RootsChat.Com
General => The Common Room => Topic started by: clairec666 on Friday 11 November 16 16:27 GMT (UK)
-
I'll start us off with a few tips:
1) Don't forget the death indexes! They go up to 1957, and show middle names in full. This might help you track down the death of a relative with an unusual middle name - for example, I've tracked down a Mary Angela who was previously indistinguishable from all the Mary Anns!
2) Deaths up to 1866 show the age at death. (A warning though, sometimes an age in months/weeks can appear to be in years - e.g. 14 months just appears as 14. I wonder if the GRO are working to correct this?)
3) Have a look for babies born in the second quarter of 1911 - they may have been born just after the census was taken, but previously the mother's maiden name was only recorded from the third quarter of 1911 onwards.
-
Dear Clairec666
Thank you for tip 2. I have a death for someone aged 11 and I'm pretty certain it should be 11 months. There is no way of checking. I've sought extensively for the death of this child at a later age but there is nothing, so I hope GRO address this fault quickly.
Melbell
-
There is no way of checking.
You may be able to find a burial....
Josey
-
Dear Josey
Yes, sorry, badly worded by me!
Melbell
-
Another tip is do the 2 year either side search of your surnames of interest in the relevant districts they lived in. Such as any Walders born 1838-1842 in Cuckfield district, and look at the maiden names of the mothers. You may be able to find which children were born to which couples with the same surname using the maiden name and cross ref them with marriage records that you may have come across.
-
Being aware of any changes of name of the registration districts where your ancestors lived helps. For example for my ancestors who lived in Iveston, co. Durham at first after registration started it was in Durham and Lanchester District. It then became known as Durham District before becoming Lanchester District in its own right. Selecting Lanchester District does not produce any results for the period it was known as Durham District.
William
-
My comment is also on the Registration Districts, the GRO spelling is not always as expected. I have a lot of people in the Newport Pagnell District but, despite the GRO proposing that spelling, some of the records can only be found by leaving off the last L! Another oddity are records being listed under a sub-district, some that I expected to find in Northampton District show up as Bugbrook and I would spell it Bugbrooke!
HTH
Paul
-
Don't always rely on the 1911 for the correct number of children born to the marriage.
I was always suspicious of a 7-year gap between two of my Great Uncles, even though the total number of children tallied with the census, but the new index appears to have confirmed my suspicions (MMN was quite unusual but I've ordered the PDF just to be 100%).
-
My comment is also on the Registration Districts, the GRO spelling is not always as expected.
That isn't always a problem. Asking for Gainsborough records will also retrieve those which come back labelled Gainsburgh - which I have never seen anywhere else ....
-
I leave out the registration district - too hard sometimes to work it out for parts of populated places like Manchester if not familiar
Only 3 mandatory fields and one of those is the year which has +-2 years option so not too onerous searching the results for the maiden name of mother
Has anyone investigated the difference between "phonetically similar" and "similar sounding"?
I opt for the latter because I figure most English and British origin names in my family might be misspelt more than misunderstood. ??
And having ordered a pdf last night after reading about the new service here, and not noticing it for myself earlier in the week when I was shopping and bought paper certs ... I wonder which will arrive in my mailboxes first? The race is on ...
-
Has anyone investigated the difference between "phonetically similar" and "similar sounding"?
I've not yet worked out the difference between the two - both of them have thrown up some results which are VERY far removed from the original. I prefer searching with wildcards, which isn't available, but fingers crossed they'll add this later :)
-
I find the insistence on a choice of Gender strange. It can only reduce a trawl by about half at best, so why? By far the biggest help is MMN, which (once one has found the correct one) makes collecting the rest of a family pretty easy. I guess the restriction of ±2 years is to limit the size of a catch, but even that becomes a bit of a nuisance ....
-
With regard to infant ages, the GRO "Most customers want to know" document states (FAQ 18)-
For infants who died within 12 months of birth, the age is shown as 0 in line with the microfiche indexes.
Therefore if there is a number given for the age of an infant death then it appears the error is that you are getting a value rather than the "0" the GRO intended.
In the circumstances it might be best not to complain too loudly that the days/weeks/months indication is missing :-X
-
Therefore if there is a number given for the age of an infant death then it appears the error is that you are getting a value rather than the "0" the GRO intended.
The impression I get is that if an age has been recorded in months or weeks (not sure about days) that number will show in the GRO age column, and appear to represent years, which should show 0 or perhaps 1. I have seen one example showing age as 19, which the corresponding church burial record proves to be months.
Searching for an age only finds records matching that number, whatever units it represents.
-
Yes, it seems the 'bug' is the website displaying a number which represents days, months or weeks, when the actual intention of the GRO to have been represent any age under 1 as a '0'.
Although the index won't tell you whether it is days, weeks or months it is still 'free' information which we didn't get on the old index ;D
-
I found a death age of 23 in the new index which was recorded in the Parish Register for burials as aged 1 yr 11 months and on FreeBMD as 1.
