Parish registers on Ancestry

I was delighted to find the second marriage of my 6xgreat grandfather, William Pemble, on Ancestry, namely, that on 12 April 1713 he married Elizabeth Taylor at Holy Trinity Minories, City of London. The source is "London, England, Church of England Baptisms, Marriages and Burials, 1538-1812: London Metropolitan Archives". However, exactly the same source produces two different parish registers in which the wording recording the marriage is slightly, but crucially, different. One gives: 'April 12 William Pemble of London merchant and Elizabeth Taylor of Strood in Kent' and the other: 'April 12 William Pemble wid. and merchant and Elizabeth Taylor wid. of Stroud in Kent.' The crucial difference, of course, is not the spelling of Strood but the fact that William is recognised as a widower in one but not in the other.
Please, does anyone know why a church would have two registers recording the same information?

 

Thank you for that, Peter. But William was actually a widower, so the mistake is in the one that omitted it.

 

Gillian, when you have the image in view, on the right hand side you should see a small left pointing arrow with a vertical line on the right. Click on this and the select the source tab, and on this you will see the LMA reference for the register. From this you should be able to work out if you are looking at a register or a BT. I think all registers have a reference beginning with P and a number, but if you are unsure you can check in the LMA online catalogue.

Sometimes two copies of the same register did exist though I am not wholly sure why, and I don't think you can necessarily say immediately which one is more accurate. Maybe you will need to follow up the widower possibility and see if it gets anywhere.

 

Thank you, Pauline. I'll try what you say and let you know how I get on.

 

Well, I've done that and attached is the only part where there's any difference. But neither explains why. Both have a ref. beginning with P. So my next move is to look at the LMA catalogue.

 

There isn't a 'problem' as such. My question was: why are there two parish registers for the same church covering more or less the same years but with very slightly different information in each one? Who would have filled them in? The writing is different in each one so clearly two different people. I just find it odd that there are two sets of more or less identical records in the days when it was much more laborious to fill in details than it is nowadays, that's all. As you said, perhaps one is the BT, which would explain why it's the tidier of the two.

 

Both sources are registers but covering a different range of dates. You may not get any definite explanation of why there were two overlapping registers, but it is not so uncommon. In my experience when there are two overlapping registers, both contain the same basic information but one may be more complete than the other.

I haven't inspected the two register images you posted closely but I would guess the addition of "wid" is further detail given in that register rather than an error.

 

Thank you, Pauline. Actually I didn't mean the Wid was an error, on the contrary - I meant the error was in the one that omitted it! Anyhow, I've now written to LMA. It'll be interesting to see what they reply.

 

It was Peter who had suggested it might be an error (#2 above), and I agree that an omission in the other copy is more likely. What we don't know is if one version of the register was copied from the other, or both were copied from another source (the day book?) or what.

Will you let us know what LMA say? It may take a while to hear back - last time I emailed them their target response time was 10 working days.

 

I'm so used to checking archive catalogues online that I completely forgot I have an ancient book on City of London parish registers published by the Guildhall Library. Although references have changed since the registers moved to LMA, the final part is the same.

The guide has this note on register MS9245 - "many entries in this vol are abbreviated versions of those in MS9243". So although this still doesn't explain why there is an overlap, it would seem to confirm that the differences are not just mistakes.

 

The word 'widow ' is on the second line of one of the entries, on its own, but underneath William's name. It is not too clear if Elizabeth is the widow and the word is carried on from the previous line or if it was realised that William was a widower and it was written under his name. Maybe the second copy for the BT's decided to play safe and name them both as 'wid'.

 

Thank you very much, Pauline. That's clear enough. I'll let you know anyhow what LMA say when I get the reply

Maybe! But judging by what Pauline wrote, it's the MS9245 entries that are abbreviated from MS9243, and it's the latter that has the 'wid' with both names.

 

Now forgive me Gillian as I have only just come across your posting about two registers with ostensibly the same information, except they differ by the inclusion and exclusion of the word ‘wid’. I followed through until I came to Peter’s ‘So what’s the problem’ and realised that would have been my question also.

So I read further and noted your puzzlement about two Parish registers which were well answered yet seem not to have set your mind at rest. You even went on to explain you ‘knew’ your 6x g Grandfather WAS a widower so was in no doubt about which transcript was in error by the sin of omission.

As there is nothing new in genealogical research about finding errors within transcriptions (the proverbial I wish I had a pound for every one found) what am I missing that causes you to contact the London Metropolitan Archives to explain how the word ‘wid’ got omitted and will they know anyway?

I am sure it is not as simple as I make out as clearly it has bothered you, but I cannot for the life of me see what it is you are pursuing when you know the answer already.

 

What you lads (?), Bob in particular, seem to have missed is Pauline's reply to my question. So here it is for you: The guide has this note on register MS9245 - "many entries in this vol are abbreviated versions of those in MS9243". That, to me, was as clear as it is possible to get and answered my question, which wasn't a problem - simply a question, namely: why would a church have two registers with almost, but not quite, identical information? That's all. Short and simple I thought. I wasn't trying to find out whether or not my 6xggf was a widower because I knew he was. That didn't come into it. I was asking only about the existence of two registers, with all entries written painstakingly (perhaps!) by hand; no clicking away on a keyboard.
Bob, Pauline's answer did set my mind at rest. (See my reply to her) But I had already written to the LMA by the time I read it. Besides, she also wants to know what the LMA reply. So that makes two of us at least.

 

And now I've heard from the LMA, which hasn't thrown any more light on the subject. I think the person who replied could have simply said he/she doesn't know. I have to say he/she because he/she always signs off as J. Burch.
" Regarding your questions concerning the marriage registers for Holy Trinity Minories, both registers are marriage registers covering roughly the same period, none of which are Bishops Transcripts. The details are as follows:
Register of Marriages. Dated 1683 - 1687 and 1692 - 1754. Marriages between 1686/7 and 1692 are contained in a different register (Ms 9244). The register is Indexed for the years 1683-6/7 and 1692-1705 (males only). (P69/TRI2/A/008/MS09243).
Register of Marriages. Dated 1679 and 1693 - 1713. The register contains only one entry for 1679 inside the front cover. (P69/TRI2/A/010/MS09245).
There is no information to say why there are two registers covering part of the same period. I regret that no Bishops Transcripts for Holy Trinity Minories exist for the early 18th Century".

So, Pauline, I shall content myself with the explanation that you found in the old guide book. Thank you for that. NB Bob - My mind is set at rest. When I replied to J. Burch, I told him/her what you told me, since he/she obviously didn't know.

I've now looked at quite a few of the other entries and the same pattern repeats itself in all of them: those in MS9243 give more details than MS9245 for all couples.

 

Thanks for all that Gillian, and clearly I was sidetracked into believing it was the 'widower' status of your 6xggf that bothered you and not there being two registers with almost the same information. I admit to getting upset or perturbed when there are 'year' gaps in Registers -as in the LMA response telling some years are in different registers - but not so sure duplicated information would have caused more than a raised eyebrow. (Doubtless I would have come up with an explanation along the lines raised by Peter; although we now know there were no Bishops Transcripts extant for the period). As for the reply from LMA you sum that up well; they simply do not know and sadly you are none the wiser.