Parish Register and Transcript Comparison with Implications for FamilySearch Index

In the last post, Now you see it, now you don’t – IGI and FamilySearch, I discussed the shortcomings of the FamilySearch index for marriages in Claverley.  The index is based on a published transcript, so just how accurate was the transcript?

The title page bears the name of the honorary secretary of the Shropshire Parish Register Society, W.G.D. Fletcher, but the introduction tells that this transcript was made by Lieutenant-Colonel G. S. Parry[1].  Also included are descriptions of the ten original registers, for example:[2]

Vol. X. Contains Marriages, 1813-1937, on printed paper forms, 3 to a page, printed in pursuance of the Act of 28 July 1812, by Geo. Eyre and Andrew Stahan.  Of these forms, 223 on the first 75 pages are filled in, the rest of the book remains blank.  There is a printed title page and one fly-leaf. It is bound in vellum.  Size, 15 ¾ x 10 inches.

The original registers are available on microfiche at Shropshire Archives.  The above description is accurate making it easy to identify this volume on fiche numbers 9 & 10[3].  Both the original register and transcript record:

• For the groom and bride:
  • names
  • parish of residence
  • status e.g. bachelor, widow
• Date
• Parental consent
• Banns or Licence
• Name of the officiating clergyman
• Names of witnesses (signatures)

The transcript is not an exact copy as it omits the standard form text, abbreviates some terms and names, and reformats the information.  Notes added by the author indicate that parish of residence is omitted when it is Claverley and name of the presiding clergyman is noted for blocks of records.  Other omissions are signatures of the bride and groom as they have already been named and indications of illiteracy (e.g. x her mark). The original register’s page numbers and record entry numbers are omitted, but the sequence of records is preserved.

So the transcript contains a great deal more than an index, but as it is not a complete copy.  It should really be described as an abstract.

Of the 223 records in Volume X[4], I found 25 discrepancies between the original register and abstract:

no	field	abstract	register
13	year	1815	1814
23	witness	Eleanor Glover	–
29	witness	Susan. Harrison	Susanna Harrison
31	witness	Eleanor Glover	–
35	witness	John Smith	–
37	witness	William Ball	–
43	witness	Ann Jones	–
45	witness	Hannah Rushtow	Hannah Ruston
61	witness	Sarah Adams	Sarah Evans
63	witness	Sus. Smallman	Susanna Smallman
64	bride name	Matlida Pope	Margaret Matilda Pope
76	witness	E A Re__hall [?]	–
78	witness	Ann Harley	Sarah Ann Harley
84	groom name	Thomas Bennet	Thomas Kennet
89	groom name	William Rowly	William Rowley
104	witness	Job Noke	Joab Noke
119	witness	John Doughtey	John Doughty
130	groom name	Thomas Parson	Thomas Parsons
133	groom name	Vicarage Culwick	Vickaridge Culwick
135	witness	Philip Crompton, Phoebe Sophia Rhodes	–
181	witness	Mabel Branford	–
182	witness	Wm Ball	–
184	witness	Wm Ball	–
203	bride name	Elizabeth Churchyetts	Eliza Churchyetts
206	witness	Jane Devey	Jane Devy

11% of records in this sample contain an error.  How important is this?

The most common errors are the omission (10, 4.5%) and mis-transcription of witness names.  One record omitted witness names altogether (no 135), one unreadable witness (no 76) was omitted, and the rest of the omissions occurred when there were more than the 2 witnesses required by law.  Witnesses are often relatives of the bridal couple, so may provide important genealogical clues.   However, the omission of William Ball may have little genealogical significance.  He witnessed a high proportion (28, 12.6%) of the marriages between 1813 and 1837, a pattern that might indicate frequent availability to serve as a witness, perhaps as a lay official of the church such as a church warden.  Mis-transcription of witness names (8, 3.6%) was more common than that of bride (2, 0.9%) and groom names (4, 1.8%), suggesting that these were less carefully transcribed.  Witnesses tend not to be included in marriage indexes, so these errors are not repeated in the FamilySearch index.

Errors in the bride and groom names and date are repeated in the FamilySearch index, at least for those records included in the index.  A search for exact matches would fail to find a particular record.  However, a soundex search that matches names phonetically should cope with the spelling errors encountered in this sample.  Search algorithms could potentially cope with standardised abbreviations.  In this sample Susanna has been abbreviated in two different ways (nos 29 & 63).

The published transcript was produced in 1907, using the technology of the time.  It is certainly easier to index a printed work than handwritten records, so using the original registers would not necessarily been more accurate.  Sequential page and entry numbers were specified in the 1812 Act to guard against the loss of records.  Had at least the entry numbers been included in both transcript and index, identification of individual records and checking of the completeness of the data set would be much easier.  The 31% records missing from the FamilySearch index vastly outweigh the small proportion of errors in the transcript:

Year	no marriages in FamilySearch index	no Marriages in register	difference	% difference
1813	5	5	0	0.0
1814	5	7	2	28.6
1815	4	10	6	60.0
1816	2	3	1	33.3
1817	3	6	3	50.0
1818	3	5	2	40.0
1819	4	7	3	42.9
1820	7	10	3	30.0
1821	8	12	4	33.3
1822	10	15	5	33.3
1823	5	9	4	44.4
1824	6	6	0	0.0
1825	4	11	7	63.6
1826	5	7	2	28.6
1827	5	8	3	37.5
1828	9	12	3	25.0
1829	4	5	1	20.0
1830	6	7	1	14.3
1831	5	9	4	44.4
1832	6	9	3	33.3
1833	8	11	3	27.3
1834	15	17	2	11.8
1835	11	12	1	8.3
1836	9	16	7	43.8
1837	4	4	0	0.0
Grand Total	153	223	70	31.4

---

[1] Fletcher, W.G.D. 1907. Shropshire Parish Registers.  Diocese of Hereford. Vol X. privately printed for the Shropshire Parish Register Society.  p. ix.

[2]  ibid. p. vi.

[3] Church of England. Marriage Register. 1813-1837. P68/fiche8-9. Shropshire Archives, Shrewsbury

[4] Fletcher, W.G.D. 1907. Shropshire Parish Registers.  Diocese of Hereford. Vol X. privately printed for the Shropshire Parish Register Society.  pp. 409-423.

© Sue Adams 2013

---