Help with baptism entries Norwich St.Peter Parmentergate please

[sally]

We are always being told to look at the original source when researching ancestors so when I found some baptisms on the IGI I asked my son's to buy me various fiche from Norfolk RO for my birthday.
Needless to say that some of the baptisms I needed are hard to read & the white lettering on a blue background makes it harder. I have also found that the images are a lot smaller than copies I have bought from other ROs & I only have a standard fiche reader the same as in my local library.

If anyone is going to the RO or an LDS could I ask if you could fill in the bits I need on these baptisms please.

Church is Norwich St.Peter Parmountergate
Parents are Horatio & Sarah NELSON
(mirofiche no. 21 of 66 for Norfolk RO)
1847 pg36 no.282, Elizabeth - I need the birth & baptism dates.
1855 pg60 no.s 478 & 479, Henry & Louis - I need the baptism date & father's occupation for each of them.

Regards
Sally

[Geoffers]

some of the baptisms I needed are hard to read & the white lettering on a blue background makes it harder. I have also found that the images are a lot smaller than copies I have bought from other ROs & I only have a standard fiche reader the same as in my local library.
Sally, sorry I can't help with loking up the entries for you - but - if you have a digital camera, try taking a photo of the entry and download it to your computer. Then, bring up the image and 'play' with it using your computer software. Change the image to negative and make it monochrome so that you get black on white. I usually find this all helps; if you need to, try changing the monochrome display to sepia and vary the brightness and contrast.

The image may remain stubbornly difficult to interpret, but you may find that the detail becomes clearer.

Of course being copyright, you will have to delete the digital image unless you get permission from the NRO to save it.

Geoffers

[sally]

Thanks for the suggestion Geoffers. I have printed out your instructions & will have a go tomorrow. Will let you know how I get on.
Sally

[sally]

Well Geoffers I have partial success due to you. I managed, by following your instructions, to find the Horatio's occupation for Louis & Henry's baptisms which said he was in the West Norfolk Malitia. The IGI has both baptisms as the 16th Sept but it really looks like the 18th for Henry & 16th for Louis which is suprising as Henry's entry is immediately above Louis. If someone was to read the fiche on a higher magnification I am sure it would be easy to read. Elizabeth is still a mystery as I could do nothing with the photo to get it any clearer.
Thanks for the help & I will just keep my fingers crossed that someone might be able to help with the bits I am still missing.

Regards
Sally

ps Have deleted the digital images now

[Geoffers]

I have partial success
Oh well, at least that's something - it sometimes works, sometimes doesn't - but I feel that it's often worthwhile trying with the technology that's available.


he was in the West Norfolk Malitia.
If you ever get to TNA it may be worth trying to locate his attestation papers, which I think will be kept in WO96. The papers should include date and place of birth

Sorry I can't hlep with the lookup in Norwich

Geoffers

[sally]

If you ever get to TNA it may be worth trying to locate his attestation papers, which I think will be kept in WO96. The papers should include date and place of birth
Will keep this in mind Geoffers - Thanks
Regards
Sally

[Pam Downes]

Hi Sally,
The fiche at the SoG are also white on blue and I am of the firm opinion that someone moved either the camera or the page at the critical moment. :)
Based on processes of elimination:
1847. entry 281 looks like baptism 15/25 December.
entry 284 is defnitely 1848 for year of baptism.
entry 283 is *possibly* 1848
entry 282 is possibly born 3 Dec with baptism on 20-somethingth of December. Name Elizabeth Jane.

1855
(and after feeling really chuffed with myself for getting West Norfolk Militia for the occupation I find that you've already found this out. )
by the same process of elimination:
entry 477 baptism date 30th Aug.
entry 480 baptism date 18th Sept.

entry 478 Henry looks like born 19th Nov 1853
entry 479 Louis looks like born 17th Nov 1854.
Both baptised 16th Sept 1855.

Sorry I can't be of any more help.
I wonder if a nice plea to the NRO asking if they could look at their copy might work? You have the years and entry numbers so it's not as if you're asking them to actually search for someone. (Post any reply, just so I can see exactly how useless my transcribing skills are :D )

Pam Downes

[sally]

Thank you very much Pam for taking the time to look at these entries.|hug|

I read the same for the birth dates for both Henry & Louis so that is ok, it was the day of baptism I wasn't sure about as on my fiche it looked like the 18th for Henry (whose entry was first) & the 16th for Louis. My copy is very feint in parts & I agree, something moved, perhaps it was the end of a long day for the cameraman :)

I will do as you suggest & see whether someone at the NRO will kindly check Elizabeth's entry. It is really annoying after buying the fiche that some of the family I need turn out to be on faded pages when most of the fiche is very clear.

Thanks again Pam
Regards
Sally

[sally]

1847. entry 282 is possibly born 3 Dec with baptism on 20-somethingth of December. Name Elizabeth Jane.
I wonder if a nice plea to the NRO asking if they could look at their copy might work? You have the years and entry numbers so it's not as if you're asking them to actually search for someone. (Post any reply, just so I can see exactly how useless my transcribing skills are :D )Pam Downes
Hi Pam
As my sons would have said about you some time ago "The girl done good" not useless at all |hug|
I took your advice & sent to the NRO. The reply says several of them studied the entry on their master fiche & "came to a consensus that Elizabeth was born 3rd Dec 1847 & baptised the 25th Dec the same year"

Not sure why, if the entry was so bad that it took several of them to agree, they didn't just get out the original register & have a look.
Thanks again for your help & advice Pam
Regards
Sally

[Pam Downes]

Not sure why, if the entry was so bad that it took several of them to agree, they didn't just get out the original register & have a look.
Thanks for the update Sally.
As regards the NRO not just referring to the original register it all depends on how/where it's stored. I went on a behind-the-scenes tour of the Newspaper Library at Colindale earlier this year. I think it was more the current papers they were referring to, but once a run of a paper has been filmed it's wrapped in a special paper and then put on *very* high shelves to never see the light of day again except when needed as evidence in a lawsuit.
Some PRs are a bit fragile and therefore the less they are disturbed the better, so the NRO will only refer to the original in extreme circumstances.
Pam Downes