Genealogy Chat

Elizabeth Joy or Ivy is the mother of the John Thomas Keen who married Sarah Emily who I cannot find in 1871 or 1881 and nobody else can. I am going to send for one of the childrens birth certs and see if the mother is Joy or Ivy, why didnt I think of that???

sorry been away longer than expected , not at the Gym all this time ,but had unwelcome visitors how dare they spoil my evening, searching for dead rellies. Thanks very much for all your inputs I am now going to read them .

I hyave Ivy in my Tree (lol) and I can tell you that it is VERY easily misread as Joy, due to the cursive capital 'I' and 'J' looking almost identical.Add to that a sloppily written 'v' and Ivy becomes Joy! Olde Crone

nudge in case Valerie has got back!

Isn't Elizabeth Joy the birth name of the person Valerie was expecting to merry John Keen?? Valerie has an Elizabeth Joy in her tree born in 1815. Val is at the gym at the mo!! Merry

Anyway, the details given are year 1834, church Christchurch Newgate, so if you can get access to the parish records for that church, you can see what you think it says there. It looks from google as though the church is Christchurch, Newgate Street, (London) and that the parish records are at the Guildhall Library in London, but I guess there will also be copies elsewhere, e.g. the London Metropolitan Archives? Ah - I think I know where you got 'Joy' from now, I've just looked on FamilySearch and it says: JOHN SAMUEL KEEN Male Family -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Event(s): Birth: Christening: Death: Burial: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Marriages: Spouse: ELIZABETH JOY Family Marriage: 16 NOV 1834 Christ Church Greyfriars Newgate, London, London, England so, that just means that whoever transcribed the parish records for the IGI thought it said 'Joy' and whoever indexed it for Pallot's thought it said 'Ivy'. You really need to get a look at the parish records yourself or find some kind person to look it up for you and decide what it really says. But if they had a child born after the start of civil registration in 1837 then it should tell you her maiden name on the child's birth certificate anyway. Kate. Kate.

John Keen Elizth Ivy 1834 Christchurch looked at the image - it definitely says 'Ivy', and the groom's name is given as Keen John Saml. Elizth Ivy John Keen 1834 Christchurch Newgate London lookeed at the image - it definitely says 'Ivy', and the groom's name is given as John Saml. Keen By the way, the 's' after Elizabeth's name means 'spinster' and the 'b' after John's 'bachelor'. Now, I just don't know where you got the name Elizabeth Joy from... Kate.

No, never mind, I've found it now, just looking at the image... back soon Kate.

The Pallot's marriage entries are supposed to be from before Civil Registration started, so there was no such thing as a registrar when the marriages took place. I believe you asked about this a few weeks ago, and I have just been looking at your old thread about it where you give the groom's name as John Samuel Keen and the bride's as Elizabeth Joy or Elizabeth Ivy, but I can't for the life of me find the entry on ancestry to see if it looks like a transcription error! Can you tell us how you found it? It's starting to bug me that I can't find it! Kate.

When your couple got married they would have told the vicar their names and he would have written them inthe register. They would then sign the register, but may not have been able to read or write in which case the vicar wrote their names and they marked with a cross. Then, perhaps years later along came Mr Pallot and his helpers to look at the registers and copy some of the details onto little slips of paper which were stored at the Society of Genealogists as an index to all those london registers. So the vicar could have miswritten a name. The bride and groom may not have been able to read his mistake or may have had grotty handwriting. The indexers may have had trouble reading the register or have written this particular slip at the end of a session when they were tired and prone to mistakes. If you look at the Pallot's entries on Ancestry then more mistakes could have crept in as someone has had to read the index slips and transcribe them onto the database.

Valerie Pallots index is an index. It was written from original records and would have been done either by Mr Pallot or one of his helpers. Nothing whatever to do with the original priest or the couple, anymore than the old handwritten GRO indexes would have been. nell

thanks Alan the copy I have the husbands name is definitely written differently to the wifes so thought maybe they had written it themselves. Oh well Bed I think now goodnight

thanks helen you have been busy, but I am still unclear were they filled in by an official or the couple ???

From Ancestry: 'Pallot's Index to Marriages is essential for researchers with London ancestry, as it covers all but two of the 103 parishes in the old City of London. The dates span the time from 1780 to the onset of General Registration in 1837. The more than 1.7 million marriage entries come mainly from London and Middlesex, but also include entries from 2500 parishes in 38 counties outside of London--many not available in other sources. Also included are several records from counties in Wales. With indexing beginning in 1813, several of the registers transcribed in Pallot's index no longer exist, having been destroyed or lost. The index slips were handwritten on paper slips, and indexing continued regularly over a period of more than 150 years.. The original paper slips of the Pallot Index are owned and held at The Institute of Heraldic and Genealogical Studies, Canterbury, Kent, England. The Institute may have access to fuller details which may have survived among the original parish records. (www.ihgs.ac.uk) The Institute is a not-for-profit educational organization and researches in the records themselves can be arranged. Please visit their website for additional information about the services they provide.' nell

thanks I will have to see what I can do about that

Pallots is just an index, compiled (I think) in the early 1900s, certainly before WW2. It is subject to error like any other index. Whether you use Pallots, the IGI or any other transcript, you need to look at the actual register.

was it written by the couple or the registrar I have one she is named Elizabeth Joy but it looks like Elizabeth Ivy wondered if it was written by the person herself