-
The impression I get is that if an age has been recorded in months or weeks (not sure about days) that number will show in the GRO age column, and appear to represent years, which should show 0 or perhaps 1.
My experience is that is sometimes the case but not always sometimes the deaths do say 0 identically to FreeBMD. Post 1900 most seem to say 0 rather than have a numerical value (which should be months).
As you say as long as one is cross referencing to FreeBMD, Ancestry, Findmypast etc old indexes and verify it is the same person using the Vol & page nos it is additional useful info.
Has anyone investigated the difference between "phonetically similar" and "similar sounding"?
There was a reply about that earlier this week possibly in the lengthy locked thread but there are several similar on the go. The reply was basically google the terms but you get rather technical/mathematical info about replacing letters. Basically the Similar sounding is looser than Phonetic just as Ancestry's order is Exact/Sounds Like/Similar/Soundex.
I try to avoid using anything other than Exact on the GRO, find it takes ages & often times out.
-
While you cannot search by county specifically, you can add a volume number, which roughly correlates with the registration counties. A listing of volume to county numbers is here:
http://www.genuki.org.uk/big/eng/civreg/GROIndexes
For example if I want to narrow my search to Nottinghamshire in the 1840s, I can just add volume 15 into the search. This will also bring up some districts in Leics/Northants/Rutland as well, but narrows the results a lot to the region of interest.
-
I find the insistence on a choice of Gender strange. It can only reduce a trawl by about half at best, so why? By far the biggest help is MMN, which (once one has found the correct one) makes collecting the rest of a family pretty easy. I guess the restriction of ±2 years is to limit the size of a catch, but even that becomes a bit of a nuisance ....
I Just had a look for the death in 1837 of a lady,I ticked female and got a Charles,George and Elizabeth!!!
-
While you cannot search by county specifically, you can add a volume number, which roughly correlates with the registration counties. A listing of volume to county numbers is here:
http://www.genuki.org.uk/big/eng/civreg/GROIndexes
Above is easier to read but in case you missed it there is actually a link to a pdf on the GRO index search page beside the district box showing more detail (34 pages of).
https://www.gro.gov.uk/gro/content/certificates/images/GRO%20Registration%20District%20Book.pdf
Furthermore there seems to be some sort of relaxed use of District. For example try Smith male born Warwick 1900 some results are for "ALCESTER IN THE COUNTIES OF WARWICK AND WORCESTER" and when I specify Southam District I get results from Southampton too.
-
While you cannot search by county specifically, you can add a volume number, which roughly correlates with the registration counties.
That is a great tip, thanks! Did not think of that, will save me doing double searches for Birmingham and Aston.
-
Carol, the GRO site explains that in some cases the gender wasn't recorded or couldn't be transcribed for the index, so those records will be shown in search results regardless of the gender selected in the search.
I just wish the search page didn't require this field!
-
Just ordered a PDF and it says Despatch Date (Est) 22 Nov ???
That's slower than post. Has anyone received a PDF yet?
-
I've just finished searching a batch of 74 infant deaths (age=0) from the old GRO index (i.e. FreeBMD data) using the new GRO data. These cover the timespan 1868-1954.
Of the 74 a total of 22 still have an age of 0, the remainder have a number in the range 1 - 11.
Although this is a fairly small sample, I wonder whether the absence of any numbers more than 11 means the number represents months, and anything under one month is being shown as a '0'?
The majority of the 74 records are pre-1900, but the post-1900 ones show a similar pattern to the earlier ones.
-
Re ages in weeks/months shown incorrectly:
I don't know if the GRO have plans to correct this error, but I hope they don't show under-1s as 0. It's useful to have an accurate age for infant deaths.
-
Has anyone received a PDF yet?
Yes, I received some of mine Friday afternoon that I ordered on the Wednesday! :)
-
a feedback form link is attached to the trial pdf's (ordered Wed, arrived Fri afternoon), asks for score and reason for score eg ease of use of index. I won't give 10/10 and will explain why so hopefully the next incarnation is even better - hopefully they will take some of it on board.
-
To all those who helped me initially on the original GRO.GOV UK subject I have now received the cert for my James Henry Ellis, searched for 20 years or so and it was girl guide who actually found my man, Christian names back to front and a different surname to what I expected but the details otherwise was what I would have expected, so thank you to those who helped me, my brick wall has now been knocked down :)
Louisa Maud
-
Brick walls being knocked down! Death cert for James Wisdom 1st Oct 1861 received this afternoon. ;D Had never found him in 1861 Census but by searching for the person who registered the death, was able to find James, who was the lodger. His surname was badly written and had been transcribed as Widow!
Never give up the search.
