Original marriage cert v. FreeBMD?

[LizTJ]

Help please
I have a photocopy of the original marriage certificate of Thomas Dannatt and Mary Harriet Barlow.  The original certificate is still in the family.  On my copy it says:- Page 19, entry  no 38, 1880 Marriage solemnised at the Parish Church in the parish of Sheffield in the county of York.
The details are Thomas Dannatt age 31 Miner of 8 Duke St father George Dannatt miner and Mary Harriet Barlow age 25 spinster of South Street, father George Barlow.  The marriage followed Banns and took place on the 5 November 1880.
FreeBMD has this reference for the marriage Dec 1/4 1882.  Sheffield 9c 620.  What I can't understand is how it can be two years away from the original marriage.  Several people on Ancestry Family trees have Dec 1/4 1882 as the date of marriage.
The 1911 census has the couple married for 32 years which would correspond with a date of 1880.  I have read the criteria for asking FreeBMD to make alterations.  It seems possession of the original certificate is not one of them.
Many thanks
LizTJ

 

[josey]

The GRO index sheets - viewed on ancestry, definitely has the marriage for December quarter 1882.

Is it possible to see the actual church records & see when the banns were read or check that the 1880 date on the certificate is a mistranscription? Did they have a child soon after marriage & maybe have reason to say they had been married longer? Are they on the 1881 census together?

[LizTJ]

They are together on the 1881 census as husband and wife and have a son George age 1/12.  They are living on Main Street Hackenthorpe.  George is christened at Hackenthorpe.
Having a copy of the original (which I made myself) the date 1880 is clearly written in three places very clearly.  My cousin still has the original copy.
Liz

[josey]

Does seem strange. I still think the church records are worth seeing - the certificate your cousin has is only a copy of these.....however I am sure the couple themselves would have noticed the error if 1880 was incorrect. Perhaps when the information was sent to the GRO the year was mistranscibed then.

What are the criteria freebmd will accept?

[johnxyz]

The Free BMD entry is an accurate transcription of the GRO index. The only criteria for changing it would be that it was an inaccurate transcription.  Transcribers must record what they see, not "what ought to be there". The fact that there was an error in the compilation of the index is not grounds for changing the transcription.  The only option availabe to you is to add a postem, noting that the original indexing appears to be wrong.

[mazi]

I accidently searched for East riding of Yorkshire and there is an entry there for Thomas Dannatt in Sculcoates, dec qua. 1882. This entry has no other partner listed. Looking at the index on freebmd
There are two Thomas dannatts listed, one in Sculcoates and one in Sheffield.

Thomas Dannatt in Sheffield in 1882 is listed twice.

I would guess at an indexing error, maybe something on the copy sent by the church is unreadable

Mike

Edit, looking at the above post is the gro index at fault

[BumbleB]

FreeBMD will accept corrections derived from a GRO fiche or scan.  The entries for both Thomas Dannatt and Mary Harriet Barlow appear in the GRO Index on page 620 in the December quarter of 1882, and you can view the entries via FreeBMD by clicking on the "spectacles" icon.

There is no entry for a marriage for Thomas Dannatt or Mary Harriet Barlow in December quarter 1880.

As transcribers, we have to transcribe what is written.

[dawnsh]

Hi Liz

As you have a copy, I would contact the Sheffield Archives and explain the situation to them and ask them if they could check the date of the wedding in the actual parish register that is deposited with them.

At the same time ask them if they could give you the names in the register before and after the wedding along with the dates and see if you can find these in the indexes.

The marriage registers should have been sent to the local registrar on a regular basis. It is a known phenomenon that some vicars were quite lax in sending their returns in so that some entries do not appear in the GRO indexes, and as in your case, may appear later than the actual quarter the event took place.

If you can, try to read Michael Foster's A Comedy of Errors which is a real insight

http://homepages.paradise.net.nz/mikefost/

There is little that can be done now as the GRO do not recompile the indexes, there are so many microfiche copies out in the world along with freebmd and the subscription sites.

What the GRO may do is amend the master copy they have there if you can prove that the date of the marriage is 1880 not 1882 and make a note on their records.

You could also contact the local register office and let them know of your dilemma. Again there may be nothing they can do because of the passage of time.

If you can prove that the date is 1880 not 1882 then you could add a postem to the entry on freebmd. As mentioned before, the volunteers at freebmd transcribe what they see. It is no-one's job to correct the official indexes.

Dawn

[Guy Etchells]

Help please
I have a photocopy of the original marriage certificate of Thomas Dannatt and Mary Harriet Barlow.  The original certificate is still in the family.  On my copy it says:- Page 19, entry  no 38, 1880 Marriage solemnised at the Parish Church in the parish of Sheffield in the county of York.
The details are Thomas Dannatt age 31 Miner of 8 Duke St father George Dannatt miner and Mary Harriet Barlow age 25 spinster of South Street, father George Barlow.  The marriage followed Banns and took place on the 5 November 1880.
FreeBMD has this reference for the marriage Dec 1/4 1882.  Sheffield 9c 620.  What I can't understand is how it can be two years away from the original marriage.  Several people on Ancestry Family trees have Dec 1/4 1882 as the date of marriage.
The 1911 census has the couple married for 32 years which would correspond with a date of 1880.  I have read the criteria for asking FreeBMD to make alterations.  It seems possession of the original certificate is not one of them.
Many thanks
LizTJ

 

The GRO Index is full of such errors and omissions, and it is easy to see why.
The GRO always work from transcripts of certificates, these transcripts may contain errors and omissions. They then create a master index from these transcripts (another source of errors and omissions). Some of the Indexes were then transcribed again from hand written copies to typed copies giving a third opportunity for errors and omissions.

Cheers
Guy