For the situation listed at https://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/details/r/9477351f-6383-4ccc-a986-0d6f22a9c904:

St. John's lay in the ecclesiastical parish of St. Mary's but was neither a daughter church nor a proprietary chapel. It was in fact simply a place where the parishioners of Littlehampton could be provided with a low church alternative to the high church services of St. Mary's.

Do we expect all of the St. John's Parish records to be duplicated with the St. Mary name? In looking through the records, it seems that is the case. For example:

https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:Q2QQ-PSG8?from=lynx1UIV8&treeref=MFYF-X7P vs. https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:N5HK-CMC?from=lynx1UIV8&treeref=MFYF-X7P

1 Answer 1


We would be foolish to expect anything, in my view. The ways that subsidiary churches / chapels of any sort are recorded cover just about any option. Sometimes they appear in the parish register with just individual annotations on a case by case basis, sometimes specific pages within the main PR, sometimes in their own register. Throw in Bishops' Transcripts and Archdeacon's Transcripts and you have to look carefully to tell just what you've got. I couldn't see the images in question so I can't comment on the specifics.

Addendum: I've now had a look at the first image but the second is still unavailable. The first one (see entry 486 on page 61, image 340) is supposedly 27 Oct 1863 at St John's Church but the TNA article says "St. John's church was set up in 1877" (my emphasis). Therefore we can't trust the FS index entry - it surely has to be St. Mary's, after all.

So while your question is a valid one, those particular two entries don't help (the 2nd image might be just a duplicate of the first?)

The only entries that I've found for St John's start on this page 100, image 587, entry 793. It appears to be described as Item 19 "baptisms at St. John's, 1892-1901" and is the only St John's item that I saw in the FS Catalogue for Littlehampton. One entry on p.101 is for Herbert James Collins, baptised 9 Oct 1892 but the index simply says "Littlehampton, Sussex, England, United Kingdom" even though the previous page is headed "St. John's". I could only see one index entry for that (i.e. no duplication) but that could equally imply indexing problems.

Addendum 2: What I'd not twigged before is that page 100 (St. John's) appears to be in the middle of a baptismal register for Littlehampton - presumably St. Mary's. The prior page (p.99) finishes with entry 792 and has a hand-written note at the foot saying "Continued on page 14x" where the "x" might be "0" - these (presumed) St. Mary's entries are blanked out by sheets of card - presumably they fell outside the permitted dates. The continuation pages are not on the published film.

My conclusion is that these St. John's entries were actually written inside the St. Mary's register in a pre-determined set of pages (p.100 onwards). Whether there are any other St. John's entries, I don't know - nothing else appears for St. John's in the catalogue.

  • The references in your addendum don't seem to have any links associated with them.
    – Jan Murphy
    Commented Apr 17, 2022 at 7:28
  • Oh! Not sure how that happened... Can I even find them again? I'll see what I can do, thanks
    – AdrianB38
    Commented Apr 17, 2022 at 7:38
  • 1
    @JanMurphy - Phew. Managed to work out the URLs and edit them in. I've also added a new conclusion as Addendum 2.
    – AdrianB38
    Commented Apr 23, 2022 at 11:00
  • 1
    @JanMurphy - thanks for pointing this out. Something weird goes on - whether it's StackExchange or my Firefox or both. I editted in my Addendum 2, saved the edit, went to add the comment above - and the edit wasn't there .... until I hit refresh.
    – AdrianB38
    Commented Apr 23, 2022 at 11:03
  • I have MarkdownPad2 markdownpad.com/news/2013/introducing-markdownpad-2 so I can write offline instead to avoid problems like this, but I often forget to use it. I also want to build an offline repository of all my Qs and As but I'm behind on doing that as well.
    – Jan Murphy
    Commented Apr 23, 2022 at 19:23

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

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