-
While you cannot search by county specifically, you can add a volume number, which roughly correlates with the registration counties. A listing of volume to county numbers is here:
http://www.genuki.org.uk/big/eng/civreg/GROIndexes
That is stunningly helpful - thank you.
BugBear
-
Thank you for the tips about the age on the death certificates. I have been looking for my gggrandfathers brother who died as an infant. I found his name but initially disregarded it as the age given was 21. Thanks to your tips I realise that this could be 21 months so I have sent for the PDF
Thanks
Chris
-
Thank you for the tips about the age on the death certificates. I have been looking for my gggrandfathers brother who died as an infant. I found his name but initially disregarded it as the age given was 21. Thanks to your tips I realise that this could be 21 months so I have sent for the PDF
Thanks
Chris
For deaths after 1866, you can cross-reference the age with FreeBMD, or for earlier deaths, see if you can find a burial which shows the correct age. Otherwise, I guess you'll have no idea until the PDF arrives whether it's weeks, months or years.
-
I've been looking at deaths I'd previously found on FreeBMD with ages '0' or '1'.
On the new GRO index the FreeBMD '0's are coming up as '0' or a number between 1 and 11.
FreeBMD '1's are coming up on the new GRO index as a mix of '1' or a number between 12 and 22 (not seen a 23 yet).
My hunch is the numbers where a '0' or '1' is expected are generally in months, but there may not be consistency.
I.e.
Up to 1 month = 0
Up to 1 year = a number representing between 1 and 11 months
Over 1 year but less than 2 years = either '1' or a number representing between 12 and 23 months
I'd be interested to hear of any known ages less than 1 month which are shown as a number of weeks/days.
This does appear to be a bit of a mess. Unfortuantely I fear the GRO will 'solve' the problem by editing the ages to '0' rather than changing the website to correctly search and display ages in days/weeks/months. :(
So I'd say it should be a priority to look at children who you know died at a very early age (i.e. you have already found them on FreeBMD with a '0' or '1') and make a note of the number in the age column in the new index. Working out whether it is days/weeks/months can happen later ;D That is what's kept me busy this weekend.
-
This does appear to be a bit of a mess. Unfortuantely I fear the GRO will 'solve' the problem by editing the ages to '0' rather than changing the website to correctly search and display ages in days/weeks/months. :(
That's what I'm worried about, too! Make use of this information, before it potentially disappears - even if it needs a bit of "interpreting".
-
Another tip, from the outcome of another thread and thanks to users vrvt and jonw65, it appears some whole pages have been missed from the transcription process for the new GRO index.
If you are searching for someone who appears on the FreeBMD index, but not the new GRO one, then try using FreeBMD to get the details of the other people with the same GRO Reference. (I.e. the same year, quarter, volume and page)
In FreeBMD clicking on the blue hyperlinked page number for the person you are interested in will perform this search automatically and very quickly.
Then try searching in the new GRO index for some of the other people returned by the FreeBMD search.
If none of them come up in the new GRO index it suggests the whole page was missed and there is no point trying different search combinations to find the individual you were originally looking for.
Following this proceedure after trying some of the more obvious GRO search variations will save time and frustration searching the GRO index for someone who simply isn't there. (Yet ??? )
-
Just because you can't find the entry in the new GRO Index doesn't mean that the pdf is not available.
I entered my order the old fashioned way with the references copied from FreeBMD, and then clicked on 'pdf copy' on the order page. Only when I checked some of the GRO indexes later I found two that were on FreeBMD but not on the GRO Index. I have already received one of them so it's worth trying this way!
-
Dear Clairec666
Thank you for tip 2. I have a death for someone aged 11 and I'm pretty certain it should be 11 months. There is no way of checking. I've sought extensively for the death of this child at a later age but there is nothing, so I hope GRO address this fault quickly.
Melbell
The freebmd show them as 0 (or 1 if they are 13/14 months) - I've found that I can ascertain it by looking up the same death on the other index if GRO says 4 and freeBMD says 0 you can safely assume it's an age in months (or weeks I suppose)
-
Or days! ;)
-
Here's a trivial one; if you're trying to search an extended period (say 15 years) to pick up all of a families births.
When you use ± 2 years, you cover 5 years in total so I use numbers ending in 2 and 7 thus:
1882 ±2 = 1880-1884
1887 ±2 = 1885-1889
1892 ±2 = 1890-1894
1897 ±2 = 1895-1899
Etc.
BugBear
-
A couple of things I've noticed this morning:
1) Be flexible with the spelling of the mother's maiden name, particularly for early records. E.g. for one family it switches between Dorks and Dawkes. She signed the marriage certificate with an x, so perhaps this isn't surprising.
2) Don't believe the 1911 census! I've found a child of my great-great-grandparents who died young, yet there are no "dead children" according to the 1911 census... had they forgotten her? I've purchased the PDF to prove she belonged to them. Now I'm wondering, how many more forgotten children will I find?
