Research Puzzle (look up request)
Hi Friends,
I'm doing a little work on some connected families (to each other, not me) on the Isle of Wight in the late 18th and early 19th century and have come across a bit of a head scratcher. Is anyone able to do an original record check for me via a research centre if they can spare a minute?
It's for Hampshire, England records. Does FS have the images via the Centres? or are they only on Find My Past And Ancestry...?
The question revolves around Elizabeth ASH (KCQH-LSJ) and her parentage.
I have found Elizabeth baptism record. She was baptised in 1794, in Shalfleet, with parents listed as William and Elizabeth in the transcription.
However, based on familial connections I've traced through census records I suspect her parents were actually James and Hannah and I'm wondering if there's an error in the transcription?
There was also a James ASH baptised on the same day and I'm wondering if perhaps a) they're siblings or b) their parents have been confused during the transcription process...
I'm happy to give more details on this puzzle and my thinking on why their might be a mix up, if anyone wants to get stuck in and help me solve this particular puzzle! But it gets a bit convoluted and I didn't want to make a lot a reading work if someone was happy to do a quick look up and move on.
Thanks and happy researching.
Answers
-
The information found in extracted records (or indexed records) is based on what is written on the record itself.
I used to do extractions (and transcriptions), and hosted one of the USGenWeb county sites. I once had someone write to me, very upset, that my transcription of the birth records showed a single birth for a Francis (I don't recall now if it was male or female) when they'd concluded that the child in question was twins, a boy and a girl both named Frances/Francis based on census records. One year recorded as a boy, and the next census recorded as a girl. This person was quite upset with me that I would not go back and change my transcription... but people doing extractions (or transcriptions) go by what is written, not what someone wants it to be.
But in answer to your question, it looks like that baptismal record is viewable at the FSC.
eta: Which isn't to say that the transcribed information is correct. You're doing the right thing by looking to see the original for yourself. :)
0 -
Thanks @vjdavis. I do understand that the extracted records are transcriptions of the originals and appreciate the momentous work that goes into that task.
Concurrent to that, I'm also aware that there are (a not insignificant amount of) errors present in the FS indexed records and it really pays to be able to view the original wherever possible. I'm also cognisant to the fact that often not all information from the original is transcribed, as a matter of course. For a long while I had full access to both FMP and Ancestry and would cross check all my contributions, but I don't currently have that access, hence my look up request. I try not to do such requests if I can help it, but I don't want to add inaccuracies to the tree either and this one is a little sticky.
I'm certainly not suggesting anyone change a transcription based on a hunch! It must have been very frustrating to deal with someone asking you to do that. It sounds to me as if that person had either come across an error in one of the census transcriptions OR the census taker had recorded the individual incorrectly originally.
0 -
The original of the Bishop's transcript for the parish of Shalfleet is visible at a Family Search Center.
The transcription appears correct as it shows the above entries for 08 June 1794
James Son of James & Hannah Ash
Elizabeth Daughter of William & Elizabeth Ash
These appear to be from two different families that were having children christened in Shelfleet in the 1790s.
These families also appear to have children christened at Carisbrooke and Calbourne (all within 5 miles of each other).
As a matter of fact, I believe that fathers James(LXM3-JPD) and William(K8CY-GG1) are brothers.
James married in Shalfleet in 1787. William married in 1790 in Calbourne.
It doesn't help avoid confusion that William's wife Elizabeth (Ryal) died in 1808 and William remarried to a woman Hannah (Lock). So at one point both men were married to a woman named Hannah.
In the case of Elizabeth (christened 1794), there appear to be duplicates in the Tree, one in each of the families, but per the christening records, she only belongs in the family of William.
From what I see, there is much to be "sorted out and cleaned up" here among the two families. There are some other duplicates of individuals and wrong dates (in the Tree as compared to the source records).
5 -
Thanks @David Peterson that's wonderfully helpful!
"Sorting out and cleaning up" is how I came across this puzzle in the first place. I just spent a day untangling Elizabeth ASH's second husband's PID, who had become a composite of numerous individuals across continents.
I had suspected that James and William Ash may have been brothers, but I hadn't got back that far in my sorting yet to be certain. Thanks for confirming.
To add a bit of context to my original query (which is still puzzling me, to be honest):
In the 1841 Census Elizabeth ASH is living with her second husband James BRADING (MK49-YQG). Her daughter from her first marriage, Elizabeth REED, is living with them, as is a family by the name of ASH (Isaac Ash, 30, James Ash, 15, Jane Ash, 10, and Eliza Ash, 8).
In the 1851 Census the same Isaac ASH, is listed as James BRADING's brother-in-law i.e. Elizabeth ASH's brother. Elizabeth ASH's birth year is given as 1795 in Shalfleet, (near matching her baptism), and her "brother" Isaac ASH was born circa 1803 in Carisbrooke. (Elizabeth Ash's granddaughter, Julia Reed - daughter of William Reed - is also listed living with them).
Here's where it starts to get confusing:
Both William & Elizabeth and James & Hannah had sons baptised "Isaac Ash" and both are very easy to trace through records.
Isaac ASH baptised 1803, Carisbrooke was the son of James and Hannah. The children from his Marriage in 1825 to Rhoda Atrill match the children in the above '41 and '51 census records of Elizabeth's household. He is living with his daughter Eliza in 1861, and died in January 1871.
Isaac ASH baptised 1800, Carisbrooke was the son of William and Elizabeth. He married Mary Griffin in 1826. There appears to only be one child from that union, Jane Ash, b.1827, which doesn't fit with the three children in the '41 census above. Mary Griffin died and by the 1841 census he is living in common-law with a woman called Jane Urry. They are traceable through the census records 1851, 1861, 1871, 1881. Save for the '41 where his birth is listed as 1799, it is consistently given as 1800 throughout. Isaac and Jane finally got around to officiating their marriage in 1875 and he died in 1882.
So you can see where my confusion arose and why I thought there may have been a transcription error.
Isaac son of James is recorded as living with Elizabeth and actually referred to as her brother, whist Isaac son of William seems to have no familial cross over beyond shared parentage on the baptism records.
Of course the census records don't always get it right, perhaps the census taker should have recorded "cousin-in-law" not "brother-in-law". But there is enough evidence that I find it puzzling and I'm not entirely sure of the best way to proceed in this case.
Thoughts and ideas welcome and appreciated!
0
