Find Ancestors

Glynis, a request - if the people suggesting things are doing it through the GR system, could you get them to post here instead of PMing? You may be talking about other family members not at this site, but just in case.

Just did a search of this board for the surname.

Have a look at this thread!

http://www.genesreunited.co.uk/boards.asp?wci=thread&tk=922462

I've been reinventing the wheel. ;)

-- I'll copy that text here --

------------------------------------------------------------

Henry KERRIDGE was baptised 9 Apr 1819 at Purleigh, son of Joseph and Sarah KERRIDGE. He married 24 Jun 1842 at Purleigh to Elizabeth MECKLENBURGH, (she was a minor, born c1824, dau of Matthias). I extracted this from a transcript at the Society of Genealogists back in 1992. I have his surname in the transcript as KARRIDGE.

They had children: Susannah, Henry, Edward & Emma. I believe that Elizabeth died and Henry married again between 1861 and 1871 to an Ann E (born c1824 Barking).

Henry was a greengrocer, and died age 66 in the Union House Romford 28 Apr 1886.

------------------------------------------------------------

Also this one:

http://www.genesreunited.co.uk/boards.asp?wci=thread&tk=1175559

in which Ann o' GG posted this birth among others:

WM. PICKESS MECLINGBOURGH - Christening: 09 DEC 1827 Chelmsford, Essex, England

and referring also to this duplicate thread:

http://www.genesreunited.co.uk/boards.asp?wci=thread&tk=1174820


And yes, I should have followed the little voice before. I was all over both of them. ;)

What led me to this Matthias and Elizabeth is the fact that in 1851 census, transcribed Mecklingburgh, (where Sarah is living with Elizabeth and siblings? Samuel and Mary Ann) Matthias is not present. So Journeyman Miller suggests he may travel around.
Also Elizabeth is born in Bentley, Suffolk so I thought it possible that the marriage would have been held in Suffolk but the couple then resided in Essex.
Matthias is also absent from home in the 1841 census, transcribed Micklenburgh.
In 1961 it is just Matthias Mecklingburgh b.1800 East Bergolt , journeyman miller and Daughter Sarah age 19.

I have messaged someone on GR and hope they will have some information that will help.

Just to keep everyone up to date...

My aunt has looked at the marriage record for Sarah and Thomas in Dovercourt and it definitely states Matthias as the father.

I have had contact from the person who amended the 1841 census name record and she is sure Matthias was the father.

I am still waiting for 2 people to reply from Genesreunited where they have the family listed.

Thanks everyone.

Welllll ;)

As noted, marriage certificates / parish records are definitely not authoritative sources for fathers!

(My gr-grfather married under a fake surname in 1883 and gave himself a fake father to match, for just one example. I spent a long time trying to find a father Francis Monck who never existed.)

So I guess I'm curious what makes the person who did the amendment sure about it!

Problem is that all the other children's records in the IGI

Results for: England, British Isles
Father: Matthias Mecklinburgh, Mother: Elizabeth
International Genealogical Index / British Isles

are submitted ones, so there's nothing to be inferred from the absence of Sarah ...

The oldest child in that list is actually William born 1836 (mother Elizabeth Pickless) so it doesn't seem like a particularly reliable list anyway ... unless Mary Ann c1838 was also a grandchild. ;)

Births Jun 1838
Mecklenburgh Mary Ann Maldon 12 131

In any event, if Sarah was in fact the daughter of Matthias and Elizabeth, the only way to find a record is going to be to look in parish records for Purleigh (which aren't in the IGI), since the birth just wasn't registered. Which is odd, since Mary Ann's was.



Oh, and I do see that Elizabeth and Matthias, in the 1851, were born in Suffolk, him in East Bergholt, so I'm unconfused on that point now. ;)

For info:

http://seax.essexcc.gov.uk/result_details.asp?DocID=44792

Repository: - Essex Record Office
Level: Category - Parish Records
Level: Fonds - PURLEIGH, ALL SAINTS
Level: Sub-Fonds - INCUMBENT
Level: Series - Service of Church : Registers of Baptisms, Marriages and Burials

Level: Item
Reference Code D/P 197/1/11
Dates of Creation 1813-1859
Extent 1 vol.
Scope and Content Baptisms
At back: notes on Eveleigh Rooms (Old Parochial School), 1922
Date From 1813
Date To 1859

The document (and others) can be ordered to view at the Record Office.

