The extracted IGI for Husbands Bosworth, Leicestershire, shows the
baptism, 15 Sept. 1564, of a Jarrat Hadone (no parents named). The
Great Migration sketch of Garrett1 Haddon of Massachusetts shows that
he was born about 1605.
http://www.newenglandancestors.org/rese ... sp?print=1
Could there be some connection?
There are quite a few Hadden/ Haddon baptisms at Husbands Bosworth. Of
particular interest are John Haddon and his wife "Harrald," who had
some children there in the 1630s and 40s. As Leslie Mahler has shown,
the New England immigrant Rice Cole had a wife called "Arrold"; they
were from nearby Great Bowden, Leicestershire.
Origin of Garrett1 Haddon?
Moderator: MOD_nyhetsgrupper
-
John Brandon
Re: Origin of Garrett1 Haddon?
The Great Migration sketch of Rice Cole says this about his son James
Cole:
v JAMES, b. say 1625; m. by 28 August 1655 Ruth _____; she m. (2)
by 16 December 1661 Henry Mudd of Stepney, England. (Apparently Arrald
Cole in her widowhood wrote letters to her daughters and
daughters-in-law living in London in the 1650s; these documents, which
are the source for the remarriage of Ruth (_____) Cole to Henry Mudd,
are said to be in Middlesex Court Files and "quoted by Wyman in his
Abstracts" [Mary E.N. Backus, ed., The New England Ancestry of Dana
Converse Backus (Salem 1949), p. 71; see also Snow-Estes 1:270].)
Two marriages, of James Coles to Ruth Cotterell and of Ruth Cole to
Henry Mudd, are in the extracted IGI for Stepney, London --
James Coles + Ruth Cotterell, 29 April 1655
Ruth Cole + Henry Mudd, 4 May 1657
Cole:
v JAMES, b. say 1625; m. by 28 August 1655 Ruth _____; she m. (2)
by 16 December 1661 Henry Mudd of Stepney, England. (Apparently Arrald
Cole in her widowhood wrote letters to her daughters and
daughters-in-law living in London in the 1650s; these documents, which
are the source for the remarriage of Ruth (_____) Cole to Henry Mudd,
are said to be in Middlesex Court Files and "quoted by Wyman in his
Abstracts" [Mary E.N. Backus, ed., The New England Ancestry of Dana
Converse Backus (Salem 1949), p. 71; see also Snow-Estes 1:270].)
Two marriages, of James Coles to Ruth Cotterell and of Ruth Cole to
Henry Mudd, are in the extracted IGI for Stepney, London --
James Coles + Ruth Cotterell, 29 April 1655
Ruth Cole + Henry Mudd, 4 May 1657
-
Gjest
Re: Origin of Garrett1 Haddon?
John Brandon schrieb:
One of the problems, of course, with the IGI is that it contains many
(to put it bluntly) fictional entries. It is not unknown to check the
original parish register against an IGI statement and find it does not
exist (ditto in any relevant BTs) - if one were charitable, one could
assume it came from another source, e.g. a family letter or other
primary document, but one must nevertheless treat the IGI only as a
guide, not as a source.
MAR
The extracted IGI for Husbands Bosworth, Leicestershire, shows the
baptism, 15 Sept. 1564, of a Jarrat Hadone (no parents named). The
Great Migration sketch of Garrett1 Haddon of Massachusetts shows that
he was born about 1605.
http://www.newenglandancestors.org/rese ... sp?print=1
Could there be some connection?
One of the problems, of course, with the IGI is that it contains many
(to put it bluntly) fictional entries. It is not unknown to check the
original parish register against an IGI statement and find it does not
exist (ditto in any relevant BTs) - if one were charitable, one could
assume it came from another source, e.g. a family letter or other
primary document, but one must nevertheless treat the IGI only as a
guide, not as a source.
MAR
-
Gjest
Re: Origin of Garrett1 Haddon?
John Brandon schrieb:
PCC Wills again: probate of the will of Thomas Haddon of Bosworth
(sic), Leicestershire, yeoman, 24 October 1595 (PROB 11/86)
MAR
The extracted IGI for Husbands Bosworth, Leicestershire, shows the
baptism, 15 Sept. 1564, of a Jarrat Hadone (no parents named). The
Great Migration sketch of Garrett1 Haddon of Massachusetts shows that
he was born about 1605.
http://www.newenglandancestors.org/rese ... sp?print=1
Could there be some connection?
