LONDON-L ArchivesArchiver > LONDON > 2001-10 > 1004317179
From: Eve McLaughlin <>
Subject: Re: [Lon] IGI etc
Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2001 00:59:39 +0000
In message <000001c15db8$5ec1a840$>, Ron Lankshear
>Could I add to the questions please
>A book I glanced at said the IGI was just Births and Deaths. Is that true?
No - it is Baptisms and Marriages, not deaths/burials, for a religious
reason. The names were gathered for church purposes originally, and the
object was to baptise ancestors as Mormons, which could not be done for
anyone born less than 110 years ago - so the major collection was for
events before 1875, and in most rural areas, well before that,.So it is
unsafe to home in on any old Fred Bloogs as your ancestor, till you have
checked in the Parish registers that he didn't die young.
The IGI is by no means a complete record of all parish registers, even
where a 'controlled extraction' has been made for a parish.
>How does IGI relate to FreeBMD? More/Less?
More at the moment - millions as opposed to c 15,000, but Free BMD
refers to different types of event. Free BMD is taken from the civil
regisration records of England and Wales, from 1837; marriages at the
moment, the rest maybe later.
>(I have read here the issue re Catholic records)
>How does NBI relate to FreeBMD?
This is a motley collection of burials from parish registers, and was
intended to supplement the IGI. Again, it is not a complete record by
>Are IGI and other databases restricted to 100 years?
If you mean are they deliberately restircted, no,. But the rule above
about Mormon baptism made it fruitless to collect related names after
110 years, since they could not be processed. Only members of the
church, as consenting adults, will appear with events later that 110
>Family Tree mag had a a letter complaining that IGI had picked up the
>writers current tree and added data to IGI such as his parents which were
>within 100 years and that LDS had promised to remove the data.
This certainly breaches the rule - but it is entirely possible that
the listing was NOT in the IGI proper, but in Ancestral File, which is
bonded with it in the Familysearch site. This is the result of assorted
inputs by anyone who cared to submit names, and this is something which
should be viewed and used with caution, as some of the researchers are
not careful to check for accuracy.
>Is the 100 years rule is true then Jill's question is very to the point -
>when do 'new' records get added?
As they are fed into the religious system - but they are publicly issued
at irregular intervals - the last as the 'British Vital Records' CD,
which is just 'son of IGI' not including any BMD from civil sources.
Author of the McLaughlin Guides for family historians
Secretary Bucks Genealogical Society