When a parish register's info differs from the Bishop's Transcript's info, which is more reliable?
I have found a baptism record for an Ann Calvert in Mirfield, West Yorkshire in 1798. The parish record lists the father as John Calvert; whereas the Bishop's Transcript lists the father as a Thomas Calvert. Which is more reliable? Or must I research both?
There are hundreds of Calverts in West Yorkshire and any research is a huge undertaking so it would be helpful to be able to limit the scope. Any opinions would be gratefully received.
Background, and reason for my search:
I do not know anything more about my Ann Calvert in England than her marriage record, the baptisms of her children and the family's 1841 census record, which was taken just prior to the family emigrating to the U.S.
My express need for knowing the father's name extends beyond the usual climbing-the-ancestral-tree focus because I have found numerous correspondences between my 2nd great-grandmother Ann's family and that of an Elizabeth Calvert in the U.S. Both of their families were enumerated in the 1841 U.K. census in the Birstall area.
My Ann Calvert and her husband James Bentley had all of their children baptised in Birstall, West Yorkshire between 1822 to 1841.
Elizabeth Calvert and her husband Joshua Moore were also both born in Birstall with children born between 1827-1838.
In the U.S., both families lived in the same three cities or townships in the same three counties/states during the same years -- and various members of each family show up in legal documents for the other family, as well as daughters in both families marrying members of a third family from England -- and one of Ann's daughters married one of Elizabeth's sons. Normally, that might preclude the dau. and son from being first cousins, but since two of their children had severe mental issues, that common convention may have been broken.
I believe Ann and Elizabeth were either sisters or first cousins. A seemingly reliable tree on ancestry.com lists Elizabeth's father as Thomas, but without sources.
I would really like to determine the exact relationship between Ann and Elizabeth, as well as add a generation to Ann's tree.
Thank you.
최고의 답변
-
One cannot say with any certainty which is more reliable. The BT is copied from the parish register. It could be that the clerk made an error when completing the BT or it could be that an error was made in the PR which was corrected when the BT was completed. In the latter case one might hope that the PR would have been corrected at that point. For this reason, perhaps the PR is more reliable. However, in your position, I would look carefully for evidence to point in one direction or the other. I am guessing that there were both John and Thomas in the parish at that time having children. When were any other children christened? Were any too close to clash with Ann?
3 -
I would agree with @Graham Buckell that it's not possible to be certain. As he says, there is an extra step involved when the BTs are copied from the PRs - but it's not always that simple.
I once did an analysis of 2 small parishes in Devon that had the same minister. The analysis looked at a fairly small number of years but there was a right mess in the data when comparing the two. Some people were only in one (sometimes only in the BT), others were in both but had baptisms in one and births in another. Why it was such a mess, I don't know but I'd take a wild guess that either the two were compiled from different scraps of paper or the two were written out independently. Or anything else that might make sense - or not.
In this case, you should try to assemble as much data for that parish as you can for the two (possible) Calvert fathers. If one Calvert isn't seen anywhere else, that would suggest that one is the error.
2
답변들
-
Thank you both. It seems to be pretty much what I expected. I will follow up on both John and Thomas. Thanks for giving me clues as to how to proceed.
0