When it's misindexed....

[Phoenix]

Spent Saturday at TNA, getting very dirty (physically and morally) reading Chancery documents.

At 4.30 (it only ever is when time is critical) my allegedly Essex document patently relates to Salop :mad:

The nice archivist agreed it was the wrong document - but said the index was correct!

My paleography skills are poor enough as it is. All I can think to do is get a list of all the documents and match them to the numbers. Starting, of course with my misindexed one.

Anyone else had this?

[Olde Crone]

Phoenix

I do have a memory of having a conversation with someone who was in despair over Chancery documents. It would appear that they are indexed each document in splendid isolation, with no reference to the whole case.

I was extremely lucky that someone had copied the relevant documents and deposited them with family papers, otherwise I would never have managed to collate them.

OC

[Phoenix]

I only found my "money lost in chancery" by freak chance, bumping into an umpteenth cousin. Nineteenth century records are really challenging.

Stuart records, by comparison ought to be a doddle, except that bills, pleadings, answers etc are all over the place. I was looking forwards to this document because the one I'd already looked at was mutilated.

".... died in 1607, intestate" Who? Who died? I hope the rats that knew the answer got indigestion, nibbling away at the name.

[ElizabethHerts]

There is a Chancery document quoted by a researcher for many of my family members, but it hasn't been indexed mentioning them at all! It took me years to find it!

[kiterunner]

I do hope that they are planning to reindex them some time soon.

[Phoenix]

There has been a lot of work done, and I am hugely impressed by the general quality, but the volumes are staggering.

And my Edwards' case was in a dispute between Browse and Weeks - names I'd never heard of.