28
Census and Resource Discussion / 1911 census - duration of credits?
« on: Wednesday 04 March 09 13:23 GMT (UK) »
How long do they last?
Can't find the answer on the site.
Can't find the answer on the site.
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.
29
Kerry / Re: Which Townland on Griffith's entry?
« on: Tuesday 03 March 09 12:58 GMT (UK) »
Yes, the only possibility I could think of myself was the church record of the baptism of his daughter.
The LDS gives no place info - other than Killarney.
I just thought someone might come up with an alternative way.
Thanks anyway.
The LDS gives no place info - other than Killarney.
I just thought someone might come up with an alternative way.
Thanks anyway.
30
Kerry / Which Townland on Griffith's entry?
« on: Tuesday 03 March 09 10:30 GMT (UK) »
Hi everyone.
Have checked Griffith's Valuation on askaboutireland site for a Cornelius Sullivan in Killarney.
There are 18 entries under Magunihy Barony.
Without knowing the Townland I can't narrow it down.
Any ideas about how I could find a Townland?
Have checked Griffith's Valuation on askaboutireland site for a Cornelius Sullivan in Killarney.
There are 18 entries under Magunihy Barony.
Without knowing the Townland I can't narrow it down.
Any ideas about how I could find a Townland?
31
Yorkshire (West Riding) Lookup Requests / Re: Lookup Local Studies section at Barnsley Central Library
« on: Monday 02 March 09 20:46 GMT (UK) »
Hi Doodle,
Thanks very much for trying. Very kind of you.
Which newspapers did you check apart from the Chronicle and the Independent?
Regards,
eagleye
Thanks very much for trying. Very kind of you.
Which newspapers did you check apart from the Chronicle and the Independent?
Regards,
eagleye
32
Census and Resource Discussion / Re: BMD Certificates: "clerical error" and why transcriptions?
« on: Saturday 21 February 09 20:25 GMT (UK) »
Thanks for the link John, some very interesting podcasts there, and of course the one on registration covers some of the points made by Barbara Dixon above
33
Census and Resource Discussion / Re: BMD Certificates: "clerical error" and why transcriptions?
« on: Friday 20 February 09 16:31 GMT (UK) »
Little Nell wrote:
"can I point out that any marriage certificate that comes from a register office DOES NOT contain your ancestors' writing. Marriage entries are copied to a book, once the local clergy have submitted their records of marriage to the registrar. The only place you will ever see you ancestor's handwriting is in the parish record of a marriage. These are usually deposited in the local records office."
I asked Barbara Dixon http://home.clara.net/dixons/Certificates/indexbd.htm about this.
Here is her (edited) reply.
"This is not correct. If a marriage takes place outside of the register office, then the minister concerned has to keep TWO identical registers and the bride, groom and witnesses sign both. He sends in a copy of each of his marriages each quarter for the registrar to forward to GRO. When the registers are complete, one stays with the church for them to do with as they please. They may stay with the church or be deposited in the local record office or go to the diocesan records. One copy has to go the local superintendent registrar who keeps the book in the local register office.
If the marriage takes place in the register office or the registrar goes out to a church to register a marriage (non-conformist) there is only one copy of the marriage register which stays with the local register office.
When registration started in 1837 the only legal marriages were the ones in the Church of England, Quakers, Jews and those that were registered by a registrar either in the register office or in the non-conformist churches. The Church of England, Quakers and Jews had to keep two copies as I have explained. All other churches that were registered for marriages had to call the civil registrar out to register the marriages. The minister did the ceremony, the civil registrar registered the marriage once in the register office marriage book. And that was true from 1837 to 1897.
In 1897 the law was changed so that the non-conformist churches could register their own marriages like the Church of England. After that date you still had churches that did not keep their own registers and so called out the civil registrar, but there were churches that did start registering their own and then they had to keep their own registers and had to keep two.
Today there are small sects eg Spiritualists, Church of God of Prophecy etc who do so few marriages it is not worth the expense of training a registrar and buying the expensive safes for the register so they call out the civil registrar. Most other churches now do their own.
I am quite happy for you to post my replies to the web - regards Barbara"
"can I point out that any marriage certificate that comes from a register office DOES NOT contain your ancestors' writing. Marriage entries are copied to a book, once the local clergy have submitted their records of marriage to the registrar. The only place you will ever see you ancestor's handwriting is in the parish record of a marriage. These are usually deposited in the local records office."
I asked Barbara Dixon http://home.clara.net/dixons/Certificates/indexbd.htm about this.
Here is her (edited) reply.
