View Full Version : Another reason to always check originals!

25-10-2008, 12:11 PM
Over the last week I have identified two errors.

The IGI has some baptisms supposedly in Sutton Cambridgeshire. But they are actually Swaffham Prior, Cambridgeshire. It appears as though Swaffham Prior comes next after Sutton on the IGI film, but someone has accidentally forgot to change the name when Swaffham Prior register started.

Also, in the Vital record Index (v1) that I have on disc, it would appear that Dartford, Kent has been mixed up with Frindsbury, Kent. Sometime ago I found on the Vital record index a Thomas Sanders supposedly born 28 Aug bapt. 25 Sep 1808 son of Edward and Jane Sanders at Frindsbury.

It was actually William Saunders who was born 28 Aug bapt. 25 Sep 1808 son of Edward and Jane Sanders at Dartford. I have checked the originals of both Dartford and Frindsbury to confirm this.

So if you are using the IGI or Vital record index as a guide, beware - it isn't just the member submitted records that are potentially inaccurate - also the filmed parish registers.

25-10-2008, 5:06 PM
I would add to that - do not always believe what you read on the screen. It took years to unscramble a Wlikinson, transcribed as Williamson, married to a Hooley, transcribed as Wooley.

25-10-2008, 6:28 PM

The PRs have often contradicted what was said on the IGI. My 5xgreat grandfather appeared to have married in Hacheston Suffolk on 27 Sep 1785 according to the IGI but Boyds Marriage Index says they wed on 11 Oct 1785 in Brandeston. I looked up their PRs and they did wed at Brandeston. The groom was of Hacheston.

I found out that they had actually had their banns called in Hacheston and Brandeston. Shows that the IGI is merely a finding aid.