Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - AntonyMMM

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 ... 45
1
The Lighter Side / Re: Love, lies and records
« on: Friday 08 December 17 17:24 GMT (UK)  »
Having been a police officer for 30 years, and a registrar for a couple I can tell you that the procedural side of both jobs as portrayed is completely removed from reality, but that applies to most dramas (they'd be pretty boring otherwise).

Quite entertaining ....

2
The Common Room / Re: Is the age of the Photograph dead?
« on: Monday 04 December 17 09:57 GMT (UK)  »
No matter what the technology you use - if you want photos to be available for future generations then make good quality prints (using good quality archival ink/paper)  - label and store them properly.

The same applies to your research - otherwise  you are  completely reliant on your descendants having the interest, knowledge and time to access the information, store it and keep it updated as formats and storage technology changes.

When my father died he left some important family research  .... on floppy disks. Less than a decade old, yet we still had to hunt around to find the technology to read them .... I suspect in another decade or two that would not be possible (or extremely expensive).

In my previous career we had some computer data from the late 1980s that was stored on large format disks - but even one of the world's biggest IT companies couldn't access them (no working drive still existed that could read them).

3
The Common Room / Re: 5 Babies
« on: Monday 04 December 17 08:27 GMT (UK)  »
I thought each Birth/Marriage/Death had its own unique Reference Number???

Entries are numbered locally (where the original records are held) and then again, and differently,  when the copies of the information are sent to GRO.

Because there are multiple entries on each page of a register, it is normal that different entries can have the same page number. If you ordered certificates, you would find that the entry numbers will be different.

4
The Common Room / Re: A question about English birth registrations
« on: Sunday 03 December 17 12:20 GMT (UK)  »
Belinda,

As a matter of interest I have an instance in my family exactly as you describe (1940s) and the child was registered twice, once to each possible father.

Jolyon

Have you got copies of both certificates, or is that an assumption based on indexing ?

If it is two separate entries (and not just one entry indexed twice) then it will be a re-registration to add an unmarried father, or legitimise a birth after the parents marriage. The wording on each entry  is crucial to understanding what happened.


5
The Common Room / Re: A question about English birth registrations
« on: Sunday 03 December 17 11:24 GMT (UK)  »
Birth registrations (up to 1969) show no surname at all for the child, only their given names.

The question is whether the father can be included on the entry, and is so how that entry is subsequently indexed.

A married woman registering a birth can give the name of her husband as the father without him being present. She can give the name of another man, but he would have to be present to have his name recorded.


6
The Common Room / Re: Advice for ordering a mistranscribed cert please
« on: Thursday 30 November 17 10:52 GMT (UK)  »
It looks like vol6a p589 is the correct one, but in any case where there is a problem like this I always order from  the local registration office - they are taking the entry from the original record, not a copy, and they usually arrive  more quickly than from GRO.

7
The Common Room / Re: Marriage Cert: Spouse - RIDLEY otherwise EARL
« on: Saturday 25 November 17 16:10 GMT (UK)  »
The us of "otherwise" shouldn't be a previous married name,  it is the wording GRO instructions say to use to indicate someone who is known by or uses another name at the time of the marriage.


8
Family History Beginners Board / Re: wrong or strange next of kin for RAF document
« on: Tuesday 07 November 17 22:17 GMT (UK)  »
Have you checked his 1951 marriage certificate to see if he had been married before ?

Or - perhaps he was living with someone who was his "wife", not that uncommon, especially in wartime.

9
The Common Room / Re: A 1942 Birth mystery
« on: Monday 06 November 17 20:58 GMT (UK)  »
At that time it was automatically assumed  the husband was the father, unles the Registrar was told otherwise, and the natural father would have had to attended the registration.

It isn't a question of assumption, or him being added automatically  - a married woman registering a birth is able to add her husband as the father without him being present, an unmarried woman can't.  But if she knows that to be false (or impossible) then she commits perjury in doing so.

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 ... 45