PDA

View Full Version : Richard Garnett Christened: 19 May 1731, Catherington, Hampshire



Bea chan
08-02-2006, 12:08 PM
I have traced my Garnett family in Hapmsire (mainly Portsea) back to Richard Garnett Christened: 19 May 1731, Catherington, Hampshire, England and his father also a Richard Garnett and his mother Ann Hogsflesh. I found this information on the LDS website.

I have now hit a dead end.

Can anyone suggest any further records worth investigating where I might be able to find out more about these two Richard Garnett?

Thanks!

Sheleen
12-03-2006, 12:19 AM
Richard Garnet married Ann Hogsflesh 11 APR 1729 Blendworth, Hampshire, England (LDS site)

Ann Hogsflesh is pretty unusaul... so start at her name and see where she comes from, and then try tomatch up that result with where she and Richard may have met.

Now, this is quite unusual because the only Ann(e) Hogsflesh I could find is the following....
Anne Hogshead:
Christened: 22 JAN 1691 Woodmancote Near Hurstpierpoint, Sussex, England
This makes her aged 38 at the time of her marriage.

Parents: John and Ann Hogsflesh.

With the LDS site, be prepared for stupid mis-transcriptions (once came across a couple who had children when the wife was 138 years old.... lol). Also, never do a blanket-search of 5 or 10 years either way.... you'll never get all the results listed. Always search exact year (and do each year by turn - this is how I found Ann Hogsflesh), or (at the most) a two year either ay search.

Hope this helps you some :)

Sheleen.

Sheleen
12-03-2006, 12:22 AM
Forgot to add:
Have been told that the LDS 'turn' their results pages - so where you may get results one day, a week later you may get different results as it depends what they have online at the time. Its always worth trying again...and again.... and again ...lol

Bea chan
30-03-2006, 2:45 PM
Sheleen

Many thanks for the tip - I hadn't realised that about the LDS website (although I know it has a bad reputation for accuracy!). I have Quaker ancestors and the dates are frequently incorrect due the Quaker calendar being different.

My hunt continues...

Peter Goodey
30-03-2006, 3:52 PM
I'm afraid it's time for another lesson about the IGI.

There are two entries for the 'christening' of Richard Garnet, son of Richard and Anne in 1731.

One shows 19 November and is batch number C066282, film number 0918891. Batches starting 'C' are 'controlled extractions' or systematic partial transcriptions from original records. Clicking on the film number reveals that the source is the parish registers of Catherington.

The other shows 19 May and is a 'Form submitted by a member of the LDS Church'. All such entries should be treated with the greatest scepticism. Very many, if not most, are simply guesswork, wishful thinking or downright inventions. Some are accurate but we have no way of assessing the accuracy. The only safe approach is therefore scepticism. If you can't bring yourself to ignore them, treat them as no more than doubtful clues. Unfortunately this is the entry you chose.

Of the two choices, it is the 19 November that is likely to be the most reliable. However you should still check the parish register for accuracy, any additional information and generally to look for clues.

If you repeat the exercise as for batch C066282 but this time use batch C066281 you'll find several other GARNETs, some of which may be siblings. There's also a Richard and Mary which may or may not suggest a change of wife. This is the sort of thing that can only be confirmed or discounted by persusing the parish registers and any other available sources.

The point about about patron submissions is important and should be treated as a major health warning for anyone before using the IGI.

Bea chan
26-04-2006, 2:31 PM
Many thanks for this warning. I knew there was a lot of scepticism about the IGI but hadn't realised there were two entries for Ann and Richard. (I had speculated that he had married again - Mary - but again have no hard proof apart from the IGI).

In fact anything that I can not collaborate with at least one other piece of evidence in addition to the IGI entry I do not consider proof but like you say only a "doubtful clue". However, I do keep these “suspects” in the family tree as it helps to set out more clearly possible lines but do not considered them "true” ancestors. In the ancestry software I use it allows me to put a rating mark against an entry declaring how convinced I am on its accuracy. A sole IGI entry gets a 0 rating!

I guess I'll just have to look at the original entries in the parish register which I believe are kept in the County Record Office. And which also brings me back to my original question of:

"Can anyone suggest any further records worth investigating where I might be able to find out more about these two Richard Garnett?"

Obviously there is no census data available for this period. I haven’t searched through records of wills as I suspect that there was nothing left to will away! Is it worth searching wills regardless? How about military/navy records were there any available for this period as I suspect some of them may have gone to sea? Or were only records of officers kept?

Thanks in advance if anyone can help me with this!