Forums
Hello Editor,
It's been a while since I have posted here.
I was wanting your opinion of a record I purchased from an OS archive, that was sent to me as an email attachment, late last year.
This is my current attempt at citing this document.
All Saints (Newmarket, Suffolk, England), Register of Baptisms, Marriages and Burials, 1622-1739, unpaginated, "Christenings 1733," unnumbered entries, "Benjamin ye Son of Richard & Dinah Boyes"; Reference Number: FL609/4/1, Suffolk Archives, England. Single page document imaged from the original church register by the Suffolk Record Office (Bury St Edmunds Branch), received as an email attachment, 31 December 2020. The entry for Benjamin is quite faint and it is difficult to ascertain the exact day/month in 1733.
Any improvement suggestions would be gratefully received.
All the best, Robyn
Robyn, you've done a superb…
Robyn, you've done a superb job. Just a couple of quibbles come to mind:
Many Thanks, EE. The…
Many Thanks, EE.
The background to this record is, that I originally found an index for the baptism at FamilySearch, which I attached to his profile in May 2020. When I look at that record now, it shows when I attached it (May 2020), but the citation offered at FS now shows 18 September 2020. I am presuming that this the date that they perhaps last updated this database, I don't really know, but maybe you do?
"England Births and Christenings, 1538-1975", database, FamilySearch (https://familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:C62T-GD3Z : 18 September 2020), Benjamin Boyes, 1733.
As you can see, FS's citation does not provide much info, there is no image available (public or under lock & key) but the record did mention Newmarket, Suffolk, England. I consequently learned in a private Facebook group, that the record was from Newmarket All Saints (someone had a CD of transcripts for that parish). So I looked up the website for Suffolk Archives and then emailed them to ask if they held the original register for this baptism.
The reason why I used the terminology "Suffolk Archives" in my citation, is that in all email correspondence I have had with them, their identity has been this. I realise that the 1st entry shows as Record Office.
Suffolk Record Office Bury St Edmunds Branch
Archive / Research Assistant
Suffolk Archives
Growth, Highways and Infrastructure
Suffolk County Council
Phone: 01284 741212
Email: bury.archives@suffolk.gov.uk
Website: www.suffolkarchives.co.uk
It's interesting also, that each of their three branches, seem to hold original records exclusive to that singular branch.
I have attached an image that was in the email from my contact with the Bury St Edmunds branch.
I did not name the city (town), as I felt that Suffolk Archives, Suffolk, England was maybe a little redundant - but I definitely see and appreciate your point and will change that for sure.
As always, I am very grateful to receive your feedback and thank you again for taking the time to reply to my question.
There's always a backstory…
There's always a backstory to records, isn't there‽ Incidentally, the distribution of the original records between three archives, with each holding originals that aren't available elsewhere, is increasingly common. The U.S. National Archives began that practice more than a half-century ago, with each facility holding collections that focused primarily on that area.