"This is not correct. If a marriage takes place outside of the register office, then the minister concerned has to keep TWO identical registers and the bride, groom and witnesses sign both. He sends in a copy of each of his marriages each quarter for the registrar to forward to GRO. When the registers are complete, one stays with the church for them to do with as they please. They may stay with the church or be deposited in the local record office or go to the diocesan records. One copy has to go the local superintendent registrar who keeps the book in the local register office.
If the marriage takes place in the register office or the registrar goes out to a church to register a marriage (non-conformist) there is only one copy of the marriage register which stays with the local register office.
When registration started in 1837 the only legal marriages were the ones in the Church of England, Quakers, Jews and those that were registered by a registrar either in the register office or in the non-conformist churches. The Church of England, Quakers and Jews had to keep two copies as I have explained. All other churches that were registered for marriages had to call the civil registrar out to register the marriages. The minister did the ceremony, the civil registrar registered the marriage once in the register office marriage book. And that was true from 1837 to 1897.
In 1897 the law was changed so that the non-conformist churches could register their own marriages like the Church of England. After that date you still had churches that did not keep their own registers and so called out the civil registrar, but there were churches that did start registering their own and then they had to keep their own registers and had to keep two.
Today there are small sects eg Spiritualists, Church of God of Prophecy etc who do so few marriages it is not worth the expense of training a registrar and buying the expensive safes for the register so they call out the civil registrar. Most other churches now do their own.
I am quite happy for you to post my replies to the web - regards Barbara"
34
Census and Resource Discussion / Re: BMD Certificates: "clerical error" and why transcriptions?
« on: Friday 20 February 09 16:30 GMT (UK) »
Many thanks to all for replying.
I asked Barbara Dixon http://home.clara.net/dixons/Certificates/indexbd.htm
Here is her (edited) reply for information:
"What you get from a register office depends entirely on their facilities. In the last office I worked in we did not have the facility to Xerox an entry directly onto the blank certificate (the photocopier was not sufficiently good!). Therefore all certificates were handwritten or electronically produced.
Another reason for not photocopying is that the register is too fragile - photocopying bends and distorts the spine - I had a lot of my early registers that were too fragile to use in that way - there were a lot of pages that were no longer fixed into the spine.
Had the big bill on registration got through Parliament then there would have been two changes. Firstly there would have been a facility to have a photocopy - warts and all - for a cheaper price than a certificate - and secondly the registers over 100 years would be available for the public to look at. The various changes are still being brought in - but piecemeal and I am afraid that those sections dealing with genealogy won't have much clout but keep your fingers crossed - it will happen eventually.
The registrar is correct when she says that she is not allowed to send out a certificate with a clerical error on it. These are mistakes made by the registrar or the informant and corrected before it was signed by the registrar. More formal errors that have been corrected will be shown but would also have to be handwritten. The instructions on not reproducing certificates showing numbered errors are quite clear - but I guess they are disregarded sometimes when it is the historic records that are being reproduced. It is so much faster to photocopy than to handwrite!
(GRO or Local Register Office?)
You will never get an actual photocopy of the original register EXCEPT from the local registrar. Each quarter, the registrar is required to send a copy of every entry they have done that quarter. Except for a short period from around 1970s/1980s when registers were photocopied and sent to GRO, they have always been either hand written copies or computer generated ones. So when you get a photocopy from GRO you get a COPY of the original entry - not the original entry itself.
I am quite happy for you to post my replies to the web - regards Barbara"
I asked Barbara Dixon http://home.clara.net/dixons/Certificates/indexbd.htm
Here is her (edited) reply for information:
"What you get from a register office depends entirely on their facilities. In the last office I worked in we did not have the facility to Xerox an entry directly onto the blank certificate (the photocopier was not sufficiently good!). Therefore all certificates were handwritten or electronically produced.
Another reason for not photocopying is that the register is too fragile - photocopying bends and distorts the spine - I had a lot of my early registers that were too fragile to use in that way - there were a lot of pages that were no longer fixed into the spine.
Had the big bill on registration got through Parliament then there would have been two changes. Firstly there would have been a facility to have a photocopy - warts and all - for a cheaper price than a certificate - and secondly the registers over 100 years would be available for the public to look at. The various changes are still being brought in - but piecemeal and I am afraid that those sections dealing with genealogy won't have much clout but keep your fingers crossed - it will happen eventually.
The registrar is correct when she says that she is not allowed to send out a certificate with a clerical error on it. These are mistakes made by the registrar or the informant and corrected before it was signed by the registrar. More formal errors that have been corrected will be shown but would also have to be handwritten. The instructions on not reproducing certificates showing numbered errors are quite clear - but I guess they are disregarded sometimes when it is the historic records that are being reproduced. It is so much faster to photocopy than to handwrite!
