QuickList> Hatches, Matches & Dispatches> This page
Matlock St Giles' Church Burials, 1668 - 1856
Matlock Parish Church was, for hundreds of years, the only burial place in the Matlocks
  About St Giles
About the BTs, Gaps, Slash in the date,
Abbreviations, Not found them
Matlock Burials
1668-1680 1681-1698
1726-1735 1736-1751
1755-1776 1782-1791
1792-1801 1802-1812
1813-1824 1825-1835
1836-1846 1847-1856
Clerks Books, 1819, 1842
Additional Entries
Funeral Wreath  

5285 names from the Bishops' Transcripts, searchable by date

Please use the right hand navigation bar to view the burials

  

  • Bernard Freeman of Manitoba, Canada worked on the burials for Matlock St Giles' that are presented on this website during 1999, with a few additions in 2001/2*.

  • He completed the final section, the early burials from 1668 - 1692, during December 2004 and a surnames index was provided at that stage. This has now been removed

  • Some entries proved to be impossible to read.

Additional Entries : an extra section of names not included in the onsite records
Strays - Matlock people buried elsewhere
Background info:
*The following films were used:
LDS #428924 (1662 -1812), LDS #498102 (1813 -1856)

The films may be viewed at LDS centres throughout the world and were filmed by the LDS Church from the Bishops' Transcripts held at Lichfield JRO, England.
Bernie is giving a copy of his work to the LDS Church in Salt Lake City, Utah, USA.

Originally done for John Palmer's Wirksworth website, the information is published here with kind permission. Ann Andrews has contributed suggestions for amendments to the original transcripts which have been incorporated into the information on these pages. All information is held by Ann in a database of her own design but is presented here as close to Bernie's original work as possible.

Disclaimer
Whilst every effort has been made to be as accurate as possible, it is recognised that individual entries may be open to different interpretation. Please get in touch if your research from the same original source (i.e. the BTs) does not agree with an entry published here as we would like to know.