Why does this record not appear as a result in a search?
The citation clearly suggests this is part of the England, Births and Christenings, 1538-1975 collection, but the record is not found there. Would it have been there at some stage and now withdrawn from the collection? If so, isn't the citation misleading, in that one would clearly expect the link to lead to the record, as suggested?
Answers
-
From the link under Document Information, I got to the page at but find all the records appears to refer to either 1819 or 1843 events. It would seem very strange that permission has been withdrawn from FamilySearch to publish every year excepting these two, relating to Christ Church Spitalfields christenings.
BTW - my aim was to see - at a quick glance - how many BETJEMAN children were christened on the same day (in 1842) at this church.
It messed things up trying to edit my first post, so here is an image including Document Information:
1 -
Again, I rather unwisely tried to edit my second post, which had been reformatted, leading to my reference to the URL - between "at" and "but" in the first sentence - being removed! Still not straightforward in posting images / screenshots here, then.
Here's the deleted URL I intended to add: https://www.familysearch.org/search/record/results?count=20&offset=660&q.batchNumber=C06969-3
0 -
Moving from the Collection Landing at https://www.familysearch.org/search/collection/1473014 to the "How to Use This Collection" in the Wiki
we are informed that this is a Legacy Collection, and "This collection may include information previously published in the International Genealogical Index."
Christ Church, Spitalfields is included in the collection "London, Docklands And East End Baptisms" on FMP, also an index-only collection with no images.
Moving on to Ancestry, they have, as expected, a copy of the FS collection as "England, Select Births and Christenings, 1538-1975," without images.
But, Ancestry also has "London, England, Church of England Births and Baptisms, 1813-1923" with images for the Betjeman/Batjeman family in 1842 Spitalfields.
2 -
Thanks for that detail, Áine. I still don't understand why one can still find results for 1819 and 1843: I would have thought all years would have been subject to the same treatment. As you can see, the reference against this specific record (relating to Elias Jacob Betjeman) cites batch C06969-3, so why can I only find 1819 & 1843 records in my results of a search on that batch, but not those for 1842 and other years?
1 -
I don't have a good explanation either, Paul.
I looked at the years covered in the original filming, hoping for a clue - thinking perhaps one register might have been separated from others at the time of filming. But, the 1842 Betjeman baptisms are on image 594 of 605, and the register runs from 1819 to 1843.
There are, however, apparently 3 registers covering that period. The one where I found the 1842 baptisms is captioned 1819-1843. There are also separate registers captioned 1828-1841and 1843-1876. Perhaps that one register (1819-1843) was not filmed at the same time and was not indexed by FS?
1 -
I was about to suggest that "your guess is as good as mine", without meaning any offence, of course, as you have put in so much effort here!
However, two other points:
Firstly, we were led to believe all records from the extraction program that were formerly to be found on the IGI had been transferred to the main FamilySearch database - only the "user submitted" items being left behind in the Genealogies section. (For a while, there was an option to search on both parts of the IGI, but I now see there is just one heading to search on IGI records under Genealogies.)
Secondly, I wonder if this is a factor affecting my issue, or if just coincidence? From the screenshot of a Catalog page you will see one film runs from 1819 and the other from 1843. By accident, or design, could only the first year's records from each of the films have made their way to the database (England Births & Christenings 1538-1975)? The problem here is that we can never obtain answers to these or similar questions, so can never know if this a "permissions" issue (possibly relating to Ancestry, in this example) or merely a genuine oversight by FamilySearch in omitting all but the 1819 and 1843 records from the database.
1 -
In case it helps, here is the Source Description from Ancestry. No reference to an FHL number that we often see there.
This data collection consists of baptism records from over 10,000 Church of England parish registers (including Bishop’s Transcripts) in the Greater London area. These are taken from the registers held at The London Archives as well as those formerly at Guildhall Manuscripts Section. It also includes registers of births and baptisms that occurred in workhouses operated by the Boards of Guardians.
