RootsChat.Com
General => The Common Room => Topic started by: cockney rebel on Monday 16 October 17 18:42 BST (UK)
-
Hi there
I only read recently that the maiden name of the mother was disclosed in the GRO birth register listings and have been using that function to double check on a few ancestors.
But I have found 2 entries listed on BMD (and checked their scans) but these entries I can't find at all at GRO. I put in a query to them about both and received the reply :
"Investigated – No amendment required - Indexed data is correct"
Can anyone else see these entries ?
Report Type: Missing entry in the birth index Date Submitted: 06 Oct 2017 12:24
Name: emma paxman Mother's Maiden Surname:
Details: freebmd shows an entry but not to be found here
Current Status: Investigated – No amendment required GRO Index Reference: 1844 M stepney 2 546
GRO Comments: Indexed data is correct.
Report Type: Missing entry in the birth index Date Submitted: 05 Oct 2017 17:35
Name: margaret simpson Mother's Maiden Surname:
Details: have seen an entry(ie a scan of the entry) at the FreeBMD site but it is not showing here,
Current Status: Investigated – No amendment required GRO Index Reference: 1863 S pancras 1b 153
GRO Comments: Indexed data is correct.
-
I can't see them either!
Giggsy
-
Can you send them a scan of the entries?
I too failed to find Emma!
-
nor me and I looked at the original scans on Freebmd and they are definitely there!!
-
There appears to be no facility to do this, send a scan I mean..
But how can BMD have a reference and GRO not ?
What would happen if I wanted to order a certificate ? (Which I don't really, it's a bit offtrack..)
(It just makes me wonder about the accuracy within the official sites....After 40 years of hunting, I still for example haven't found the birth registration for both my g-grandmothers)
Rebel
-
Oh posts overlapped!
thankyou for looking... I was wondering if my access was blocked or something.
I am not in the Uk.
But 2 entries at BMD that are not confirmed at GRO...and in just 24 hours! That't a pretty high ratio!
Rebel
-
I suspect that the two births in question were illegitimate and that for the original index that FreeBMD are working from the children were double-indexed under both the father's and mother's surnames.
If you run the search on freebmd again you can see that there are two other Emmas on the page - Emma Saint and Emma Jane Walker.
SAINT, EMMA - Order
GRO Reference: 1844 M Quarter in STEPNEY Volume 02 Page 546
WALKER, EMMA JANE TARRENT Order
GRO Reference: 1844 M Quarter in STEPNEY Volume 02 Page 546
Also for 1863 - Margaret Page and Margaret Mercer
PAGE, MARGARET - Order
GRO Reference: 1863 S Quarter in ST PANCRAS Volume 01B Page 153
MERCER, MARGARET ANN WATTS Order
GRO Reference: 1863 S Quarter in ST PANCRAS Volume 01B Page 153
This is where being able to view the whole page of a register would come in useful, but Emma Saint and Margaret Page are likely the correct entries.
-
I've had the same, notified a total of 6 so far where I've looked at the FreeBMD scan. A mixture of transcription errors and missing entries. Just one of the six has been updated, they reckon the others are correct.
Think they need to go to Spec*
-
That's funny (in an amusing way).
Someone has gone to the trouble of checking, and has reponded with the volume details etc which you already knew from BMD, and which you can't use for searching.
What you really would like to know is what is this "correct" name that the person has been indexed under.
-
But how can BMD have a reference and GRO not ?
Probably because you are looking at two different indexes, compiled at different times, and using different indexing rules.
The GRO indexes are not a copy of the old version, they are new(ish) and taken direct from the register copies they have, so should be more accurate. The rules they used to build the index are not the same rules that were used to create the printed indexes you see on FreeBMD (and pay sites). They are especially different in the way they deal with unmarried parents who both appear, and also how they determine the maiden name of the mother (...the new GRO index does it correctly, the FreeBMD index doesn't).
Because the rules are different, the indexes are bound to be different - and then you can add in the error factor in both......complicated !
-
I suspect that the two births in question were illegitimate and that for the original index that FreeBMD are working from the children were double-indexed under both the father's and mother's surnames.
This may well be the reason ....
You can only know by getting the certificates - trying to confirm links from the indexes (in either version) relies on making assumptions that can sometimes be wrong.
-
My 3xGGPs had a son, born 1841, 2 years before they married. The baby died, aged 6 months. His birth is indexed on Lancashire BMD under both surnames. GRO Births Index has him under father's name, not mother's. GRO Deaths Index has him under mother's surname, as does Lancashire BMD. He was baptised and buried with his mother's surname. No mention of his father in parish register.
Will I need birth certificate as proof to amend GRO index?
-
My 3xGGPs had a son, born 1841, 2 years before they married. The baby died, aged 6 months. His birth is indexed on Lancashire BMD under both surnames. GRO Births Index has him under father's name, not mother's. GRO Deaths Index has him under mother's surname, as does Lancashire BMD. He was baptised and buried with his mother's surname. No mention of his father in parish register.
Will I need birth certificate as proof to amend GRO index?
You can only ask for an amendment if it has been indexed incorrectly - which bit do you think is wrong ?
