Microfilm 815968 (Digital Folder Number 007562770) incorrectly indexed as Caldbeck
I have hired a genealogist to look up records in Cumbria, U.K., for example Jonathan Nicholson born 3 Jan 1662 at Caldbeck, Cumberland, England.
She found these records did not exist in Caldbeck parish registers (a waste of her time).
I believe this microfilm to be composed of Quaker birth records from the very earliest days of the Society of Friends records, when meetings were held at Caldbeck (the home of the movement's founder) but baptisms reported had not necessarily occurred there. However the associated Familysearch records do not mention religious affiliation. The user is left assuming these births come from Church of England records.
The original for this record is in the National Archives (UK) which tell me Jonathan's birth was somewhere in Cumberland or Northumberland, and that its reported meeting place was Caldbeck - though the place is not in the original images transcribed in 1857.
Can this microfilm be correctly indexed?
Answers
-
0 -
The FamilySearch catalog reference is https://www.familysearch.org/search/catalog/433194
Marriages, births and burials, 1656-1795
Authors: Society of Friends. Caldbeck Monthly Meeting (Cumberlandshire) (Main Author) This gives some information about the nature of the records, but it is clear that they are from the Society of Friends or Quakers.
The catalog entry also advises Microfilm of original records at the London Public Record Office, London.
Rg-6 series nos. 1566, 1331, 1328
The RG 6 record series are explained in the following link for the UK National Archives https://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/details/r/C13331 This makes it clear that the records are from the Quakers.
If @JohnHumphreys1 is interested in seeing an image of a record, The National Archives link says "Electronic images of these records can be searched online through our partner website." This is the pay website TheGenealogist https://www.thegenealogist.co.uk/non-conformist-records/
Generally FamilySearch Microfilm information about images "Cite this Record" can be much less informative than the FS catalog. In my view this type of information is given a low priority by FamilySearch , it appears to be the "near enough is good enough " attitude. Don't hold your breath waiting for a change to be made
0 -
Unfortunate, as Familysearch describe the database 'England, Births and Christenings' as "legacy" (meaning they admit lapses) and advise users to check original records - which is difficult, if the details of those records has been lost in their description.
The problem does not lie with the originators (National Archives UK) but with the inadequate detail provided for the records from there by Familysearch.
Thank you, MaureenE123, for the catalog record which does contain the necessary information. It's a shame the database records don't refer directly to this.
0