Is the England Deaths & Burials 1538-1991 index selectively restricted?
I understand it is an "index to selected England burials. Only a few localities are included and the time period varies by locality," so not a comprehensive collection. But even so, I'm having trouble finding an entry on FamilySearch that should be there. So I'm wondering if the index is only selectively available, though I haven't found anything stating as much…
The record in question is for Ellen Corrin who died in 1821, Middlesex.
The entry appears in an Ancestry search of England, Select Deaths and Burials, 1538-1991 and whilst I can't view the entry itself beyond the listed search result, it does say the full record contains a FHL film number.
It also appears on a search results list on Find My Past under England Deaths & Burials 1538-1991. This search results page also provides a birth date of 1816. There are also two matching hits on FMP under the Westminster Burials record set, which list location as St Anne, Soho, Middlesex, England. I suspect they may be copies of the original record from which the index was taken.
So the record clearly exists, but for some reason it's not appearing on FS. I've tried all kinds of search variations (first name with wildcard last name and vice versa, wildcarded initials) all with no luck.
I suspect this record belongs to a family who fall under the non-conformist umbrella and are proving VERY hard to trace; there seems to be almost no record of them. I don't know if that makes a difference as to why this record isn't appearing on FS? Though I suspect it's more of an unfortunate coincidence…
Thoughts, suggestions and any help very much appreciated, with thanks!
Best Answers
-
Share link to the color image on Ancestry of the Church of England burial.
Original data:Westminster, Anglican Parish Registers, City of Westminster Archives, Westminster, London, England.
The page number, 292, and the entry number, 2333, on the color image are the same details listed from the FHL film number 918604, but there are 2 different images of the same record - one b&w from an older microfilm and one the newer color image.
Film 918604 is in this collection https://www.familysearch.org/search/catalog/46921, and the image of that page can be seen at https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:33SQ-GYW2-5MS
Film 918604 is partially indexed since the catalog shows the magnifying glass icon, but it is not fully indexed so not all names can be found on a search.
6 -
TLDR version - My belief is that FamilySearch did have an index record for Ellen Corrin, but it has since been withdrawn by FS in favour of an index from FindMyPast that is linked to the FS images. Since the new index is behind a paywall on FMP, its copy on FamilySearch is visible only to LDS members.
Detail. Ellen Corrin is in the England, Select Deaths and Burials, 1538-1991 collection on Ancestry, so she should be (based on the Select name) in FS (on Film Number 918604, Pg. 292 No. 2333 according to Ancestry). But there doesn't appear to be an index for her - there "clearly" was such a record at one point for it to have got through to Ancestry.
@Áine Ní Donnghaile found the FS image (hooray, the tag appears to work via a copy and paste!) - it's not indexed as far as us non-LDS mortals are concerned. The Information tab for that image has something interesting - it says that the image is from England, Middlesex, Westminster, Parish Registers, 1538-1912 and mentions "database and images, Findmypast". And the floating info box over the image says "This image courtesy of FindMyPast."
When I go to that FS Westminster collection on https://www.familysearch.org/search/collection/2072795 it says "the index was created by FindMyPast.com".
If we take the above attributions at face value, then it suggests that
- FS did have an index to this register. Just an index, no images.
- Said index was copied to Ancestry as part of their England, Select Deaths and Burials, 1538-1991 collection.
- FindMyPast got hold of the images of that register - presumably via the controlling Record Office at Westminster.
- FMP created a new index pointing at the images mentioned in the previous bullet.
- As part of the confidential agreements between FS and the big commercial providers, FMP provided FS with a copy of the images and their index pointing to those images.
- FS then withdrew their original index - which didn't link to any images - in favour of the revised images and linked index from FMP. But since FMP produced that new index and ordinary people have to pay to access FMP's site (it is their business after all), the new linked index is not available to non-LDS users of FS.
- The images are in England, Middlesex, Westminster, Parish Registers, 1538-1912 - but without the FMP produced index, as I say, for non-LDS. (Why are the images available but not the index? Well, if you look closely at the start of the film, it was produced by GenSoc Utah - i.e. FamilySearch in its earlier days).
4
Answers
-
@Adrian Bruce1 an aside that @mention seems to work if I create it first and then type the message. I can then move the @mention anywhere in my comment, not just at the beginning. If I start typing, and then decide I want to create an @mention, it won't work unless I delete my commentary and start over.
0 -
To add to the above helpful comments with which you have been provided, it is a common, general issue that indexed items (as well as those that are from "image-only" collections) can suddenly disappear from FamilySearch - even if the FamilySearch organisation has been responsible for the original filming!
As record custodians negotiate new contracts (after an older one has expired), the rights (exclusive or otherwise) of publication might be withdrawn from FamilySearch and passed to one of the large, commercial concerns: often Find My Past or Ancestry, in the case of records for England.