-
Will I need birth certificate as proof to amend GRO index
if you order the GRO birth index you will likely find that the GRO index is correct and will show Child's first name, son of Father's name and Mother's name. The GRO births index's are under the fathers name if listed and the mother's surname if no father is listed. Remember the GRO birth certs are in the format Thomas/ John/Mary etc son or daughter of ... they do not specificly record the child's surname.
Anyone is free to change their name subsequently eg Cat Stevens or Prince and eg be married as such. After all it is by tradition not law that a wife commonly adopts her husband's surname. But their birth index remains unchanged.
Just like FreeBMD if the GRO index is re-checked and is indeed transcribed correctly and includes a father they will not alter the GRO index to agree with the surname he was subsequently baptised or buried as. Obviously your 3xGGF stood by the child and mother and subsequently married but the church record perhaps reflects the fact that the minister knew the child was illegitimate and not born following holy matrimony in his church, not something the GRO register was concerned about.
Be interesting to see if the father or mother (or a relation) registered the birth.
-
Be interesting to see if the father or mother (or a relation) registered the birth.
That is an important point - often the most crucial part of a birth certificate when you are interpreting it is what is in the informant column ( and of course you can't see that in the index at all).
-
SAINT, EMMA - Order
GRO Reference: 1844 M Quarter in STEPNEY Volume 02 Page 546
WALKER, EMMA JANE HUGHES Order
GRO Reference: 1844 D Quarter in STEPNEY Volume 02 Page 456
Is the variant page number your mistake or the GRO's ? Though the quarter is different so it's probably correct .... ::)
-
SAINT, EMMA - Order
GRO Reference: 1844 M Quarter in STEPNEY Volume 02 Page 546
WALKER, EMMA JANE HUGHES Order
GRO Reference: 1844 D Quarter in STEPNEY Volume 02 Page 456
Is the variant page number your mistake or the GRO's ? Though the quarter is different so it's probably correct .... ::)
I think you will find that there is an entry for Emma Jane Walker in the MARCH quarter of 1844 with the page number of 546 - mmn is Tarrent.
Emma Saint - page 546 in MARCH quarter 1844 - mmn = no entry
Page No: 456 applies to a birth registered in the DECEMBER quarter of 1844 for Emma Jane Walker - mmn is Hughes.
-
Possibly for elimination purposes.
Emma Jane Walker - registered December quarter 1844 - mmn = Hughes
Emma Jane - daughter of Robert Dalzell Walker (Coal Merchant) and Elizabeth Rachel of Limehouse, born 26 October 1844, baptised 19 November 1848 - St Dunstan and All Saints, Stepney. A number of siblings were baptised on the same day.
St Mary, Whitechapel - 25 December 1841 - by Banns
Robert Dalzell Walker, full age, Lath Cutter. Father: George Dalzell Walker
Elizabeth Rachel Hughes, full age. Father: William Hughes, Steward
-
SAINT, EMMA - Order
GRO Reference: 1844 M Quarter in STEPNEY Volume 02 Page 546
WALKER, EMMA JANE HUGHES Order
GRO Reference: 1844 D Quarter in STEPNEY Volume 02 Page 456
Is the variant page number your mistake or the GRO's ? Though the quarter is different so it's probably correct .... ::)
It was mine as I must have copied the wrong line.
-
Be interesting to see if the father or mother (or a relation) registered the birth.
That is an important point - often the most crucial part of a birth certificate when you are interpreting it is what is in the informant column ( and of course you can't see that in the index at all).
Thanks, Antony and Jon for your insight. I was considering ordering the certificate even before I'd checked the GRO Index, to see what information it contained. I first knew of the child's existence when I came across the parish register entry of his burial. His parents weren't named on that. The search for his identity was complicated by his age at 1841 census being wrongly transcribed as 5 years instead of 5 months. He was with his teenage mother, maternal grandparents + youthful aunts & uncles, but with inaccurate ages for mother & son and no relationships shown on census it wasn't apparent at first who he was. Meanwhile the baby's father was with his older female relative (possible mother) and a work colleague at another address. The couple were witnesses at a wedding the same month, so their relationship seemed to be continuous. I suspect parental opposition to the marriage from the girl's family at least, since they eventually married in 1843, in the month she turned 21, witnesses being groom's friend & friend's fiancée.
The baby died in the summer of 1841, a few weeks after he'd been recorded on the census. His death is indexed under his mother's maiden name. GRO has his age at death as 5, instead of 5 months.
-
GRO has his age at death as 5, instead of 5 months.
yes that is a known error by the company that carried out the transcriptions some years ago. Have come across many instances of that and there has been discussion on here. The GRO state under 'Most customers want to know' that they will correct these errors and I did advise of some. However like others I came to the conclusion that provided you cross referenced with FreeBMD and confirmed = Zero it was additional info. Some say even 19 (months) so show as aged 1 on the older indexes. I found that assumming the deaths are registered promptly can aid narrowing a birth month within its quarter.
"Q19. How is the age at death for infant deaths (i.e. died within 12 months of birth) recorded in the indexes?
Generally, age at death for 'infant deaths' will be shown as 0, in line with the microfiche index. However we are aware of a number of records where the age at death is showing a different value e.g. 9. If this is the case, it is likely that the information held in the online index relates to the age in minutes, hours, days, weeks, or months (recorded this way on the original death registration) rather than in years. It is not possible to identify which records maybe affected but we will continue to correct any errors that we do become aware of, or those reported to us."