Gloucestershire Parish Registers - ancestry

[kiterunner]

With images. Doesn't include Bristol.

Gloucestershire Baptisms, Marriages and Burials 1538-1813 (http://search.ancestry.co.uk/search/db.aspx?dbid=4732)

Gloucestershire Baptisms 1813-1913 (http://search.ancestry.co.uk/search/db.aspx?dbid=5066)

Gloucestershire Marriages 1754-1938 (http://search.ancestry.co.uk/search/db.aspx?dbid=5156)

Gloucestershire Burials 1813-1988 (http://search.ancestry.co.uk/search/db.aspx?dbid=5158)

Gloucestershire Confirmations 1834-1913 (http://search.ancestry.co.uk/search/db.aspx?dbid=5137)

[anne fraser]

Thanks for that Kite. It should be useful.

[Just Gillian]

Brilliant Kate, thanks!

I've been able to confirm the bigamous marriage of one of OH's, and the birth of a son to that marriage.

I was surprised that Prosser had been transcribed as Proper - I'd have expected the transcribers to have been aware of the common fs substitute for ss.

Viv once kindly photocopied a load of correspondence for me at Somerset RO, including a wonderful letter from the groom's sister to his existing wife telling her "he has married another". Unknown to all his family, that marriage was also bigamous as he had a wife in the US at the time!

The groom returned to his Somerset wife long enough to have two more children before deserting her again, but I've never been able to find out what happened to the Gloucestershire bride.

[kiterunner]

I was surprised that Prosser had been transcribed as Proper - I'd have expected the transcribers to have been aware of the common fs substitute for ss.


Sorry to say it has ancestry's usual poor standard of transcription. I've already submitted numerous corrections for the few records I've looked at. Though to be fair, I was looking at 17th century records.

[Rick]

Sorry to say it has ancestry's usual poor standard of transcription. I've already submitted numerous corrections for the few records I've looked at. Though to be fair, I was looking at 17th century records.

I was just looking at a page where you could also see the dates from the page before and every single entry has been mistranscribed.

Also the Stinchcombe composite register is there, but it hasn't been indexed. Not sure if that's a one-off omission or they haven't finished indexing.

[Mary from Italy]

I'm currently looking at 17th-century records for another county, and Ancestry's transcriptions are appalling. Apart from mistranscribed names, a whole page has been entered under the wrong year. The odd thing is that the FamilySearch transcriptions for the same records are good, although they're all done by volunteers, whereas Ancestry's transcribers are presumably paid.

[kiterunner]

I expect the paid transcribers are expected to complete a certain number of records per hour and don't get much time to ponder over the handwriting, whereas volunteers can spend ages deciphering each record till they are satisfied with it.

[Rick]

The composite registers look like BTs to me. All in the same hand and they include marriages from post 1754 (which are duplicated in the new style registers).

[Mary from Italy]

I expect the paid transcribers are expected to complete a certain number of records per hour and don't get much time to ponder over the handwriting, whereas volunteers can spend ages deciphering each record till they are satisfied with it.

I expect that's true, but you'd think they'd get some kind of training in old handwriting. Many of the mistakes I've seen were glaringly obvious.

[Just Gillian]

Sorry to say it has ancestry's usual poor standard of transcription. I've already submitted numerous corrections for the few records I've looked at. Though to be fair, I was looking at 17th century records.

The two I looked at both needed corrections - the second one was a glaringly obvious "i", rather than the transcribed "e".

There are many Propers in the marriages and baptisms. The ones I've since viewed would all appear to be Prossers.

It's great to have the records available online but I'm glad I've been using Ancestry long enough to be able allow for mistranscriptions in my searches. My annoyance at the fact that the paid for product is so often substandard never lessens!

[kiterunner]

These have been updated today, but I don't know what has been added.

[scuda]

They seem to have added some BTs in the Baptisms, Marriages and Burials 1538-1813, but don't distinguish them from the PRs.

scuda

[Rick]

Several of the composite registers had been scanned, but not indexed. The Stinchcombe register was one of them and is now indexed (very, very badly).

[kiterunner]

These have just been updated.

[James18]

These have just been updated.
Do you know what with?

The day after my sub runs out... typical!

[kiterunner]

No, they very rarely announce what exactly has been added to an updated database.

[Kit]

The day after my sub runs out... typical!

I know the feeling. I really miss my sub.

[James18]

Typical... Thornbury makes the cut, but Alveston apparently doesn't!

[kiterunner]

The burials have just been updated.

[Nell]

Thanks for this Kite. I've just been taking advantage of the free access Easter Weekend to marry off & bury some long-standing gaps in my tree and I've found a baptism for my 4 x gt grandfather & hence his parents & their marriage. Got back 2 generations with them and also with other lines in the tree. Increasing my knowledge of Gloucestershire villages too!