(GRO or Local Register Office?)
You will never get an actual photocopy of the original register EXCEPT from the local registrar. Each quarter, the registrar is required to send a copy of every entry they have done that quarter. Except for a short period from around 1970s/1980s when registers were photocopied and sent to GRO, they have always been either hand written copies or computer generated ones. So when you get a photocopy from GRO you get a COPY of the original entry - not the original entry itself.
I am quite happy for you to post my replies to the web - regards Barbara"
35
Census and Resource Discussion / BMD Certificates: "clerical error" and why transcriptions?
« on: Thursday 12 February 09 08:15 GMT (UK) »
I often receive transcriptions of BM&D certificates instead of photocopies of original certificates and would like to know why this is, apart from the obvious reason of a lack of clarity in reproduction of the original. Up until now I assumed this was the only reason for receiving transcriptions instead of originals.
I have just queried this with a local registry office; their reply:
The reason one of the certificates is handwritten is because there is a clerical error on the certificate, which has been corrected by the registrar at the time. We are not allowed to reproduce these but have to hand write them instead.
I'd like to know why these 'clerical error' certificates cannot be reproduced (if I ask I expect I will just be told 'those are the rules' and I don't want to keep bothering a busy Registry Office) my questions are:
does anyone on here know why?
does anyone know of any other reasons why transcriptions are sent instead of photocopies of originals?
any ideas of who I could write to and ask?
I find it disappointing when I receive a transcription instead of the original, not least because I can't see an ancestor's handwriting (if they can write) but because there is always some doubt hanging over their fidelity to the original because they are transcriptions.
I have just queried this with a local registry office; their reply:
The reason one of the certificates is handwritten is because there is a clerical error on the certificate, which has been corrected by the registrar at the time. We are not allowed to reproduce these but have to hand write them instead.
I'd like to know why these 'clerical error' certificates cannot be reproduced (if I ask I expect I will just be told 'those are the rules' and I don't want to keep bothering a busy Registry Office) my questions are:
does anyone on here know why?
does anyone know of any other reasons why transcriptions are sent instead of photocopies of originals?
any ideas of who I could write to and ask?
I find it disappointing when I receive a transcription instead of the original, not least because I can't see an ancestor's handwriting (if they can write) but because there is always some doubt hanging over their fidelity to the original because they are transcriptions.
36
Yorkshire (West Riding) Lookup Requests / Re: 1901 Census lookup ELLEN (HELEN) HALPIN
« on: Thursday 05 February 09 22:43 GMT (UK) »
Evening Jo,
I had a look on the 1911 for the family the day it came out and found Michael, the two Ellens and Lawrence, as I had expected. The elder Ellen is Michael's second wife whom he married in 1903. However, those are the only people of the Halpin surname in the household - no Lucy, no Katherine. The only way to find out is to get Katherine's birth cert (found one of the right year born Barnsley district on FreeBMD) but I'll do a little more research first.
I had never searched beyond her Halpin relations' households for Ellen junior on the 1901 when I saw she wasn't with her widowed father and her brother Lawrence. I simply assumed she would be with a member of her late mother's family the Cooks. It's only now I thought to just check that out. There is the possibility she was with her future step-mother, Ellen senior... who in 1901 was Ellen Roach ..... but that would have come up when you did the lookup as would all the Ellen Halpins b. 1897....
Anyway, as I already knew quite a bit about her from 1911 onwards, I didn't delve much into her whereabouts in 1901. But I will now!
I am waiting for 1911 subscription later this year - it's too expensive at the moment.
Many thanks again for your help - and sorry to waffle...
I had a look on the 1911 for the family the day it came out and found Michael, the two Ellens and Lawrence, as I had expected. The elder Ellen is Michael's second wife whom he married in 1903. However, those are the only people of the Halpin surname in the household - no Lucy, no Katherine. The only way to find out is to get Katherine's birth cert (found one of the right year born Barnsley district on FreeBMD) but I'll do a little more research first.
I had never searched beyond her Halpin relations' households for Ellen junior on the 1901 when I saw she wasn't with her widowed father and her brother Lawrence. I simply assumed she would be with a member of her late mother's family the Cooks. It's only now I thought to just check that out. There is the possibility she was with her future step-mother, Ellen senior... who in 1901 was Ellen Roach ..... but that would have come up when you did the lookup as would all the Ellen Halpins b. 1897....
Anyway, as I already knew quite a bit about her from 1911 onwards, I didn't delve much into her whereabouts in 1901. But I will now!
I am waiting for 1911 subscription later this year - it's too expensive at the moment.
Many thanks again for your help - and sorry to waffle...