to be if it is published and researchers have to deal with it.
Honestly, I am so tired of seeing these shared images, I didn't even look any of these up. These are likely all marriages. But, the only way to know would be to look up each date and find the primary record! I chose the most unique name to start:
Chamberlaine Dawson married Joyce Taylor on 7 May 1691, and on 19 June 1718 Chamberlaine Dawson married Elizabeth Barrow. So, in essence, there should be two records created. (BTW -there are already searchable records for the dates in the England, Cumbria Parish Registers, 1538-1990 and the England, Cumberland Parish Registers, 1538-1990 collections.) The 1691 date has him being married in one record and baptized in another. Maybe he was, I don't know because the records have to be accessed at a FH center or library.
But, why are these being indexed- to what end? This in an index of multiple records. Indexers have no idea whether they are baptisms and burials, births and deaths, marriages, etc. and they are wasting their time indexing secondary sources which already have the primary record indexed. Maybe Lloyd can express this problem to the folks in charge.
No moderator on this page seems to have been able to do anything about these repeated posts on the UK, England, Cumberland—Parish Registers, 1590–1960 project.
Frankly, I wouldn't waste my time creating records which are worthless and also could be deleted by a reviewer who thinks they should be indexed as deaths. John Dawson alone would have 18 records created spanning 211 years of records.
Ridiculous.
Hope this helps. I'd hit No, No Extractable Data and submit.
1 -
Wow Melissa Himes! Thank you, thank you for your expansive, thorough answer. Look how much typing and thinking you did to be able to respond. Thanks again!
0 -
I just did a search on Cumberland, England indexing questions, there are about 30 different discussions about what to index with many conflicting/different answers/opinions! I pity the poor woman I researched to find she has been indexed and published as born, married and died all on the same day! Plus she had children!🤣
1 -
Isn't there a FamilySearch moderator for "Indexing" who could pass the apparently serious problems attached to working on this batch to the team / section / manager who could sort out this mess?
In other categories of Community we see issues being escalated by moderators, but I don't notice this happening with Indexing problems.
The volunteers who work hard to answer problems raised here could do with some back-up!
3
