stephen pilcher petley

[SueNSW]

Sorry if I'm missing something geneius - your advice a couple of posts up was to always look at original parish registers.

Sure there are 2 transcriptions on FMP - as there are on Family Search, but looking at the original registers, they were not married at Westbere - as one transcription has it, but at Ripple as the other has it.

Hence my comment about where the transcription of Westbere would have come from?

If they were both "of this parish" banns would only have been read in Ripple too wouldn't they?

[Pam Downes]

"England Marriages, 1538–1973 ," database, FamilySearch (https://familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:NND1-KWT : 10 December 2014), Stephen Pilcher and Elizabeth Arnold, 12 Jan 1819; citing Ripple, Kent, England, reference ; FHL microfilm 1835589.

"England Marriages, 1538–1973 ," database, FamilySearch (https://familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:NN64-T2V : 10 December 2014), Stephen Pilcher and Elizabeth Arnold, 12 Jan 1819; citing Church Of England, Westbere, Kent, England, reference IT 20 P4 N11; FHL microfilm 1836032.


To see the actual record you need to look at the Microfilm from the Latterday Saints records. I'm not sure how to get these as I haven't had course to do this.

or contact

Kent History and Library Centre
James Whatman Way
Maidstone
Kent
ME14 1LQ

Sorry if I'm missing something geneius - your advice a couple of posts up was to always look at original parish registers.

Sure there are 2 transcriptions on FMP - as there are on Family Search, but looking at the original registers, they were not married at Westbere - as one transcription has it, but at Ripple as the other has it.

Hence my comment about where the transcription of Westbere would have come from?

If they were both "of this parish" banns would only have been read in Ripple too wouldn't they?

FHL film number 1835589 has the ATs and BTs for Ripple on it, as well as River, Ringwould, and Rodmersham, as well as BTs only for Reculver.

FHL film number 1836032 has PRs for baptisms and marriages for Westbere, Swingfield, Ripple, and Ramsgate Holy Trinity.
However if you search for an ancestor, but leave the name blank and enter Swingfield, or Ripple, or Ramsgate as the place and then the film number 1836032 all you will get are marriages (allegedly) in Westbere. So I therefore think that Westbere has been entered in the index in error for all the marriages.

If you enter 1835589 as the film number and then enter for example Rodmersham then you get, as you should, marriages in Rodmersham shown.
Therefore assume Ripple is correct.

It's not the first error of indexing like this I know of. There's a famous one of some years back where entries from a Great Yarmouth (Norfolk) PRs were indexed as belonging to Earsdon in Northumberland.

Pam

[SueNSW]

Thanks for the explanation Pam - no need to assume Ripple is right though - clearly on the parish register images on FMP it was Ripple where they were married