Thanks JaneyCanuck,
See you are still working away on my behalf...for which I am grateful.
Still waiting for replies to my mails to 2 GR members.
I will pass the Essex Record office details you posted on to my Aunt who has a thing against computers and likes the old fashioned way of researching.
And yes, it is still bugging me why all the other children have their births recorded yet nothing on Sarah.
It may take a while but I will keep updating my progress so that all the helpers can see the fruits of their labours.

But remember --

- births were not recorded, before 1837; baptisms were, but only in local parish records

- the "records" in the IGI, for the older children, are not transcriptions of parish records done by the people who compiled local records for the IGI - they are information submitted by Mormons who either transcribed it or made it up for their own purposes

So, so far, we don't have "records" of any of the children *except* Mary Ann, who was born after 1837 and whose birth was registered. I would want to get that certificate, to make sure that Matthias and Elizabeth were her parents, too. ;)

There may well be a record of the baptism of Sarah, and of all the others, in Essex parish records. Those particular records, for Purleigh, just aren't included in the IGI.

See here for info about that:

http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~hughwallis/IGIBatchNumbers/CountyEssex.htm#P

Purleigh isn't included in the parishes for which there are records in the IGI. That's why there's nothing to be found on line, but in all probability the records are sitting there on paper. ;) Even for Sarah - *if* she was baptised in Purleigh (and not, e.g., Chelmsford - for which only some non-CofE records are in the IGI).

Well JaneyCanuck, if you are out there, here's a thing.

Maybe I should have done what you suggested days ago.
I have just been trawling through all the quarters of 1841 and 1842 images under Meck* and Mick* to see if Sarah had been omitted from the transcriptions.

I had checked them all except O/N/D 1841 where I couldn't seem to get a search result for Mick*. So I tried Mic* and still nothing. Seemed a bit suspicious so I plumped for searching Mid* and linked through to the images via 'Male Middl_Yard'.
On the page I found a Sarah Mickleburgh but I couldn't read the registration district. I'm afraid it didn't look anything like a district I wanted to see.
Anyway, I did a search on Ancestry to see if I got a result for that Sarah and...nothing.
So, I noted down several other entries from the image page and tried searching for them. All of them came up blank on the Ancestry search.

So, I am hoping someone else will take a look and see if I am correct in thinking that many of the entries on this page have not been transcribed. And also see if they can read the registration district for Sarah Meckleburgh.
1841 > Oct/Nov/Dec > M > Image 102

Thank you, in anticipation, for your time.

Oh no! (Did I suggest that really??)

I'll take your word for the missing transcriptions -- it does happen.

FreeBMD has directions for how to report it.

When you click the "info" button next to an entry, you get the page that gives you the link for corrections

"If you have a correction to this entry, please click here."

The corrections page for the entry then says:

"If you have identified that an entry on a transcribed page has not been transcribed you should attach a correction to the immediately preceding entry (use a wildcard search to get surrounding entries) filling in the details of the missing entry. The Source field must contain the words "missing entry" in addition to indicating where you got the information from (e.g. a FreeBMD scan)."

The problem is, you have to know that first, just to get to the right corrections page! So, since I knew it was there, I just clicked a random search result I had open to find it for you.

So you know what to do becuase you've done it. Although they want the entry *preceding* the missing ones, so you might have to hope for a Mib*. ;)

There are better images at Ancestry, in case you were looking at FreeBMD.

http://search.ancestry.co.uk/search/db.aspx?dbid=8912

"To browse this image set, select from the options below."

Okay ... 1841, Q4 ... initial M ... oh crap, they don't let you refine it more than that? Oh, but you say 102, phew, thank you for the clear directions.

Okay, Mickleburgh (not Meckleburgh, I think, from surrounding names), Alfred William, Camberwell, then Sarah ... hmm. Okay, comparing that against the list of reg dists at the FreeBMD search form ... Guiltcross. Pretty sure.

http://www.ukbmd.org.uk/genuki/reg/districts/guiltcross.html

It's in Norfolk. Not entirely impossible ... but could be a cousin.

There are a few Sarah Mic*s of that age in Norfolk in 1851 (no Sarah Mec*s), but not to match the location ... but that child could have died before 1851 ....

Nowt for it but to make your own reading of the data and order the certificate!

Do a search at FreeBMD for all births in Guiltcross Dec 1841.

The volume number matches: 13.

Oh. And Sarah is there!

Mickleburgh Sarah Guiltcross 13 14[5_]

I would read it rather as 143, comparing to others on the page -- you can include a note when you order the certificate.

Thanks JaneyCanuck, you work fast.
I was so hoping I would find that this was Sarah born in Purleigh / Witham /Maldon or wherever.
I'll work on reporting the missing transcriptions.