From time to time, when I look at the Sources section against a relative's profile, I find I no longer have access to the details that were previously connected to the indexed item's heading. Likewise, the links to images can often disappear, due to the items no longer being available on the FamilySearch website.
If you are (like me) not a member of the LDS Church, nor want to pay annual subscriptions to multiple commercial websites, you either have to find a public library (or FS establishment) that offers free access, or wait for a limited-period free-access offer (which FMP and Ancestry make available from time to time).
5 -
@Paul W "… it is a common, general issue that indexed items (as well as those that are from "image-only" collections) can suddenly disappear from FamilySearch - even if the FamilySearch organisation has been
responsible for the original filming! "I think that what frustrates me the most about this, is the lack of transparency. What ought to be possible is that someone in FS Support should be able to explain what's happened to the index, where to find (or not find) the replacement index, where to find (or not) the image. That's what a catalogue and Configuration Management (which is a fancy word for a Catalogue) is supposed to give you. Yes it's hard work, yes it's probably boring, but it's what professional organisations do….
5 -
I had to step away from FS for a few days due to precedence of other life things, and I'm so grateful to come back to find all your VERY helpful responses to my query. Thank you all so much and apologies for my belated reply! @Áine Ní Donnghaile, @Adrian Bruce1 and @Paul W you always give such thorough, well thought and informative assistance and responses. I continue to be deeply appreciative of your generosity with your knowledge and time. I really don't think I would have found the the image on FS or got to the bottom of those indexing confuddlements without you!
I consider myself pretty competent when it comes to genealogical research (I've certainly been doing this for long enough now!), but reading your responses I'm humbled and inspired by how much I still can learn - particularly when it comes to navigating the catalogue and collection crossovers as seems to be the case here with the England Deaths & Burials indexing blurring with England, Middlesex, Westminster, Parish Registers in the way they've been catalogued.
I agree that the lack of transparency and readily available (up to date) information around collections and indexes is very frustrating.
As in this case, as Áine said "…Film 918604 is partially indexed since the catalog shows the magnifying glass icon, but it is not fully indexed so not all names can be found on a search." As far as I can tell, we only know that film is partially indexed because we've known to look for a record in the collection that isn't indexed. But nowhere is there information that states that particular film is partially indexed? When you actually click the magnifying glass icon (as a non-LDS member) no results appear in the search at all, suggesting film 918604 hasn't actually been indexed at all, or if it has, its not available to non-LDS members. But as far as I can see, again there's no information detailing those specifics so it's left to speculation…
I also find it concerning if, as seems to be the case, FS are withdrawing their own indexes in favour of licensed ones from organisations such as FMP and Ancestry which then become restricted or withdrawn themselves as they disappear behind paywalls. It's a shame (and personally I think a little morally dubious) as those original indexes (particularly legacy collections) were often originally indexed by volunteers with the altruistic intent of making the information widely available. Yes those legacy collections aren't always accurate (looking at you IGI), but they do provide a useful point of reference nevertheless.
I don't really see it changing anytime soon, so its really just shouting into the the wind at this point BUT it does make me extra grateful for the Community forums here and people like yourselves who understand the detailed intricacies of navigating the system we have!3 -
One possible explanation for replacing all or part of an existing index on FS, is that the original index just lists the events but does not point to any images. If a replacement index comes along which contains not just the list of events but also points to the corresponding images, then it might make sense to replace the original index.
But if the replacement index is supplied by a commercial company, then we get the situation here.
2 -
That would make complete logical sense, and I am always for an index that contains as much information as possible. But when the replacement Index is only provisionally available, whilst the removed index has unconditional availability, I do think that becomes a bit problematic.
Also, having just spent some weeks researching Hampshire, England records where duplicates often appear up to quadruplicate, I don't really see an issue in just keeping both Index versions. Particularly when there seems to be a discrepancy in what both indexes contain as in this case.
Which circles back to my original query of England Deaths & Burials 1538-1991 on FS only being selectively available for some records (within the index record set).Vis-á-vis:
- Putting aside that the image of ELLEN CORREN's burial record originally comes from the England, Middlesex, Westminster, Parish Registers, 1538-1912.
- On both FMP and Ancestry there is an indexed record for that burial within their versions of England Deaths & Burials 1538-1991 however, there is not an indexed record of that burial within England Deaths & Burials 1538-1991 on FS.
- But if Ancestry got that indexed collection from FS it should follow that the record would appear on both platforms, but its not.
- Likewise, if FS now holds the FMP version of England Deaths & Burials 1538-1991 and not its original Index, again, that record for Ellen Corren should appear as it does on FMP. (Though the FS citation info does say "Index based upon data collected by the Genealogical Society of Utah, Salt Lake City").
So there appears to have been crossover at some point, but not a complete duplication here on FS...
2