New GRO Index - Meaning of "-" for mother's maiden name

[Nick_Ips]

In the long (and now locked) thread about the new GRO index I asked a question about the meaning of a dash "-" for mother's maiden name. I'm not sure the answer has been found for this, so I'm starting a new topic on this specific point.

The last comment on the old thread about this was from AntonyMMM -
http://www.rootschat.com/forum/index.php?topic=758727.msg6096007#msg6096007

If I understand what he is saying correctly, it means the "-" always means the mother was unmarried.

I'm still not sure about this - the GRO website page on "Index Data Quality and Error Reporting" has the following information:

What if there is a dash against details in an index entry?
A dash is recorded where the details have not been data captured in the index. Not all information will have been provided by the informant when the birth or death was registered, or in some cases the information may not have been data captured. In these circumstances there will be a dash against the field when the search results are displayed.

Why is Mother's Maiden Name shown in most, but not all birth indexes?
In some cases Mother's Maiden Name was not data captured, and will appear in the online index as a dash. However, where possible, we have enhanced the indexes to include Mothers Maiden Name where it has previously not been provided on the microfiche indexes.

So the use of the dash appears to be where data was not captured (for a variety of reasons?) rather than just because the mother was not married.

This approach seems potentially confusing and/or misleading, it would help if there was differentiation between data which was "not captured" (for whatever reason) and where there is no mother's maiden name (because the mother was unmarried).

I've spent the afternoon looking for mother's maiden names in families where I've previously been unable to find the marriage and hence the wife/mother's surname.

One example is William and Ann SPANTON living in Tunstead, Norfolk at the time of the 1841 census. I've looked for their marriage several times in the past and could only find a possible match in Norwich on 29 May 1819.

I think I have found their post-1837 born children on the new GRO index as follows:
SPANTON, GEORGE   -   GRO Reference: 1839  D Quarter in OF TUNSTEAD & HAPPING  Volume 13  Page 292
SPANTON, SAMUEL   -   GRO Reference: 1841  S Quarter in TUNSTEAD & HAPPING  Volume 13  Page 300
SPANTON, SOPHIA   -   GRO Reference: 1841  S Quarter in TUNSTEAD & HAPPING  Volume 13  Page 301
STANTON (Sic), ELLEN   -   GRO Reference: 1843  J Quarter in OF TUNSTEAD & HAPPING  Volume 13  Page 333

But all four have the dreaded dash rather than a mother's maiden name.

The question is why - and has anyone else come across something like this?

All four were baptised in Tunstead (Samuel and Sophia were twins) and there is nothing on the parish register images to indicate that William and Ann were not married. But they had been together for some time by then, so it is possible it was assumed they were married (if they weren't) when they went to have the children baptised 

Equally, if the dash indicates data was 'not captured' for some other reason (e.g. the entry is unreadable) then it seems unlikely that all four post-1837 children would happen to have unreadable mother's maiden names.

I'd be interested to hear if anyone else has found a dash for mother's maiden name where they know for sure the mother was married.

[ScouseBoy]

Sometimes  the mothers maiden name could be. Identical to the surname given to the baby.

In some cases. The maiden name of the mother may be coincidentally. The same as her husbands. SMITH.  For example

[Nick_Ips]

That is a possibility, there were several SPANTON families living in the area and it wasn't unknown for them to marry each other.

But that would still mean Ann was married and technically had a maiden name, even if it is the same as her married name. So surely the '-' for unmarried would not apply then?

[Sloe Gin]

Sometimes  the mothers maiden name could be. Identical to the surname given to the baby.

In some cases. The maiden name of the mother may be coincidentally. The same as her husbands. SMITH.  For example

Indeed, and the absence of the dash has meant that I have to take a whole different look at a problematic branch in one of my families. 

I had always assumed that Henry Davis, married to Sarah, was the son of William and Lavinia Davis, but all their children are showing a mother's maiden name of  .... Davis!  So it could be that it is Sarah who was the blood relative.  She was the informant on Lavinia's death, and was described as daughter, which takes on more significance now.

Been looking for the marriage, but needless to say I haven't found it! 

[Sloe Gin]

That is a possibility, there were several SPANTON families living in the area and it wasn't unknown for them to marry each other.

But that would still mean Ann was married and technically had a maiden name, even if it is the same as her married name. So surely the '-' for unmarried would not apply then?

Yes, I believe the maiden name is defined as the name a woman was known by when she was married for the first time.  So she can have no 'maiden name' until she has married. 

Most people think it means the name she was born with, and it usually is, but it's not necessarily so.

[Andrew Tarr]

A dash is recorded where the details have not been data captured in the index. Not all information will have been provided by the informant when the birth or death was registered, or in some cases the information may not have been data captured. In these circumstances there will be a dash against the field when the search results are displayed.

Yuk.  That nasty phrase 'data captured' is gobbledegook which no doubt means something specific to the author, but is annoyingly vague to the rest of us.  It could mean OCR, or simply poor interpretation of Victorian script - or almost nothing at all.  It means 'no data' (uttered in an artificial Dalek-like voice).

[Nick_Ips]

Yes, that's the crux of it, does "not been data captured" mean there was nothing there to 'capture', or was there something but the system/person was unable/unwilling to 'capture' it?

I'm also interested in the apparently different approach to uncertainty adopted by the GRO compared to FreeBMD. In FreeBMD anything unclear is marked up using UCF - I've not seen anything similar with the new GRO Index, so does that mean anything which was uncertain in the original records has been ignored ('not data captured') or has it been transcribed with a best guess, even if it is wrong?

[Mabel Bagshawe]

I found one of my relatives with the dash for mmn. her parents were married - I wondered whether it was something about earlier records which meant mmn was not captures - this was from 1848 and Spanton examples above are even earlier. Alternatively they just couldn't work out whet her maiden name was - it should have been Klimcke but the spelling is a bit variable, to say the least!

[Nick_Ips]

That's an interesting observation Mabel.

I'm just working on another family - John and Elizabeth KNIGHTS. Family births in 1840, 1842 & 1843 have a dash for Mother's maiden name, those in 1845, 1852, 1856 have the MMN as LOADS.

That might lead you to conclude there was a marriage event between 1843 and 1845, but I've found a marriage for John KNIGHTS and Elizabeth LOADS on 29 Oct 1833 (in Smallburgh, Norfolk).

So why no maiden name in 1840, 1842 and 1843 if they married more than 7 years previously?

I'm still trying to find the youngest known son, William Mark KNIGHTS, supposedly born 25-04-1858 and baptised 19-09-1858 (25 years after the marriage ) - neither FreeBMD nor the GRO site have answers!