New/old GRO death index - nicknames

[Nick_Ips]

I've come across something a bit odd and wondered if anyone else had found something similar or knows how it might have happened.

A relative died in 2000. In 2007 I made a note of their death registration details while I was at the Family Records Centre. The details I collected include the given name of the person, which was exactly as my side of the family had always known them.

I hadn't found them on the 1939 Register, nor did I have marriage or birth registration records. However, I recently found their marriage and birth index entries but on these records the person has three given names, none of which are the name they were known by. In other words the name we knew them by was a nickname. (e.g. We knew them as 'Fred Smith' but they were actually 'Thomas Richard Henry Smith'.)

I checked the new GRO death index and it doesn't have an entry under the nickname, but does have one under the newly discovered three given names with all other details identical to those i already had.

I decided to check FindMyPast thinking I might have "had a moment" back in 2007 and written down the nickname by habit, rather than what the index showed. Curiously FindMyPast have two death registration records, both identical except for the given names.

I understood the new GRO index for 1984 onwards was using the already digital data, in which case why does it not include a record under the nickname? There is also nothing in the new index to indicate the entry has been amended or is linked to another entry.

I'm also a bit puzzled as to how this happened in the first place. I suppose it is possible the death was originally registered under the nickname and subsequently amended, but if so I'd have thought there would be some indication in the entries to show this was the case.

Is it possible to register an 'also known as' name, and could/should this generate a second index entry?

The thing to note is the new GRO index might not contain exactly the same data as the previous digital indexes post-1984.

[Craclyn]

Have you tried sending for the certificate to see if that sheds any light on the situation?

[Nick_Ips]

Thanks Craclyn. The certificate might have further information, but I'm really only asking out of technical interest, rather than needing to find more information about the individual concerned. Their family are still alive, so I can't go into too much detail.

I also just wanted to share my experience with this record in case it helps anyone else and/or raises awareness of possible limitations of the new GRO index.

The next step might be an email to the GRO, but before doing that I was interested if anyone else had a similar thing happen.

[KGarrad]

GRO Certificates are informant led.
That is, the Registrar simply writes down the information he is given by the informant.

If the informant says "Fred", then that is written down.
If the informant says "Frederick", then that is written down.

[Nick_Ips]

If the informant says "Fred", then that is written down.
If the informant says "Frederick", then that is written down.

But what happens if the informant says "Thomas Richard Henry, but we called him Fred"? I assume something like "otherwise known as 'Fred'" would be added after the official names.

And specifically, does it lead to two different entries appearing in the index? (evidence from the old GRO index suggests it does).

If so, why does the new GRO index not include an entry that existed in 2007? (Edit: I mean the data on the new GRO website, I understand the post-1984 data is simply a copy of the original)

[AntonyMMM]

A nickname would not normally be recorded on a death registration, but an alternative name that the person "used or was known by" would commonly be shown.

The other name would be shown by "otherwise" or "formerly" depending on whether the name was a current alternative or one that had been used in the past.

Where such multiple names are on the register, I would expect GRO to index under each option - if the new index hasn't done that, it may be an indexing error, or a change in indexing rules (which has happened a number of times over the years), but without a copy of the entry on a certificate it is impossible to know which.

But what happens if the informant says "Thomas Richard Henry, but we called him Fred"? I assume something like "otherwise known as 'Fred'" would be added after the official names.

If the person used both names ( and it wasn't just a nickname you decided to call him) then the entry should say something like - "Thomas Richard Henry SMITH otherwise Fred SMITH"

[Nick_Ips]

Where such multiple names are on the register, I would expect GRO to index under each option - if the new index hasn't done that, it may be an indexing error, or a change in indexing rules (which has happened a number of times over the years), but without a copy of the entry on a certificate it is impossible to know which.

Thanks Antony. That makes sense and fits with FindMyPast having entries with both names. But then why is the alternate name not coming up in the data on the GRO website?

As the death occurred in 2000 I thought it would have been a digital record from the start, rather than part of the historic digitisation programme. Wouldn't that data be uploaded 'as is', rather than being filtered to apply a different indexing policy?

If the person used both names ( and it wasn't just a nickname you decided to call him) then the entry should say something like - "Thomas Richard Henry SMITH otherwise Fred SMITH"

As far as I know the nickname/alternate name was the name the person always used. It was a surprise to me to find another name used for their marriage and birth.

[Andrew Tarr]

Have you looked in the Probate index?  There are often AKAs on that.

[andrewalston]

But then why is the alternate name not coming up in the data on the GRO website?

Whether multiple names are shown would depend on how the data was stored originally and how that was transferred to the website.

It seems likely that the "aka" names were held as subsidiary records with pointers from the main record rather than having a whole extra entry of their own.

When the records were transferred, the likelihood would be that these "extra" names were ignored. This would simplify the work and keep the cost down.