-
1) If a woman has been married previously, don't expect all births to the second marriage to have the same maiden name - some may show as her actual maiden name, others may show her previous married name. Could be all one, all the other, or mix'n'match!! ::)
2) Having no maiden name at all (a dash) doesn't necessarily mean illegitimate. It could just mean that whoever registered the birth didn't know it (so where it normally says "Mother: Ann Smith formerly Jones", then the bit in red isn't there).
For example, the baby may have been born in a workhouse infirmary [maybe just as an "outpatient"] and the master (or whoever) just knew her as Ann Smith
-
Here's a trivial one; if you're trying to search an extended period (say 15 years) to pick up all of a families births.
When you use ± 2 years, you cover 5 years in total so I use numbers ending in 2 and 7 thus:
That's for the Males - then you come back down the dates for the Females. I wish we didn't have to choose a gender, I can't see the reason for that. It CAN help, but it usually doesn't.
-
Here's a trivial one; if you're trying to search an extended period (say 15 years) to pick up all of a families births.
When you use ± 2 years, you cover 5 years in total so I use numbers ending in 2 and 7 thus:
That's for the Males - then you come back down the dates for the Females.
Yes; I don't have a tip that helps the silly gender thing, but I did have a (trivial) tip for the years.
BugBear
-
I wish we didn't have to choose a gender, I can't see the reason for that.
I can only assume it is due to the display limitation of 250 names eg if searching for John Smith. On my feedback for the cert order suggested they gave a Both option, most of the time I would use that.
I've been using the tweaked search version by Chuffie since he posted it http://www.rootschat.com/forum/index.php?topic=758727.126 (page 15, reply 126) you just click on gender & year up or down & it updates, works for both ±1 & ±2. Don't have to subsequently click search. It may break if GRO update their end but guess can uninstall the additions. I just put it on Firefox, if I use Edge it is still the standard.
-
It does make a difference whether you designate male or female
My ancestor is Alison Appleyard, born 1847 in Halifax. HE is my x grandfather.
I've just entered his details into GRO as male, OK = result
I've also entered same details as Female = no result.
-
Bumble you've got the wrong end of the stick. People are just saying it would make life easier if the GRO search page & the gender option was modified in the future to enable results from Both males & females to be displayed. It is on trial and they have asked for feedback on experiences of using the index and ordering certs.
Most of the time can tell gender from the 1st names but for your ancestor (if you did not have prior knowledge) and for eg Francis/Frances Lesley etc it would be useful to retain the ability to specify Male or Female rather than a default Both. Otherwise an additional M/F column on the screen results would be required.
John
-
A couple of things I've noticed this morning:
2) Don't believe the 1911 census! I've found a child of my great-great-grandparents who died young, yet there are no "dead children" according to the 1911 census... had they forgotten her? I've purchased the PDF to prove she belonged to them. Now I'm wondering, how many more forgotten children will I find?
clairec666, I have the opposite problem, 1911 list my couple with ten born and seven deaths, I can only find one of those seven! I have searched five years prior to the marriage date to 30 years after it in all the areas they lived, maybe the other six were never registered!
-
I wish we didn't have to choose a gender, I can't see the reason for that.
I can only assume it is due to the display limitation of 250 names eg if searching for John Smith. On my feedback for the cert order suggested they gave a Both option, most of the time I would use that.
I don't buy that, as there will always be a way occasionally to exceed 250 as it is now. I would find it very useful to find a whole family with a fairly rare surname, by asking for both genders, a MMN, and a span of ±5 years. The system can always reply 'over 250 records' and ask for a smaller trawl.
-
When filling in First Forename and Second Forename options if you do not get the expected result try swapping the names over.
I.E. use the Second Forename as the First Forename and vice versa.
Cheers
Guy
-
Bumble you've got the wrong end of the stick. People are just saying it would make life easier if the GRO search page & the gender option was modified in the future to enable results from Both males & females to be displayed. It is on trial and they have asked for feedback on experiences of using the index and ordering certs.
Most of the time can tell gender from the 1st names but for your ancestor (if you did not have prior knowledge) and for eg Francis/Frances Lesley etc it would be useful to retain the ability to specify Male or Female rather than a default Both. Otherwise an additional M/F column on the screen results would be required.
John
If you say so !!!!
-
I don't think anyone is asking for any useful features to be taken away BumbleB, it is just about removing some of the existing search limitations to make the system more user friendly and convenient.
It depends what kind of searches you are doing and why. If you know you are looking for a male relative, then selecting 'male' may be useful - but it could also cause you a problem if the gender has been incorrectly recorded or transcribed, quite possible in the example you gave.
However, if you are trying to find all the children of a particular couple during the whole of their marriage, the male/female and the year range limitations together mean it is hard work with repeated searches changing the criteria slightly each time.
