New Historic Records On FamilySearch: Week of April 24, 2017

SALT LAKE CITY, UT— This week nearly 2 million free indexed historic records were published in FamilySearch’s United States collections including significant new vital records for Rhode Island, Maine and Connecticut. Three million historic record images were added for Italy (Benevento, Brescia, Napoli, and Trapani), along with additions to England, Ghana, Poland, South Africa, Sweden, and Pennsylvania. Search these new free records and more at FamilySearch by clicking on the links in the interactive table below. Find and share this announcement easily online in the FamilySearch Newsroom.

Searchable historic records are made available on FamilySearch.org through the help of thousands of volunteers from around the world. These volunteers transcribe (index) information from digital copies of handwritten records to make them easily searchable online. More volunteers are needed (particularly those who can read foreign languages) to keep pace with the large number of digital images being published online at FamilySearch.org. Learn more about volunteering to help provide free access to the world’s historic genealogical records online at FamilySearch.org/indexing.

Collection

Indexed Records

Digital Images

Comments

England, Durham Diocese, Marriage Bonds & Allegations, 1692-1900

40,317

0

Added indexed records to an existing collection
Ghana, Accra, Marriages, 1863-2003

13,402

0

Added indexed records to an existing collection
Italy, Trapani, Civil Registration (State Archive), 1906-1928

0

1,141,588

Added images to an existing collection
Italy, Brescia, Civil Registration (State Archive), 1797-1815, 1866-1943

0

620,801

New browsable image collection.
Italy, Napoli, Civil Registration (State Archive), 1809-1865

0

164,991

Added images to an existing collection
Italy, Benevento, Civil Registration (State Archive), 1810-1942

0

1,077,809

Added images to an existing collection
Poland, Lublin Roman Catholic Church Books, 1784-1964

42,704

0

Added indexed records to an existing collection
South Africa, Dutch Reformed Church Records (Stellenbosch Archive),
1690-2011

3,133

61,679

Added indexed records and images to an existing collection
South Africa, Cape Province, Civil Deaths, 1895-1972

16,456

0

Added indexed records to an existing collection
Sweden, Kronoberg Church Records, 1589-1921; index 1612-1860

26,409

0

Added indexed records to an existing collection
Maine Vital Records, 1670-1921

465,527

0

Added indexed records to an existing collection
Pennsylvania Obituary and Marriage Collection, 1947-2010

669

0

Added indexed records to an existing collection
Connecticut Marriages, 1640-1939

755,384

0

Added indexed records to an existing collection
Rhode Island, Vital records, 1846-1898, 1901-1953

528,204

32,524

New indexed records and images collection

FamilySearch is the largest genealogy organization in the world. FamilySearch is a nonprofit, volunteer-driven organization sponsored by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Millions of people use FamilySearch records, resources, and services to learn more about their family history. To help in this great pursuit, FamilySearch and its predecessors have been actively gathering, preserving, and sharing genealogical records worldwide for over 100 years. Patrons may access FamilySearch services and resources for free at FamilySearch.org or through more than 5,004 family history centers in 129 countries, including the main Family History Library in Salt Lake City, Utah.

2 Comments

I signed in at FamilySearch.org and to be able to view the Benevento Italy civil records listed above, it says I need to go to a family history center.

Like

    —> I signed in at FamilySearch.org and to be able to view the Benevento Italy civil records listed above, it says I need to go to a family history center.

    I am not familiar with the Benevento, Italy, civil records but can tell you that many of the records available on FamilySearch.org are restricted because of contractual agreements with the organizations that provide the information to FamilySearch.

    The managers at FamilySearch would ideally like to make everything public and available to everyone at home. However, the thousands of archives, libraries, and other organizations that supplied the original information sometimes have different preferences, guidelines, and even restrictive laws in their countries. It is not unusual for these organizations to specify that “We only want these records to be visible to your members” or that “We only want these records to be visible to the descendants of the people listed, not to the general public.” Sometimes the archive or a commercial company might state, “We want to be paid every time someone looks at one of our records.”

    Since the supplying organizations own the records (in many countries), they have a legal right to place the restrictions on the access to their records. (The laws vary widely from one country to another.)

    This creates a major quandary for the managers of FamilySearch.org: should they decline to add records that have restrictions? Or should they add the records but agree to the restriction(s) placed on them by the supplying organization(s)?

    It appears to me that the managers at FamilySearch.org have decided that putting restricted records online is better than not putting any records online at all.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Name and email address are required. Your email address will not be published.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

You may use these HTML tags and attributes:

<a href="" title="" rel=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <pre> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong> 

%d bloggers like this: