How much can I trust information I have from the old IGI?

Question

I have information on some of my trees, especially going from the 1800s back to the 1700s, and I copied this information from the IGI back around 2004-2005. These births, marriages and baptisms often included the parents names, which really helped to build up the family tree.

Here is one example of a person whose information I obtained 12 years go

Wife
Sarah Bishop Matthews Pedigree
 Birth:  06 MAR 1776  Colyton, Devon, England
Christening:     
Marriage:  29 MAY 1798  Colyton, Devon, England
Death:     
Burial:     
Father:   Phillip Matthews Family
Mother:   Sarah Bishop

Sarah Bishop Matthews married Robert Spiller in 1798.

Anyway -  now Family Search do this silly registration thing in which all parents are removed and we only have the childs name or the names of the two getting married and no other corroborating details.

Can I still trust the IGI details I got from 12 years ago? I am inclined to trust that far more than I do the silly useless index we have these days.

I'm thinking also that perhaps this information is hard to get because places like Ancestry and Find my Past now "own" that information and we have to pay to see it. I simply cannot afford that.

Answer 1

You have to trace everything to its source.

IGI began as a collection of unsourced contributions.  These were highly unreliable.

Later they started a program of systematically transcribing sources.  This info was much better (though officially it was still only a finding aid - you were supposed to get the microfilm of the source sent to your LDS center).

But they didn't keep the good stuff separate, they mixed it all up.  Worse, if they found duplicates, they suppressed the sourced transcription and showed you the unsourced user-contrib.

Now they're trying to sort out the mess.

What you've got probably comes from here

https://familysearch.org/ark:/61903/2:1:94SS-9TB

As you see on the left, the source is "Patron submissions".  This is bad news.

If you search again, the christening is here

https://familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:NRMZ-8FZ

and the mother is shown as Jemima Bishop, not Sarah.  (And Philip is spelt the old way with one L.)

What you need from here is the film number, 962973.  Go to Catalog, click Film/Fiche Number, enter the number.  That takes you to this:

https://familysearch.org/search/catalog/248905?availability=Family%20History%20Library

So the Devon and Cornwall Record Society published the Colyton register in 1928.  Seems like the LDS bought one volume and photocopied the other and put them on microfilm.

Then presumably a volunteer with a microfilm reader copied it all onto data sheets and a punch-card operator punched it all onto cards etc. 

But obviously that's just the christening.  The marriage and the christenings of the children are all separate records.  You have to put them together.

In the "patron submission", somebody has put it all together already.  In this case they may be right.  But you shouldn't assume they have any more knowledge than you do.

 

Comments

Thank you RJ that was very helpful.

I would really really prefer to not have to go to an LDS FHC if i can avoid it, The nearest one to where I live takes 2 buses and a train just to get there!!!

The only problem now is that I cannot seem to find a marriage for Philip Matthews and Jemima Bishop.

---

I suspect there wasn't one.

I was just thinking it's unusual to find a mother's maiden name in a baptism record.

And the marriage record says Robert Spiller married Sarah Bishop, not Sarah Matthews.

There's a gotcha here.  A baptism will usually say something like "Mary daughter of John Smith", and the IGI transcriber will enter her on the sheet as "Mary Smith".

This bites with illegitimate births where the vicar only names one parent, because the child might use the other parent's name.

In this case, it looks like the vicar named both parents, but the name "Sarah Bishop Matthews" was the transcriber's invention.

As for LDS centers, there are alternatives now.  The 1928 book doesn't seem to be online yet, but the FindMyPast site has images of Devon registers, and free weekends sometimes.

---

Thank you very much RJ. Again that was very helpful.

---

Thinking about it some more - Philip and Jemima must have been married, There were 8 children born in Colyton between 1772 and 1785 with parents  - Philip Matthews and Jemima Bishop. Children as follows -

Philip, Thomas, Sarah Bishop, John (died at 12 days), Richard Newberry, Kerenhappuch, Robert and Mary.

I dont think Philip and Jemima would continue having kids if they were not married. This is Devon, England where illegitimacy was seriously frowned upon.

---

I see your point.  The vicar before 1777 was a good registrar - he recorded dates of birth and mothers' maiden names systematically.

So who did Robert Spiller marry?  Sarah Matthews or Sarah Bishop?

---

Pallot's marriage index (which is just what it says an index of paper slips)  and  is unfortunately lodged on ancestry has

(in ink) Matthews Sarah Bishop= Robt Spiller of Branscombe

( Stamped )Colyton, Dev (unreadable may be a Roman numeral)  

(in ink) Lic 1798

These people might be helpful

http://colytonheritagecentre.org/family-history/

---

I'm hoping Robert married Sarah Matthews - because then I can claim a new connection. Sarah Matthews daughter Hannah Spiller married back into my Burrow family!!

If he married Sarah Bishop - whomever she is - then I most likely wont get that connection!!  LOL

---

Helen,

I have sent an email off to the Colyton Heritage group asking some questions. Thank you for that.

Answer 2

This may be a help for you to read this wiki article

regarding the old IGI.  

https://familysearch.org/wiki/en/International_Genealogical_Index

For me, I would give my eye teeth to have it back as it once was, and of course Ancestry.com had not risen it's head which gave us the opportunity for collaboration through many on line researchers over a long period of time which resulted in "fine tuned" results.

Comments

Thanks Linda.

Answer 3

You are in luck!  Ancestry.cm is offering free access to their British records, but only until the end of today (Feb. 20).  Sarah's baptism record and her marriage record to Robert Spiller are available.  The 1841 census lists them with two of their sons.  Other records may also be available.

If you miss today's free access, the records also are available for free every day on FamilySearch.org.  You need to register for an account, but it is free.  This site also lists the source information below each record, so you can cut and paste it into WikiTree as a good citation.

Comments

Yeah but I have to join them as in take out a membership - give them my credit card details - just for me to get ONE record -  and then I have to manually CANCEL the membership so they dont charge me.

This is why I detest Ancestry - every time they dangle a free weekend, it always comes with conditions!!!

Sorry but that hassle is just not worth it.

---

You should definitely look at FamilySearch.org.  You must register for an account, but it is always free for everyone since it is run by a non-profit organization. 

---

Star, You do not have to register on familysearch.org. There have only been a few times in my research that I had to sign in, and then it was only to view the document in question. You are correct that an account is free to everyone and worth the time to register but most documents can be viewed without having an account and all of the indexed records can be viewed without an account.