My suspicion is the limitations are deliberate to manage demand on the GRO system. I'm not an expert on how such things work, but it seems obvious that making the user select male/female means the number of records to be searched could be immediately halved. Hopefully it is a restriction that won't last long :)
-
For those of you that are using my script, I've published an update which adds various access/quick keys for even quicker searching and toggling of search options. See notes on the greasyfork page for details.
https://greasyfork.org/en/scripts/24590-gro-index-search-helper
PS: If you need to disable the script for any reason you can do so in either the Firefox 'add-ons' page (Greasemonkey) or in the Tampermonkey UI.
-
I have read a lot about the records available to view from the GRO.
Can you please tell me the web site and also will I be able to see more than say on Ancestry or other sites.
Many thanks
-
Not sure if this is the right spot, but I just found a grand uncle I didn't know about and the REALLY interesting thing is that he seems to have died before he was born!!!!
Alfred Henry Neighbour
Birth - Mar 1894 Vol 1b p401
Death - Dec 1893 Vol 1b p311
-
Not sure if this is the right spot, but I just found a grand uncle I didn't know about and the REALLY interesting thing is that he seems to have died before he was born!!!!
Alfred Henry Neighbour
Birth - Mar 1894 Vol 1b p401
Death - Dec 1893 Vol 1b p311
That's not uncommon, actually! If he died towards the end of March, say, his death might have been registered straight away but not his birth. I've found it a couple of times in my family, and my family tree software doesn't like it, and keeps flagging it up as an error. :)
One child is registered as being born in the second quarter (with first name and middle name), the only possible death record I've found is an unnamed male in the previous quarter (same district).
Another tip: if you have a married woman who dies young, don't discount births of children in the quarter after her death - she may have died in childbirth or soon after, and the child's birth wasn't registered until later.
-
I think Claire's suggestion is the most likely, but another possibility I usually check for is if the records are for two different children. I've come across instances where a child has died and the parents have given the same name(s) to the next child born - even if that birth happens very soon after the death of the first child.
It illustrates the importance of searching over a wider range (e.g. of years) to identify possible records, rather than searching for one record and being satisfied when you find it. In that respect the new GRO search is not quite as useful as FreeBMD :-X
-
sorry if abit off topic but anyone else experienced this.... I ordered four pdf certs weds morning last week 3 arrived Monday morning but they sent one of the certs twice ten minutes apart. still waiting on one of the certs hoping they haven't accidently sent the duplicate instead of the cert im still waiting on. I rang gro but she seemed unclear what I was trying to say
-
It illustrates the importance of searching over a wider range (e.g. of years) to identify possible records, rather than searching for one record and being satisfied when you find it. In that respect the new GRO search is not quite as useful as FreeBMD :-X
Yes, the five-year spread is the GRO norm, isn't it, where they will search for a record when you don't give them a reference number. It would be good if they could give us a wider window for searching.
-
When filling in First Forename and Second Forename options if you do not get the expected result try swapping the names over.
I.E. use the Second Forename as the First Forename and vice versa.
Also, sometimes a middle name was added later in life - for one of my relatives, he had gained a middle name by the time of his baptism, but it wasn't present on his birth certificate.
Also, babies who were registered without a first name at all. Be careful not to jump on the first record you find and assume it's the correct one. There could be another child born in the same district with the same first name, and your relative was registered as "unnamed".
It illustrates the importance of searching over a wider range (e.g. of years) to identify possible records, rather than searching for one record and being satisfied when you find it. In that respect the new GRO search is not quite as useful as FreeBMD :-X
On another thread, someone suggested that FreeBMD could become obsolete. One of its great strengths is that you can see births, marriages and deaths on the same page, across a large time span, and it's easy to match these events against each other.
-
I have read a lot about the records available to view from the GRO.
Can you please tell me the web site and also will I be able to see more than say on Ancestry or other sites.
Many thanks
the website is officially www.gro.gov.uk you need to register and sign in but there is no membership fee.
As these records are compiled from electronic records held by the GRO the age at death before 1866 is shown and birth entries before 1911 contain the mothers maiden name.
This is the first of a few topics here on this subject
http://www.rootschat.com/forum/index.php?topic=758727.0
-
Searching by MMN can be a bit hit-and-miss. A side-branch of my tree includes a Ford who married a Nosworthy (yes, in Devon). They had the regulation eleven children between 1835 and 1856. Of the nine who were registered, three had their MMN entered (or at least indexed) as Norsworthy, Bosworthy and Noseworthy. In the absence of a wildcard search one is forced to try something else.
-
sorry if abit off topic but anyone else experienced this.... I ordered four pdf certs weds morning last week 3 arrived Monday morning but they sent one of the certs twice ten minutes apart. still waiting on one of the certs hoping they haven't accidently sent the duplicate instead of the cert im still waiting on. I rang gro but she seemed unclear what I was trying to say
I'm still waiting for a few from last Wednesday too. I rang them this morning and they are going to look into it for me. I'd ring them again and tell them which one you are missing.