1 -
@Paul W said
"… Firstly, we were led to believe all records from the extraction program that were formerly to be found on the IGI had been transferred to the main FamilySearch database - only the "user submitted" items being left behind in the Genealogies section. …"
I think I agree with that.
This issue sounds reminiscent of previous issues of stuff that was there once but no longer is. Or is no longer there in its previous form. Unfortunately, I can't lay my hands on the previous thread, but suspect that the appearance of the Ancestry collection identified by Áine has led to the disappearance of the FS images from previous access. I'm hazy because without the description in that previous thread I don't remember the exact logic.
Why those two years were left aside, I have no idea but would point out that the odd years are still in "England, Births and Christenings, 1538-1975" whereas the rest are in "England, Middlesex, Parish Registers, 1539-1988". Maybe they were converting stuff from EBC to EMPR but that cluster got missed for reasons unknown. I'd wouldn't be surprised if Áine is onto something with her identification of the overlaps.
2 -
@Paul W It's interesting if you look at the films that have searchable indexed data for Spitalfields Christ Church parish in the FamilySearch catalog, all have only one year:
DGS #7906286 - Only 1819
DGS #7906287 - Only 1843
DGS #8040925 - Only 1783
DGS #7906288 - Only 1828
DGS #8006394 -Only 1843
DGS #8040928 - Only 1860
In each case it appears to be the last year on the film. The records were all extracted and I'm sure at one time were accessible in this collection:
It would be good to know if this is the only parish where records have been dropped. Since this is a Legacy collection I don't know if it will be fixed unless several parishes have been affected.
3 -
Sorry for the slow response, but I took a rare day away from FamilySearch yesterday!
Thank you for your detailed analysis, the results of which I can concur. Whilst we might not be able to get to the bottom of what has led to just that one year from each DGS film now being on the database, you are probably correct in concluding, this being a legacy collection, there is unlikely to be any further years added / reinstated for searching on the database.
It would be great if an appropriate FS team could take time to examine this matter, especially (as you suggest) in an effort to discover whether this a unique situation, or occurs with others collections, too. I have certainly not previously encountered an example where just one year's records (per film) are available from the much wider time period covered. Oh, to be able to get hold of the original IGI listings / fiche and check exactly what was originally indexed!
Again, thank you for taking such interest in the matter. Pessimistically, I don't expect any positive result to come from this report, but it would be of great interest to at least know the background on how this might have arisen. (Could Ancestry - or whoever holds the publication permissions concerning these records - really have allowed FamilySearch continued rights to display records from just these single years, from each grouping, or have these records been removed by accident rather than design, as was my original suggestion?
If there is a team to which this could be escalated for investigation I'm sure you will pass this on, although a definite explanation might be another matter!
2 -
Inspired by @SerraNola 's work, I had a look at a sample event - the marriage of James Bragg to Mary Ann Pask at Christ Church Spitalfields on 16 July 1860.
The index is in England Marriages, 1538–1973 but not in England, Middlesex, Parish Registers, 1539-1988 - unless anyone knows better. The England Marriages, 1538–1973 index has "Image Unavailable".
Looking at Ancestry, that particular marriage appears in two places in Ancestry's London, England, Church of England Marriages and Banns, 1754-1938. Once as image 619 of 632 in a group labelled as "1843-1860". The other time as image 114 of 133 in a group labelled "1856 May-1860 Dec".
Looking at the fine detail of the Ancestry image, I'm pretty certain that these are 2 separate filmings of the same register.
What does that mean? I have no idea to be quite honest but suspect the double filming on Ancestry has something to do with it. The situation is complex enough to make me suspect that unless someone comes up with a specific set of instructions of how index records from England Marriages, 1538–1973 were to be shifted (or not) into England, Middlesex, Parish Registers, 1539-1988, we'll possibly never know why James Bragg and Mary Pask's marriage is inconsistent.
2 -
Sorry to appear pedantic, but I meant to used the expression "definitive explanation" in my previous post.
1
