It struck me whilst looking for my ancestors, that the number of people baptised does not closely match the number of marriages or burials. Overall, the fantastic FoD site has the following:

• Baptisms: 998,674
  
• Total marriages: 242,588 (24% of Baptisms)
  
• Burials: 329,029 (33% of Baptisms)

My question to the forum is, does this mostly reflect the:

• gaps yet to be filled in transcribing and digitising records?
  
• physical gaps in the records (e.g. lost records or unrecorded events)?
  
• net loss of people out of the Forest since the first records in 1538?

Also need to factor in Non-conformity - i.e. records yet to be found / transcribed and families that move away from the established church and become methodist / baptist etc...

Marriages conducted in the Registry offices etc

--
Ἀριστοτέλης A Gloster Boy in the Forest of Dean ><((((*>

My two bobs worth...

You would expect the number of marriage records to be much less than the number of baptisms for a number of reasons:
1. Child mortality being what it was in days past.
2. If people married within the Forest boundary (and most probably did prior to the invention of the internal combustion engine!) then the maximum number of marriages you could expect would be half the number of baptisms.
3. Migration - as an Antipodean like me, you may be aware of the large number of Foresters that migrated to Commonwealth countries and America (as well as internal migration to other parishes in Wales and England). Presumably many migrated prior to marriage, like two of my great aunts and uncles. NZ recruited a lot of single folks in an incessant search for workers (including servants, because hardly anyone who already lived here wanted to be anyone's slave). And there have been other threads on this forum talking about ancestors who migrated within Britain following work opportunities,
4. People not marrying. Presumably there would be a lot of people who did not want to, or could not afford to, or who could not find a suitable partner, or who did not attract an acceptable offer...

As for deaths - 3 above would have an impact there as well.

I wonder if there was much inward migration to the Forest that could have counterbalanced the above factors?

I think it should also be stressed that finding ancestors should not be confined to just baptism, marriage or burial records. I have found ancestors (not recorded in these widely used resources) that have appeared in Wills, Marriage Allegations/Licences and of course not forgetting printed books on the Forest.

To illustrate this: one of my recent discoveries concerned Anthony Hitchins of Mitcheldean mentioned in 'Men & Armour for Gloucestershire in 1608' compiled by John Smith of North Nibley, Glos (1567-1641).
The Hundred of St Brevils - Michell Deane
Anthony Hitchins brodewever. 2.m.
So according to the legend at the beginning of the book, this meant that my ancestor was a broadweaver by trade, aged about forty, of middle stature and so able to use a musket.

From this, it is likely that Anthony was born circa 1570 and still alive circa 1610. He does not appear in the Forest baptism, marriage or burial registers, but it is likely that he was the father of another Anthony Hitchins of Mitcheldean who was buried at Blaisdon in 1678 along with his wife Elizabeth (buried Blaisdon 1669). No marriage entry survives of the couple, but some of their children are mentioned in the Mitcheldean and Blaisdon baptism registers. One of them being, another Anthony Hitchins, is mentioned in baptism, marriage and burial registers for Blaisdon and he also left a Will and Inventory. He is mentioned too in the marriage allegation/licence of his brother Edward (Hitchines)- whose baptism has not survived. Spelling variations of this family also present a challenge - Hitchins/Hutchings/& later Hitchens.
So I would add, spread your net wide and try to search everything.

It's also worth remembering that parish registers start at different dates and were damaged. If some start in 1537 and others in the seventeenth century there are bound to be discrepancies. Also many were lost so the numbers will never add up. This will add to migration losses etc.

I have read through the replies to date and see no mention of the introduction of Civil Registration in 1837. This had a dramatic effect in that not all marriages took place in a church and not all burials took place in a churchyard and overtime the number of baptisms has reduced considerably.
I can only speak for my local church but today there are far more more funerals than baptisms and weddings!
Mike