-
i rang them yesterday too, they said they should be here in few days, I'm very disappointed how long weve had to wait for them, they are usually quicker by post. I wonder if they send them out on Saturdays, heres hoping to receiving them tomorrow, or will we have to wait till Monday now at least
-
Searching by MMN can be a bit hit-and-miss. A side-branch of my tree includes a Ford who married a Nosworthy (yes, in Devon). They had the regulation eleven children between 1835 and 1856. Of the nine who were registered, three had their MMN entered (or at least indexed) as Norsworthy, Bosworthy and Noseworthy. In the absence of a wildcard search one is forced to try something else.
I've had most success when I leave out the MMN altogether - if you're searching for a rare surname and/or the family stay in the same area it's fairly sraightforward. Obviously it's much trickier with common surnames.
-
I wonder if they send them out on Saturdays, heres hoping to receiving them tomorrow,
They were arriving last Saturday & Sunday ;D ;D
-
The last time the GRO were most probably this busy was when the fee went up from £7 to £9.25, they were swamped with orders almost immediately on top of what they know is a normal days takings.
With this being a new system and there have been wrinkles to iron out, as disappointing as it is, might I suggest you only contact them when the order is overdue by 5 working days, which is the case if you were ordering a paper cert.
-
Don't forget that there will also be a surge when Who do you think you are starts next Thursday too.
Expect the despatch times to increase then too,it usually does.
-
At the risk of being clapped in irons for heresy, I do feel the GRO have made a rod for their own back with the approach they have adopted. Guy's disbelieving comments on the method apparently being adopted for the pdf production should be noted and acted on by GRO management. It appears the only difference in the new trial system is the 'produced' image is being emailed rather than put in an envelope and posted.
The system needs to be far more automated, which in turn would allow the cost per event to be far lower. This doesn't need to be seen as a 'threat' to the GRO or employee jobs as volumes of more expensive certificates could also be increased.
The fundamental 'block' is that the data on the certificates, however old, is something regarded with a level of secrecy which requires an application and a process to produce a 'certificate'. This runs counter to the aims of open government and self-service being promoted by the current government.
I feel society would be much better served if the GRO concentrated their efforts on protecting the privacy of people still alive and combatting fraudulent use of GRO records where the possibility of fraud exists.
For example, the information on a death certificate from say 1860 has no value to fraudsters and has no privacy implications, unless someone today is concerned their ...g-grandparent died from a socially embarrassing cause. Much of the information on marriage and birth certificates is also freely available (some of it online) from parish registers.
So there is an argument that such historic data should be freely available (possibly with a small charge) rather than requiring the current bureaucratic system of control and production. Having found the death of John Smith in 1860 in the online index, why shouldn't I be able to click through to the original certificate image to see the details?
That would free up GRO staff time to produce paper certificates more promptly, and perhaps to do a far greater level of checking on the bona fides of applications for more recent information where the purpose may potentially be fraudulent.
As an example of the problems the current secrecy causes, yesterday I think I found another page of missing records. I cannot check the original images and 'solve' the problem myself, all I could do is to report it to the GRO. That will mean the GRO will be employing someone to check the originals and work out what is wrong - even though that task will not lead to any financial income.
Sorry for the long post :)
-
Don't forget that there will also be a surge when Who do you think you are starts next Thursday too.
Expect the despatch times to increase then too,it usually does.
Just put in another order..... estimated despatch date 28 November.....
-
Like many others I have found the new GRO indexes invaluable, though so far I have not ordered any PDF certificates. If I got a PDF certificate and printed it would it look any different from a GRO paper certificate? If yes, then in what way would it be different? If no, then why would anyone pay extra for a paper certificate?
(Apologies if this question has been answered elsewhere!)
-
Like many others I have found the new GRO indexes invaluable, though so far I have not ordered any PDF certificates. If I got a PDF certificate and printed it would it look any different from a GRO paper certificate? If yes, then in what way would it be different?
Guy summarized it here
http://www.rootschat.com/forum/index.php?topic=759178.msg6104054#msg6104054
No the uncertified PDF image is the same as the centre part of a paper ceritificate (i.e. the part that used to be surrounded by a red line forming a box).
The top section (above the box) on the paper image is not reproduced and the bottom section is not reproduced.
The reason these two sections are not copied to the uncertified PDF images is that they both confirm it being a certified copy which of course the PDF is not.
-
Like many others I have found the new GRO indexes invaluable, though so far I have not ordered any PDF certificates. If I got a PDF certificate and printed it would it look any different from a GRO paper certificate? If yes, then in what way would it be different?
Guy summarized it here
http://www.rootschat.com/forum/index.php?topic=759178.msg6104054#msg6104054
No the uncertified PDF image is the same as the centre part of a paper ceritificate (i.e. the part that used to be surrounded by a red line forming a box).
