ATs & BTs (NOT the phone book)

[Mitch in Notts]

I could do with some clarity for this.
How exactly are Archbishop Transcripts & Bishops Transcripts dated?
I know that Parish Register copies where sent to each but at what periods?
Are there gaps in both?
Freereg has a transcript of Cringleford,NFLK ATs 1725-1812 but I am unable to find a 1771 marriage - would this have been a BT year? Is there any easy (ha) way of finding out?

Thanks

Mitch

[Jan1954]

Hello Mitch,

From the reign of Elizabeth I, Bishops' Transcripts (or Register Bills) were supposed to be returned annually, by the clergy of each parish, to the bishop or archdeacon. Their survival has varied widely.

There is always a gap for the period of the Civil War and the Commonwealth (the 1640s and 1650s), as diocesan and similar authority was suspended or abolished at the time. After the introduction of civil registration in 1837 in England and Wales, only baptisms and burials have usually been returned.

I hope that this helps,

[Geoffers]

How exactly are Archbishop Transcripts & Bishops Transcripts dated? I know that Parish Register copies where sent to each but at what periods? Are there gaps in both?
Freereg has a transcript of Cringleford,NFLK ATs 1725-1812 but I am unable to find a 1771 marriage - would this have been a BT year? Is there any easy (ha) way of finding out?

ATs (where they survive) run for 6 years in a row, the copy was returned to the Bishop every seventh year.

The AT/BT for each year runs from Easter-Easter.

March 1770-March 1771 and
March 1771-March 1772 were both returned to the Archdeacon in Norfolk.

How do you know the marriage took place in 1771? Did it definitely take place at Cringleford?

[Mitch in Notts]

Thanks for the replies.

The ATs for Cringleford are complete for 1725-1812 for all 3 register elements on Freereg but I can find no sign of the Parfrement/Perfrement name.
IGI returns 6 extracted Baptisms 1772-1792 at Cringleford but Freereg produces none of these.

The 1771 marriage date is listed in Boyds Marriage Index and is quoted as 1771 in Angus Fraser "George Borrow`s Birthplace & Gypsy Ancesty" 1972 rev 2003. This book also states that 7 children were baptised in Cringleford 1772-1787 after a study of the Parish Registers.

So I`m at a loss to reason the total ommission in ATs.

Peter,
Can I assume then that ATs cover EVERY year and so there should (theoretically) be no gaps? What then do BTs cover?
Thanks for your reply

Mitch

[Geoffers]

The ATs for Cringleford are complete for 1725-1812 for all 3 register elements on Freereg but I can find no sign of the Parfrement/Perfrement name.

Sorry, I can't help with what freereg does or does not include - or whether an error has been made in transcription. Is it possible to use wildcards on freereg to search for possible errors which do not come up with soundex searches? (Edit, I've just looked at Freereg and who transcribed the records for the parish, she is an experienced researcher and I would be surprised if she had made a mistake. Note that freereg just says that the ATs are complete - I would infer that this means that all surviving ATs that are legible have been transcribed, I would not infer that ATs exist for all years.)


IGI returns 6 extracted Baptisms 1772-1792 at Cringleford but Freereg produces none of these.

Are these extracted from the register, or AT/BT? Extracted entries on the IGI are not always correct


So I`m at a loss to reason the total ommission in ATs.

ATs, BTs and Registers do not always contain all entries. You'll sometimes find entries in registers are missing from the AT or BT - occasionally the reverse is true - sometimes entries are correct in ATs where errors occur in registers - and vice versa. You do need to check all entries in a register/AT/BT to try and eliminate errors.


Can I assume then that ATs cover EVERY year

No. Not all years survive. Remember that these are single sheets of records and not registers. It is easy for single sheets to become mislaid, damaged or destroyed.


What then do BTs cover?

As mentioned, for 6 years in a row, the annual transcript was returned to the Archdeacon in Norfolk. In the 7th year, the entry was returned to the Bishop. Each transcript (AT and BT) contains the same information - i.e. supposedly copies of all entries from the register for the pervious year.

As with all research, the only way to confirm things for your research is to check the original documents


The 1771 marriage date is listed in Boyds Marriage Index and is quoted as 1771 in Angus Fraser "George Borrow`s Birthplace & Gypsy Ancesty" 1972 rev 2003.

Could Boyd's be in error and the book merely repeating the mistake? Could Boyds entry be from the register and not the AT/BT? Could it just be a record of banns and not an actual marriage?

[Mitch in Notts]

Thanks Peter,

Sadly wildcards don`t work on freereg which is annoying.
The IGI listings are extracted & not submitted entries - though I know they can be very incorrect.

Just to clarify the ATs/BTs, to see if I`m correct:
If 1771-1776 incl were ATs
1777 went to BTs
1778-1783 were ATs
Basically 1777 would not be included in the ATs then
and the Bishop only got 1777 or did he get 1771-1777?
Is there anywhere online to clarify this?

Many many thanks

Mitch

PS Looks like I`ll be buying the Cringleford PR fiche!

[Geoffers]

Just to clarify the ATs/BTs, to see if I`m correct:
If 1771-1776 incl were ATs
1777 went to BTs
1778-1783 were ATs
Basically 1777 would not be included in the ATs then
and the Bishop only got 1777 or did he get 1771-1777?
Is there anywhere online to clarify this?

Checking my notes from 1977 (and having just double checked against half a dozen sets of Norfolk ATs on fiches)

1769-70 - BT

1770-1 - AT
1771-2 - AT
1772-3 - AT
1773-4 - AT
1774-5 - AT
1775-6 - AT

1776-7 - BT


Is there anywhere online to clarify this?

You could try contacting the NRO (http://www.archives.norfolk.gov.uk/nroindex.htm)

[Wilkes_ml]

There is a useful trick that I had discovered for Free Reg - select your parish and county and type of record (i.e. Baptism Marriage or burial) check the soundex box and put a "space" in the surname field, then search - this should call up all entries for that parish listed alphabetically by surname.

There are a couple of entries in the marriages that would appear to be Parfect 1806 and Perfect 1796 (possible mistranscriptions).

However, the coverage may not be complete for all years.

[benny1982]

Hi

ATs and BTs can be useful when the original parish registers have been lost. Although as a lot of PRs do survive it is always best to look at them first as quite often priests may have omitted entries from them either through human error or he was in a rush and purposely missed some out.

But on the whole they are a good secondary resource to fall back on if the original PRs are lost. One or two Suffolk parishes have a few missing pages for the time in which I was interested in but the BTs helped and they had copies of the info which I wanted to find.

You may have to watch out as not all BTs survive. If the PRs or BTs do not survive for a time frame you are interested in then there is not a lot you can do.

Ben

[Mitch in Notts]

Peter,
Thank you very much for the clarity, I`m with you now.

Wilkes,
You are a god send! I didn`t know that trick. Its just revealed to me that no Marriages are recorded at Cringleford 1743-1784 on freereg - explains my missing record. Plus only 20 Baptisms, only 3 of which are after 1745!

Thank you all so much for your help.

Mitch

[Geoffers]

As an aside, I posted a thread on the NE Nfk forum which shows a simple example of how using and comparing both registers and ATs can provide answers to questions - When is the oldest entry not always correct (http://www.british-genealogy.com/forums/showthread.php?t=39760)

[Mitch in Notts]

Just a note to record the fact that Wilkes` excellent trick with the freereg site (using soundex & a space) appears no longer to work - it just produces zero matches. A great shame.

[Wilkes_ml]

That's a shame - it was great when it worked. I wonder whether it is just a glitch at the moment? I'll have to contact FreeReg to find out why it no-longer works, as it was really useful.