Church records to go online for free

contrary · 16-07-2015 8:07am

Was his "rank or profession" a "soldier"; maybe they married wherever the barracks was?

KildareFan · 16-07-2015 8:18am

I have found gaps in the registers - for example, my great grandparents married in Inishbofin in 1877 according to the civil record, but there are no marriages on the Inishbofin marriage register for almost all of 1877. I have seen marriages entered into the baptismal register in other cases so the priest may not have been the best record keeper. The newer registers with preprinted rows and columns probably prevented mixing up the records.

Thomas from Presence · 16-07-2015 4:07pm

Hermy wrote: »

Couldn't send you a message but I wonder could you check this for me.

Ignatius Michael Moore baptism Co. Dublin 1862

It's something I took note of from Roots website a long while back but never noted the parish.

Thanks.

Inbox was overflowing, sorry about that. You've got a PM there!

pjproby · 16-07-2015 8:59pm

Do we know what extra records have been added compared to the church records on IrishGenealogy.ie?

L1011 · 16-07-2015 9:54pm

pjproby wrote: »

Do we know what extra records have been added compared to the church records on IrishGenealogy.ie?

Yes. The entire record set, minus whatever few were on Irish Genealogy originally. There's far, far more in this than there was up before, its much easier to deal with it subtractively

pjproby · 16-07-2015 10:12pm

Thanks for the reply. I am wondering if say it is possible to know what additional records are available for any particular church.

pinkypinky · 16-07-2015 10:18pm

Well, you can just look at the list on Irish Genealogy and cross-reference the parish.

For example, St Andrew's Westland Row, according to this list on irishgenealogy.ie has

Baptisms: 1571 - 1906 (no really, 1571, I checked them, but no images).
Marriages: 1571 - 1897

NLI records start in 1751 and go to 1899.

pjproby · 16-07-2015 10:38pm

Thanks for the reply, much appreciated.

CassieManson · 02-09-2015 1:28pm

I am just finding time now to take a close look at these parish registers and am finding significant discrepancies between the "transcriptions" on roots Ireland and the actual content of the registers - specifically looking at Galway and finding incorrect baptism dates and also in some cases incorrect sponsors. Does anyone else have the same issue? Do we know if roots ireland had direct access to the originals or they are selling transcriptions provided by a third party?

L1011 · 02-09-2015 1:32pm

CassieManson wrote: »

I am just finding time now to take a close look at these parish registers and am finding significant discrepancies between the "transcriptions" on roots Ireland and the actual content of the registers - specifically looking at Galway and finding incorrect baptism dates and also in some cases incorrect sponsors. Does anyone else have the same issue? Do we know if roots ireland had direct access to the originals or they are selling transcriptions provided by a third party?

RootsIreland are generally using indexes entered by people on Fás/AnCo schemes as far back as the mid 1980s and often off the actual books rather than images. The reason stuff keeps coming online in dribs is that there's some further transcription work going on as well as converting data from 1980s formats to an actual searchable DB.

I've found errors also, but I've also found what I suspect is a missed page (in Killucan) that Roots do have transcriptions from - baptisms jump about 8 months on the NLI files.

ozmo · 04-09-2015 12:18am

As great as having access to these is - the quality of the images is really shockingly poor though.

There are master copies of these microfilm kept they could have used if they didn't want to image the books again - or even just cleaned the machine before scanning as there the same visible bright bands appear on several reels.

The *exact* same pages downloaded from IrishGenealogy when available I am finding in much better condition - sharper, no noise, brighter and easier to read - and even in colour sometimes.

blue banana · 04-09-2015 9:46am

wexflyer wrote: »

- For Ferns, the transcription was good.

I didn't realise that the Ferns transcriptions were available. Can you tell me where these are please?

Thanks

pinkypinky · 09-11-2015 7:58pm

Seems the archbishop of Cashel & Emly is grumpy about the digitisation project.

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/taoiseach-gets-belt-of-crozier-over-online-parish-records-1.2422209

That's the same diocese that used to stop the NLI from handing out the microfilms.

L1011 · 09-11-2015 8:15pm

"“These records were never intended for the purpose we use them today. There may be comments like ‘bastard’ or ‘illegitimate’ about babies being baptised,” she said."

Neither was the census, which might have "lunatic". However, the people involved are all dead and that information is priceless.

“We fear it’s only a matter of time before some multinational genealogy companies do their own index. We obviously can’t compete with them,” Ms Kiely said."

You could put your search back to the old format and cut your prices...

Jellybaby1 · 09-11-2015 9:07pm

“The development was largely welcomed at home and abroad, but was described as a “major breach of trust” in a letter to Mr Kenny from the archbishop of Cashel and Emly, Kieran O’Reilly, released to The Irish Times under Freedom of Information”

I have a right to know about my own bloodline. I need to research RC records as there are several mixed marriages in my family.

“Dr O’Reilly said bishops had received representations from local history centres around the country concerned the plan would “gravely jeopardise” their existence and lead to job losses. There were fears income from genealogy enthusiasts would dry up”

The work of the local history centres surely is not religious and has nothing to do with any church so I can’t see (a) why they would go to the Archbishop, and (b) why the Archbishop even mentions this. The local history centres would be giving out the same information that we can access on the internet anyway. They also have no way of knowing if the person making an enquiry are really direct descendants of a family or not. Did the representations of the local history centres go to other religious leaders complaining about the irishgenealogy.ie site? This section is about money, and only money.