The top section (above the box) on the paper image is not reproduced and the bottom section is not reproduced.
The reason these two sections are not copied to the uncertified PDF images is that they both confirm it being a certified copy which of course the PDF is not.
Thank you JenB for your reply pointing me to Guy Etchell's earlier answer which I obviously missed. It would appear that the new PDF certificates would satisfy most family historians, so let's hope that the GRO make it a permanent facility after the trial has finished.
-
When registering with the website do you have to give credit card details if you just want to search?
I have many certificates already and do not need any more (at present!!) but I would like to check on deceased children.
rayard.
-
When registering with the website do you have to give credit card details if you just want to search?
No, not if you want to do a search :)
-
Thank you Jen for such a quick reply!!
I will register now!
rayard.
-
In response to Nick_Ips, this makes interesting reading (published this year)
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/560155/HO_response_-_ICI_Civil_Registration_inspection_-_October_2016.pdf
-
That is interesting Dawn, I'd read recommendation 2 to mean "Is £9.25 enough to recover our costs or should we be charging more from sometime in 2017?"
The digitisation project was stopped with quite a bit of work to be done, and it looks like there is no plan in place to complete it beyond the records already available in the new search facility. How that issue will be resolved is also interesting, and doubtless will involve considerable costs to the GRO and in turn us.
How much better would it be if a FreeBMD type model could be adopted for completion of the transcription/digitisation - this would mean a massive change of culture at the GRO, but we can always hope.
-
don't hold your breath - you may go blue in the wait :o
At the time the charge was set in 2010, £9.25 was deemed to be the level at which certs could be produced at cost. It is not in the GRO's (current) remit to produce a surplus ie make a profit.
And while the GRO is part of the IPS Identity & Passport Service, producing certs for family historians is not their core business. I remember years ago seeing a piechart the GRO had produced and family history certs was a very small wedge.
I've been trying to find a more upto date set of accounts, the latest I could find for 2012-2013 here
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/210619/IPS_annual_report_and_accounts_2012-13.pdf
Makes good bed time reading, but page 9 shows that £9.25 does not cover the costs.
If you want to read further, the statement also includes the financial situation towards the end of the document.
-
How much better would it be if a FreeBMD type model could be adopted for completion of the transcription/digitisation - this would mean a massive change of culture at the GRO, but we can always hope.
Oh, if only!
Oh well, at least we have this amazing free resource that wasn't previously available to us, with mother's maiden name indexed etc. I for one have been making great use of it... I've only ordered one PDF, and that was on my "wanted" list anyway. I doubt it was the GRO's intention to give us a new free toy to play with!
-
I'm still waiting on a cert ive ordered on 9th nov :( dispite contacting couple of times still havnt received it
-
I rang GRO on Friday re 3 missing from the 9th. They emailed on Sunday to say they agreed they'd missed 2 but had sent the third, could i check. I replied to say no, all three were missing. But the email box doesn't accept incoming messages - how silly - so i had to ring them yesterday. I had one this morning, and another half an hour ago, still waiting for the third, and for 2 outstanding from an order on the 10th.
-
I had one missing from the 9th, supposedly despatched 16th. I have now emailed twice and it arrived this morning. An order with estimated despatch for 21st arrived this morning apart from 2 not yet sent.
I do wish they would label them other than pdf though, I gave a 'personal' reference to 2 when I ordered them but they came through without it.
Still, I am pleased with those I have received most of which I had been putting off getting.
-
How accurate are the estimates for delivery?. In my case its a PDF Birth Cert by email. I ordered it on the 15th of November, and its supposed to be emailed today. I bet they dont send it :o(
Turnip.
-
Thank you for the tips about the age on the death certificates. I have been looking for my gggrandfathers brother who died as an infant. I found his name but initially disregarded it as the age given was 21. Thanks to your tips I realise that this could be 21 months so I have sent for the PDF
Thanks
Chris
For deaths after 1866, you can cross-reference the age with FreeBMD, or for earlier deaths, see if you can find a burial which shows the correct age. Otherwise, I guess you'll have no idea until the PDF arrives whether it's weeks, months or years.
Just thought I'd send an update. I received my PDF today after 6 working days. It was worth the wait though as the age on the certificate was 21 MONTHS. The death occurred in September 1858 in Chester-le-Street, Co Durham. When I cross checked with FreeBMD there were no deaths recorded for that Qtr in Chester-le Steet so after a very long time searching I have at last found my missing relative
Chris
-
How accurate are the estimates for delivery?. In my case its a PDF Birth Cert by email. I ordered it on the 15th of November, and its supposed to be emailed today. I bet they dont send it :o(
Turnip.
I ordered on the 13th with estimated date yesterday, most arrived today
-
How accurate are the estimates for delivery?. In my case its a PDF Birth Cert by email. I ordered it on the 15th of November, and its supposed to be emailed today. I bet they dont send it :o(
Turnip.
