Why is FamilySearch abridging its Civil Marriage records for England and Wales?
Until fairly recently, FamilySearch records in the "England and Wales Marriage Registration Index, 1837-2005," collection mirrored what is found both on Find My Past and FreeBMD websites. They showed the names of all other individuals who appear under a particular reference shown in the official records of the General Register Office for England & Wales.
Suddenly, and as illustrated through the links provided, FamilySearch has unhelpfully "clipped" their records, so that only one other name - having the exact same reference - is offered as a "Possible Spouse".
To describe the example I am illustrating through the links below, Adam Alderson's marriage was registered at Tynemouth in 1902 - the record suggesting (on FMP, FreeBMD and previously on FamilySearch) that his spouse was either: Christopher Anderson, Mary Brown or Elizabeth Jane Nicholson. However, the current FamilySearch record only names Christopher Anderson as his "Possible Spouse".
Although the citation for this record is
"England & Wales Marriages, 1837-2005," database, findmypast (http://www.findmypast.com : 2012); citing 1902, quarter 2, vol. 10B, p. 482, Tynemouth, Northumberland, England, General Register Office, Southport, England"
, surely Find My Past has not suddenly withdrawn permission for "its" (albeit public) records to be shown on FamilySearch in the correct manner?
Perhaps a moderator would kindly escalate this issue (passing on this specific example, as just one of the millions of records affected) in a hope that FamilySearch will revert to how it had always shown these records, until the sudden change.
FamilySearch version:
https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:263P-RQV?treeref=G173-NFG
Find My Past version:
https://www.findmypast.co.uk/transcript?id=BMD%2FM%2F1902%2F2%2FAZ%2F000005%2F055&tab=this
FreeBMD version:
Incidentally, the original records show Adam Alderson married Mary Brown!
Update: I see from the dictionary definition I have probably used the wrong word ("abridging") in my title. I find the definition of "abridge" is
"Shorten (a piece of writing) without losing the sense"
whereas, as there were certainly no single-sex marriages in England back in 1902, the current presentation on FamilySearch completely loses all sense!
Answers
-
Haven't we been here before with exactly this problem?
0 -
Yes, but following the suggestion by Áine at my recent post about the FamilySearch version(s) of the England & Wales Census collections - see
I thought I would raise the matter with a specific example, in a hope the issue will be passed on and action taken to correct what is proving a most unhelpful current presentation of these records.
Obviously I remain pessimistic about any change taking place. As you know, a third issue that affects us researchers of E&W records is the FamilySearch "England and Wales, National Index of Wills and Administrations, 1858-1957" collection, where - after about seven years (is it now?) and numerous reports - every executor / administrator is still shown incorrectly as a "Beneficiary"!
2 -
Indeed we have, a long discussion here:
1 -
Whoops, sorry - old age has certainly crept up on me, in that I hadn't managed to find that previous post (with examples, too!) and that Ashlee had indeed stated she would pass on. I honestly wasn't intending to be "bumping" the issue - so thanks, Mandy, for the link and sorry again (Ashlee) for raising the matter again.(Although I see it has been 7 months since I first raised this, so hopefully it is working its way "up the list".)
1 -
@Paul W No worries. I've recently had to recreate old threads about unresolved problems. The earlier threads have been shut, so no "Is there a status update, please?" is possible. We have to start over from scratch.
2 -
And now this very issue of showing one spouse where there should be two, has led to @ColinM0288 getting a completely frazzled brain while trying to understand why the distinctively named Florence (Louise) Brushett is present twice (under 2 PIDs) in FS FamilyTree. Once married to Stanley George Smith (as per an Ancestry record, by the way) and a second time to Henry Hodge.
The answer is unfortunately simple - the FS marriage query response should read "Florence Louise Brushett married one of these people - Stanley George Smith, Henry Hellyer Hodge" (as FindMyPast does). Instead it reads "Possible Spouse - Henry Hellyer Hodge". Just the one.
Until now I felt that this was only potentially a time-waster - now we have proof that it really is. I think that the data is clear that the person who honestly entered the Henry Hodge data did so in August 2022, so the corruption dates back at least then.
See the post below in the England Research Group.
2
