Spot the Differences - Index -> Transcription -> Original

Have you ever come across a record when you are doing your genealogy and family history research that just didn't quite make sense but you went with it anyways? That is often the case when we are using indexes or transcriptions to aid us in the quest to fill in the blanks in the lives of our ancestors. However, by doing so those records can sometimes provide us with wrong information, throw us off track, or even confuse us further. Here is one such case in my own tree...

For a few years years I had the marriage of William Warrener and Ann Rudsdale recorded as happening on 5 Jul 1807 in Hutton Bushel, Yorkshire, England. That information came from the "England, Select Marriages, 1538–1973" index on Ancestry:

Screen capture of the index page for Wm. Warner in the England, Select Marriages, 1538–1973 collection on Ancestry.com

Later I learned about the Family History Library (FHL) microfilms and when their digitization project took off I was even happier. Since there is a FHL Film Number specified in the index entry I knew I should be able to view the film from which this index was created, assuming it had been digitized. Maybe there is additional information recorded in the source document. 

In May 2018 I did just that. Here is the snippet from where the index was created. That information came from transcriptions made in 1940 by Edward P. Stapleton. This transcription was microfilmed, and later digitized, by the folks at FamilySearch:

"England, Marriages, 1538–1973," database, FamilySearch, FamilySearch (www.familysearch.org : accessed 28 Jun 2012), Wm. Warner and Ann Rudsdale, 5 Jul 1807, Parish of Hutton-Bushel, Yorkshire; citing Marriage Records, FHL microfilm 558,353.

Do you see any issues with what has been transcribed for Wm Warrener of Hackness and Ann Rudsdale of H.B?

The first issue I noticed was the difference of names for the spouse of Ann Rudsdale. Assuming that there aren't two Ann Rudsdales of Hutton-Bushel marrying two different Williams of Hackness, her future husband is recorded as having the surname of "Warrener" in the banns and "Warner" in the marriage. Of course, that might be just how the names were recorded in the register so that can be easily explained.

How about the banns?

For those that aren't aware, the banns are the public announcements made in the church in the weeks prior to the marriage to allow anyone to object to the couple being wed based on little pesky details such as one of the parties already being married to someone else or the couple being related though a prohibited kinship¹. The banns were usually read three consecutive Sundays unless there were extenuating circumstances.

If William and Ann had their banns read in the church on June 23, July 5, and July 12 how could they have been married on July 5?

This had always bothered me but I never did anything about it. However, with the ongoing microfilm digitization project by the wonderful folks that operate FamilySearch, many records are becoming available to us long-distance researchers. Recently I noticed that the parish registers for Hutton Bushel had been digitized but only viewable at a Family History Center or affiliate. I made a to-do item for myself for the next time I visited the Family History Center (about once a month). There could be even more information in the original document not found in the transcription.

Here is what I recently found in the parish register:

Parish of Hutton-Bushell (Hutton-Bushell, Yorkshire, England), "Marriages, banns, 1754-1816, 1822," Banns and marriage of William Warner and Ann Rudsdale, married 25 Jul 1807; FHL microfilm DGS 100557722, item 1, image 34.

From the various handwriting in the signatures it would seem that this might have been recorded at the time of the wedding². From the register it appears to state:

"Banns of Marriage between William Warner of the Parish of Hackness & Ann Rudsdale of Hutton Bushel were published June 21 28 and 5 of July"

also

"William Warner of the Parish of Hackness Bachelor and Ann Rudsdale Spinster of the Parish of Hutton Buschel Married in this Church by Banns this twenty fifth Day of July in the Year One Thousand Seven eight Hundred and seven..."

Oops, not just additional information was found but very different facts! 

It looks the transcription was just a little off. The banns were published not on June 23, July 5 and, July 12 but on June 21, June 28, and July 5. The marriage didn't take place on July 5 but on July 25. Well, at least the year is correct. Additionally, in the three places William is mentioned in the register his surname has been recorded as "Warner". Of course, I don't know if this is the record that Mr. Stapleton was using for creating his transcriptions.

Yet, this is why relying only on indexes and transcriptions can cause you grief in your efforts to document the family history of a line. Often the index or transcription is missing information or can even have the wrong details.

Whenever possible, try to locate the source of a transcription or index. If the document isn't readily available due to distance or cost at least make a to-do entry for yourself to periodically check for it being available online via the various digitization projects. You might just be pleasantly surprised at what you find.

---

1. See the Table of Kindred and Affinity in the 1760 printing of the "The book of common prayer and administration of the sacraments, and other rites and ceremonies of the Church, according to the use of the Church of England : together with the Psalter, or, Psalms of David, pointed as they are to be sung or said in churches" at https://archive.org/details/bookofcommonpray00chur_4/page/n693.

2. Anyone else get excited when they come across the signature on a document of their ancestor?