There are quite a few Hadden/ Haddon baptisms at Husbands Bosworth.
PCC Wills again: probate of the will of Thomas Haddon of Bosworth
(sic), Leicestershire, yeoman, 24 October 1595 (PROB 11/86)
MAR
-
Nathaniel Taylor
IGI & extractions (was Re: Origin of Garrett1 Haddon?)
In article <1132784319.886637.42600@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>,
mjcar@btinternet.com wrote:
This is true, generally. But John is way ahead of that. He has been
systematically checking known holes in Great-Migration era prosopography
against the IGI, and paying attention only to IGI hits connected to
*extracted* data (here, usually the parish register or the bishops'
transcripts). There is lots of this sort of thing that can now be done,
as John is doing, which will generate lots of fill-ins in US colonial
prosopography. The same approach could surely be taken for Australians
& other groups of emigres, who can now be searched much more fruitfully
than ever before. Of course, given the known potential of errors
(especially errors of omission) in IGI extractions, the most significant
leads should be followed up by due diligence in the original registers.
Extractions versus patron submissions: Each IGI record is keyed to
batch number (a data-entry group). Each batch is is *either* a dataset
culled from 'patron submissions' (full of the redundancy associated with
open contributory databases, and full of the errors and fictions to be
expected from the vast majority of modern amateur genealogists), *or* a
systematic indexing of a particular primary source (e.g. a parish
register or BT, etc.). How do you distinguish extractions from
submissions? There SHOULD be a simple binary flag, with a filter at the
main search level, but there is not. It is not really possible to tell,
when looking at a list of hits from a general IGI search, which are
submissions & which are extractions. One has to click on each record
within the main search result list view, to check. But sometimes the
extractions do stand out in the results list because they might be the
only ones where the place entry is complete and accurate, or where an
unusual spelling variant appears, or where the all caps convention is
observed for names. The distinction is only visible at the individual
record screen: an extracted entry will bear the caption "Extracted ...
record for the locality listed in the record", while a patron submission
will say something like "Record submitted ... by a member of the LDS
Church."
There is no way to filter a search to return only extracted records
generally, except searching by a specific batch. It's not well known,
but if you know the batch number corresponding to a particular parish
register extraction, you can systematically search the whole batch. One
way to get batch numbers for PR extractions is to start from an
extracted record you've found (where the record states "Extracted ...
record for the locality listed in the record"). Clicking on the batch
number at the bottom of that record's screen brings you back to the main
IGI search screen, except the batch number is now filled in for the
'batch' field on the search screen. For a single-batch search, unlike
general IGI searches, you can leave almost every field blank to return
all hits connected to that batch--or, if you wish, specify a 40-year
date range or just a particular surname, or even just a particular given
name, etc.
Another way to get batch numbers for particular parishes is to use the
excellent website prepared by Hugh Wallis, which consists of lists of
known IGI primary-source extraction batches for England and elsewhere,
arranged geographically and alphabetically. Clicking on a batch number
in Hugh Wallis's website produces a page which prefiles a
surname-specific search within that batch and sends you to the hits on
the LDS site. Hugh Wallis's website is essentially a 'hack' in that it
is not an official LDS finding aid, and it provides search functionality
not available at the IGI's own site. Hugh Wallis' list of batches was
assembled, he says, by an automated crawl, systematically querying the
IGI for all possible batch numbers. It has not been updated in a while
(apparently since 2002), and may be out of date--but it is extremely
useful for what it contains. The best entry point to this phenomenal
hack is here:
http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com ... umbers.htm
As I said, one IGI search filter capability I've always wanted is the
possibility to do a search limited to all batches representing primary
source extractions, rather than batch-by-batch for extracted batches.
Since extraction batches are apparently distinguished from patron
submission batches by the first letter of the batch number, I thought
this might be accomplished by using wildcards in the batch field, but I
have had no success playing with this, and I don't think wildcards work.
Nat Taylor
a genealogist's sketchbook:
http://home.earthlink.net/~nathanieltaylor/leaves/
my children's 17th-century American immigrant ancestors:
http://home.earthlink.net/~nathanieltay ... rantsa.htm
mjcar@btinternet.com wrote:
John Brandon schrieb:
The extracted IGI for Husbands Bosworth, Leicestershire, shows the
baptism, 15 Sept. 1564, of a Jarrat Hadone (no parents named). The
Great Migration sketch of Garrett1 Haddon of Massachusetts shows that
he was born about 1605.
http://www.newenglandancestors.org/rese ... on/H.asp?p
rint=1
Could there be some connection?
