ESSEX-UK-L Archives

Archiver > ESSEX-UK > 2010-07 > 1278341335


From:
Subject: Re: [Ess] Dedham Parish Registers
Date: Mon, 5 Jul 2010 15:48:55 +0100
References: <7d37cdffd34373ba86101862c1f0efc5.squirrel@webmail.plus.net><000301cb1c42$628f0330$27ad0990$@com>
In-Reply-To: <000301cb1c42$628f0330$27ad0990$@com>


Hi Jim,

thanks for the reminders on Boyd's and Phillimore's marriage indices, I
had forgotten them. Unfortunately I don't believe Phillimore included
Dedham and I checked the online site for Boyd's to no avail. I was
actually largely looking for Baptims during this period, though I will
probably need to look for marriages in the same time frame if I find the
missing baptisms.

I'll keep looking.

Many thanks,

Neil


> Hi Neil
>
> Can't really answer your question but Phillimore has 156-1998 deposited
> at the ERO Colchester, 1560 - 1905 at SOG, 1560 = 1812 Boyd's marriage
> index non conformist 1755 - 1837 at PRO
>
> The ERO seems to have two sites at Chelmsford & Colchester and I am not
> sure if this impacts on SEAX.
>
> Regards
>
> Jim Hill - Melbourne
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [mailto:]
> On Behalf Of
> Sent: Monday, 5 July 2010 10:26 PM
> To:
> Subject: [Ess] Dedham Parish Registers
>
> Good day fellow researchers,
>
> I have been reviewing the Dedham St Mary Parish registers on SEAX and
> have come across a gap which I am wondering if anyone can explain.
> Between 1613 and 1638 there is only one PR entry, a marriage in 1620.
> I have checked LDS and they have a similar gap. The SOG lists start
> dates of 1560 and end dates in 19th/20th centuries but doesn't seem to
> confirm whether there are gaps or not. Does anyone know why this gap
> exists and if there are other documents which might cover it?
>
> Neil
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> Any problems, please contact the List Admin:
> -------------------------------
> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
> with the word 'unsubscribe' without the
> quotes
> in the subject and the body of the message
>
>
>



This thread: