I'm tracing the name "Lorberg" back as far as I can in the UK, and recently discovered a 16th century baptism record; much older than other records I've found previously. However, I'm struggling to actually read the name "Lorberg" on the record:

Baptism record

Ancestry has this transcribed as:

  • Annis Lorberg
  • Baptised 6 Oct 1583
  • Father: William Lorberg

To me the record is the third one down, and I read it as "6 day and baptised Elizabeth(?) (and?) Annie daughter of William" - I can't see anything that looks like "Lorberg" there.

Am I missing something, or looking in the wrong place? It does look like the page may have been cut off at the margin, but if so then how was it able to be transcribed as above?


Not sure this is really an answer but...

I read...

The 6 daye baptized ?Elizabethe? & Annis daughters of William

If you're in Ancestry and switch on the index pane (two heads and = to the right of the number), you can see Annis Lorberg and the surrounding index entries. Thomas Green is above, John Harrison below (modernising my spellings). So you're looking in the right place.

What's also apparent is that her sister, Elizabeth, is indexed immediately above Annis but with the surname of Leyland. So our invisible surname is written down two different ways!

The only possible explanation I have is that the index is not an index of the images seen but is an index compiled at a different time. If you look in the FamilySearch catalogue on this Lambeth entry, we find something labelled

Transcripts of parish registers of Lambeth, St. Mary, Surrey, England, 1516-1831

Statement of Responsibility: compiled by W. H. Challen

My only guess is that (a) WHC did his index from the real thing so could see into the gutter between the pages (it's the gutter / fold between 2 opposite pages, it's not been cut off, I believe) and (b) Ancestry copied his index and linked it to their images. The flaw in my suggestion is that it doesn't explain why the 2 surnames are different - one might have been corrected by a user but I struggle to see evidence of a correction.

NB - WHC's index appears to have been digitised but can only be seen at an LDS Family History Centre or at an Affiliate Library,e.g. the Society of Genealogists in London.

  • Thanks very much for the answer - I'm glad it's not be being completely ignorant, but it seems it remains a mystery nonetheless! Is there a general procedure you're aware of that I might be able to take to look at the original document? Or are these sorts of things generally restricted?
    – berry120
    Jul 26 '18 at 14:12
  • 2
    You'd have to go to the Archives holding the original - take the Ancestry image along and explain that it looks like the surname is in the gutter - can you or they get the original out to check? Normally access is restricted but they are usually sensible providing you make a good case. Usually...
    – AdrianB38
    Jul 26 '18 at 16:29
  • Looks like the original is in the Surrey History Centre, which is a good few hours drive away - nevertheless, I may at least email them and see if there's any chance of them doing this if I go down there. Thanks very much for the answer, that's been very helpful!
    – berry120
    Jul 26 '18 at 20:10
  • 1
    Darned non local ancestors! You could also explain the distance and ask if they could look but that might be chargeable. In fact, ask what the options are, I guess.
    – AdrianB38
    Jul 26 '18 at 20:14
  • 1
    How peculiar! Glad you could sort it.
    – AdrianB38
    Aug 1 '18 at 10:27

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.