One of the problems, of course, with the IGI is that it contains many
(to put it bluntly) fictional entries. It is not unknown to check the
original parish register against an IGI statement and find it does not
exist (ditto in any relevant BTs) - if one were charitable, one could
assume it came from another source, e.g. a family letter or other
primary document, but one must nevertheless treat the IGI only as a
guide, not as a source.
This is true, generally. But John is way ahead of that. He has been
systematically checking known holes in Great-Migration era prosopography
against the IGI, and paying attention only to IGI hits connected to
*extracted* data (here, usually the parish register or the bishops'
transcripts). There is lots of this sort of thing that can now be done,
as John is doing, which will generate lots of fill-ins in US colonial
prosopography. The same approach could surely be taken for Australians
& other groups of emigres, who can now be searched much more fruitfully
than ever before. Of course, given the known potential of errors
(especially errors of omission) in IGI extractions, the most significant
leads should be followed up by due diligence in the original registers.
Extractions versus patron submissions: Each IGI record is keyed to
batch number (a data-entry group). Each batch is is *either* a dataset
culled from 'patron submissions' (full of the redundancy associated with
open contributory databases, and full of the errors and fictions to be
expected from the vast majority of modern amateur genealogists), *or* a
systematic indexing of a particular primary source (e.g. a parish
register or BT, etc.). How do you distinguish extractions from
submissions? There SHOULD be a simple binary flag, with a filter at the
main search level, but there is not. It is not really possible to tell,
when looking at a list of hits from a general IGI search, which are
submissions & which are extractions. One has to click on each record
within the main search result list view, to check. But sometimes the
extractions do stand out in the results list because they might be the
only ones where the place entry is complete and accurate, or where an
unusual spelling variant appears, or where the all caps convention is
observed for names. The distinction is only visible at the individual
record screen: an extracted entry will bear the caption "Extracted ...
record for the locality listed in the record", while a patron submission
will say something like "Record submitted ... by a member of the LDS
Church."
There is no way to filter a search to return only extracted records
generally, except searching by a specific batch. It's not well known,
but if you know the batch number corresponding to a particular parish
register extraction, you can systematically search the whole batch. One
way to get batch numbers for PR extractions is to start from an
extracted record you've found (where the record states "Extracted ...
record for the locality listed in the record"). Clicking on the batch
number at the bottom of that record's screen brings you back to the main
IGI search screen, except the batch number is now filled in for the
'batch' field on the search screen. For a single-batch search, unlike
general IGI searches, you can leave almost every field blank to return
all hits connected to that batch--or, if you wish, specify a 40-year
date range or just a particular surname, or even just a particular given
name, etc.
Another way to get batch numbers for particular parishes is to use the
excellent website prepared by Hugh Wallis, which consists of lists of
known IGI primary-source extraction batches for England and elsewhere,
arranged geographically and alphabetically. Clicking on a batch number
in Hugh Wallis's website produces a page which prefiles a
surname-specific search within that batch and sends you to the hits on
the LDS site. Hugh Wallis's website is essentially a 'hack' in that it
is not an official LDS finding aid, and it provides search functionality
not available at the IGI's own site. Hugh Wallis' list of batches was
assembled, he says, by an automated crawl, systematically querying the
IGI for all possible batch numbers. It has not been updated in a while
(apparently since 2002), and may be out of date--but it is extremely
useful for what it contains. The best entry point to this phenomenal
hack is here:
http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com ... umbers.htm
As I said, one IGI search filter capability I've always wanted is the
possibility to do a search limited to all batches representing primary
source extractions, rather than batch-by-batch for extracted batches.
Since extraction batches are apparently distinguished from patron
submission batches by the first letter of the batch number, I thought
this might be accomplished by using wildcards in the batch field, but I
have had no success playing with this, and I don't think wildcards work.
Nat Taylor
a genealogist's sketchbook:
http://home.earthlink.net/~nathanieltaylor/leaves/
my children's 17th-century American immigrant ancestors:
http://home.earthlink.net/~nathanieltay ... rantsa.htm