“They also noted that this current move by the NLI is a major breach of trust, in that the microfilmed copies of the registers were originally given to the NLP for the purposes of safekeeping and for the safeguarding of an important historical resource.”

What is the point of ‘safeguarding an important historical resource’ and burying it in a hole?

“These records were never intended for the purpose we use them today. There may be comments like ‘bastard’ or ‘illegitimate’ about babies being baptised”

Middle ages thinking. This IS 2015 isn’t it? Surely the majority of the Irish population can deal with this information without having an apoplexy. Also I have heard stories of priests refusing to baptise ‘bastards’. That is what I would call a ‘major breach of trust’ of a true Christian.

pinkypinky · 09-11-2015 9:28pm

Jellybaby1 wrote: »

Middle ages thinking. This IS 2015 isn’t it? Surely the majority of the Irish population can deal with this information without having an apoplexy. Also I have heard stories of priests refusing to baptise ‘bastards’. That is what I would call a ‘major breach of trust’ of a true Christian.

Priest in outdated thinking shocker!!

All good points, Jellybaby1.

pedroeibar1 · 10-11-2015 1:59pm

It’s a turf war thing. Lots of people holding down safe cushy jobs, no commercial pressures until now, afraid of (and to) change, no idea of commercial reality, fearful of their collective futures and what the nasty outside world might do to their sinecures. I agree they are nice and helpful, but so they should be, as paid employees.

In fairness to the RCC I've never heard of a refusal to baptise an illegitimate child and the registers have a surprising number of such records ("Fil. Illeg") in them. (Although I do know of a case where the local national school refused to enroll such a child in 1950's rural Ireland.) Perhaps there is confusion with refusal to bury an unbaptized child in consecrated ground?

Now, if only the crozier/mace/bata/blackthorn could instead be directed to knock some sense into uncle Inda and auntie Heather to get their acts together and do something about online publication of the GRO and more particularly the 1926 Census.

Jellybaby1 · 10-11-2015 11:29pm

There was a case I heard of recently, where a mother brought her 'bastard' child for baptism but the priest refused as she, the mother, had sinned by having the child out of wedlock.

pedroeibar1 · 11-11-2015 10:46am

Jellybaby1 wrote: »

There was a case I heard of recently, where a mother brought her 'bastard' child for baptism but the priest refused as she, the mother, had sinned by having the child out of wedlock.

I don't want to stray too far OT but it is interesting from a genealogical records / Parish records perspective. The official position from the horse's mouth is here (maybe that should be mare's mouth, as the RCC generally regards itself as "!mother church"?)

shanew · 11-11-2015 1:00pm

Response in the IT today to the letter mentioned above : Online Parish Records a boon for researchers

Jellybaby1 · 11-11-2015 11:36pm

pedroeibar1 wrote: »

I don't want to stray too far OT but it is interesting from a genealogical records / Parish records perspective. The official position from the horse's mouth is here (maybe that should be mare's mouth, as the RCC generally regards itself as "!mother church"?)

Thank you for that, I learn something new every day. Like yourself I won't dwell much longer on this subject. I didn't think anyone could refuse anyone the slightest opportunity to know Christ, or to become a Christian. I doubt it would be Christ's view anyway. “I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners” (Mark 2:17)
“Let any one of you who is without sin, be the first to throw a stone at her” (John 8:7)
This was just about to be a long-winded reply but I thought better of it. Apologies Mods. The letter in the IT says it in a nutshell - turf war!

Alan259 · 13-11-2015 5:44pm

Hi,

Does anybody know if Paul Gorry's opinion on the release of the parish registers is still online anywheres? I'v looked through his Facebook page but I can't find it.

I'm thinking of using it in research for a college essay. Thanks.

KildareFan · 13-11-2015 5:54pm

is this it? https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=1073129669369291&id=224048917610708

Alan259 · 13-11-2015 6:06pm

Thanks KildareFan,

That post is on the same theme, but I'm looking for the post that Paul Gorry wrote shortly after the National Library announced that they were going to put the microfilm images of the parish registers online. Thanks again though, that link is going to be very useful for my research.

Alan259 · 13-11-2015 6:10pm

Alan259 wrote: »

Hi,

Does anybody know if Paul Gorry's opinion on the release of the parish registers is still online anywheres? I'v looked through his Facebook page but I can't find it.

I'm thinking of using it in research for a college essay. Thanks.

Just after finding it there, he posted it on January 6, on his Facebook page.

VirginiaB · 16-11-2015 5:09pm

Just wanted to add my two cents as to the importance of free access to these records, especially in comparison to the inadequacies of the IFHF site. I found a child previously unknown to me because I could recognize his parents' names tho the transcriber found it too difficult to attempt. The child filled a gap in births to my great-great grandparents which made me suspect there was an untranscribed baptism. And of course the IFHF was dependent on those transcriptions.

In another parish, the transcriber wrote only an initial for the mother's name and no Godparents' names at all. So that's what I got from the IFHF. Now I have confirmed the mother's full name--another great-great grandmother--and built up a helpful network of close family relatives/friends' names to search in the NYC records.

In that same parish, one of my family was reported as William. I knew it had to be Michael. The image showed the original record to have been only an initial. The transcriber made an honest mistake thinking M was W but then made a dishonest mistake by merrily writing a full name, William, which is simply not there. You would think that the other five children born to this Michael, the only one of the surname in the parish, would have been a clue.

I don't mean to pile on the IFHF. I did find some fantastic info, at significant expense, on their site but their search inadequacies and the very high cost finally pushed me out the door even before the release of these images.

Church records to go online for free

Comments