Talk:England, Kent, Parish Registers - FamilySearch Historical Records/Known Issues

Keston, Kent

Please note that your presentation of images for the Marriage Register and Banns book has been raised as a support case 2683448 and this page will need edit by Historical Records to reflect the issue. DowneOPC 08:39, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

The support case 2683448 remains unanswered after several days and this page is still in need of editing to describe the issue and remedy to be undertaken. DowneOPC 15:58, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Case 2683448 was answered and closed 20 Aug 2012

Image availability
After seeming to indicate that the images of Kent registers are not available online, this discussion goes on to give an example of how to indicate a problem with an image.

Very confusing.

Also there is more than one Kent archive. Are all Kent registers available for viewing at Maidstone?

Parish material (depending on location) may be found in numerous archives from the National Archives to London Boroughs and in the Rochester are at Medway Archive. Kent Archives are at 2 sites in the county with additional local access services e.g. at Dover.

The significance of Maidstone is that it was the location for Genealogical Society of Utah microfilm acquisition in earlier decades; the material held at the time has subsequently been dispersed more widely.

The Maidstone Centre and Library has technology called "the Reading Room solution" which provides images for all FamilySearch Kent collections on the Centre computers, thus overcoming the restricted access which images are subject to online. The restricted access images are subject to restriction by the two Diocese ( if we omit the Diocese of Southwark parishes in Surrey) and various archives in the county. It will depend which Diocese the parish you are searching is in and there are further contractual complications in the Archdeaconry of Shoreham and in those parishes which were "peculiars" of the Archbishop of Canterbury before becoming part of the more modern Diocese of Rochester. One such parish is Downe, Kent which for part of it's record history was a peculiar and a chapelry within the Shoreham Archdeaconry; later it became a parish and later still was combined with Cudham to form the present team Ministry in the Shoreham Archdeaconry. You may find more information at the Kent Online Parish Clerks Homepage or by reference to the parish list.

I agree that as an explanatory page for the county with over 400 parishes in different dioceses and with records from 1538 to the present this page is confused. At present only partial parish is online; the Bishop's Transcripts represent further complexity and I imagine that they will be published in a distinct collection?DowneOPC 16:19, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Known issues
As a result of recent cases referred to FamilySearch Support there are a number of known issues concerning re-engineering of way points; these are not entering the Research Wiki. Clearly only Records Support will be aware of these and individual contributors are not to contribute to the Known Issues page. How are these then entering the wiki? DowneOPC 16:19, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

ANSWER: Information is added to the Wiki Known Issues following input from users of the records. The issue is analyzed and, if there is a problem with the records, it is identified to the Technical staff for correction if possible. Due to the large work load, the corrections may take a significant time to implement.

Re: Known Issues
Well that was a bit of a let down after reading Known issues.

I recieved an email stating that Kent reg and Transcripts were available on line.

So after finding my way around I proceeded to access them only to find that the " Image not available "

came up. So went looking to find out why, came to these " Known Issues " data and find that I cannot access them unless I goto a Family History Centre, well that is a little hard from where I live as it's a 150+mile round trip to do just that.

I thought being logged in as a volunteer I would be granted access to them.

I feel that the email should have stated that one had to be granted access via xxx xxx.

Thank You

Wayne