I ordered on the 13th with estimated date yesterday, most arrived today
Thanks, im probably looking at tommorow then.
-
My order of 11 was due & received yesterday.
One due today hasn't yet arrived.
Jay
-
My order of 11 was due & received yesterday.
One due today hasn't yet been arrived.
Jay
Thanks. I hate waiting. I cant wait to see the information! ;D
-
Anyone know why I can't find the following on the GRO index?
Name William Edwin Howes
Registration Year 1861
Registration Quarter Jan-Feb-Mar
Registration district Henstead
Parishes for this Registration District Henstead
Inferred County Norfolk
Volume 4b
Page 185
-
tjh1989, is this him?
1861 Q1 William Edwin Hawes - Henstead 04b 185
-
HAWES, WILLIAM EDWIN -
GRO Reference: 1861 M Quarter in HENSTEAD Volume 04B Page 185
Mistyped.
Snap Cuffie ;D
By the way no mmn mentioned so maybe illegitimate.
-
tjh1989, is this him?
1861 Q1 William Edwin Hawes - Henstead 04b 185
Ahh that's him. There's an error in the new index which isn't in the BMD version. Thanks!
-
HAWES, WILLIAM EDWIN -
GRO Reference: 1861 M Quarter in HENSTEAD Volume 04B Page 185
Mistyped.
Snap Cuffie ;D
By the way no mmn mentioned so maybe illegitimate.
Thanks, another illegitimate ancestor!
-
Not sure if this is the right spot, but I just found a grand uncle I didn't know about and the REALLY interesting thing is that he seems to have died before he was born!!!!
Alfred Henry Neighbour
Birth - Mar 1894 Vol 1b p401
Death - Dec 1893 Vol 1b p311
Had one which I highlighted on the Northamptonshire board. I think its the same person but others may not.
My only concern , and if anyone can help those who don't live in the UK , is trying to determine which Union or District a person is in related to the County. I am pretty good on the County but its slightly annoying to have to go to a search engine to see if Risbridge Union is in Suffolk etc.
-
The GENUKI lists should suffice for a quick check.
Districts
http://www.ukbmd.org.uk/genuki/reg/districts/index.html
Counties
http://www.ukbmd.org.uk/genuki/reg/index.html
-
or the freebmd official list
http://www.freebmd.org.uk/district-list.html
-
Thank you to both for the prompt response :)
-
I'm finding some of the districts on the GRO website aren't exactly the same as on FreeBMD... and has anyone worked out why some say "Union" and some don't?
-
I found one on FreeBMD for Guisborough district but GRO Index had it as Lofthouse, which is now known as Loftus, a town in the Guisborough Registration District. As far as I know, Lofthouse/Loftus has never been a Registration District. ???
-
I'm finding some of the districts on the GRO website aren't exactly the same as on FreeBMD... and has anyone worked out why some say "Union" and some don't?
Quote from AntonyMMM
Registration Districts were set up in 1837 using the geographic areas covered by the existing Poor Law Unions, in the early years many districts used the word "Union" in the District name, but quite quickly this seems to have been dropped.
http://www.rootschat.com/forum/index.php?topic=745807.msg6103390#msg6103390
-
Don't take any results as gospel, take everything with a pinch of salt as with so many sites.
Sacerdote & Clara BONNY had 8 children, but I could only find birth registrations for five of them on FreeBMD. Using this new GRO search I couldn't find any of them so tried again without using Clara's known maiden name. I found them all, (the missing three didn't use the names they were registered with) but all of them had their mother's maiden name as BRAHM, but it should have been ABRAHAMS, the A & S having gone AWOL!
Even worse with the children of Michael & Bertha COHEN. Seven children with the mother's maiden name different on each one, so I have:
SHMOSH
SCHMIRSH
SMIRCH
SHMOUSCH
SCHMAUSCH
SCHMOUCH
SCHMAUSCH
I've no idea yet which one is likely to be correct!
With these & other searches the results are giving me more questions than answers. ;D
-
I'm finding some of the districts on the GRO website aren't exactly the same as on FreeBMD... and has anyone worked out why some say "Union" and some don't?
This has been explored already - registration districts were originally based on the Poor Law Union districts. Some continued as 'Union' for many years, others stopped quite soon. As to 'why', I have no idea.
-
Don't take any results as gospel, take everything with a pinch of salt as with so many sites.
Sacerdote & Clara BONNY had 8 children, but I could only find birth registrations for five of them on FreeBMD. Using this new GRO search I couldn't find any of them so tried again without using Clara's known maiden name. I found them all, (the missing three didn't use the names they were registered with) but all of them had their mother's maiden name as BRAHM, but it should have been ABRAHAMS, the A & S having gone AWOL!
Even worse with the children of Michael & Bertha COHEN. Seven children with the mother's maiden name different on each one, so I have:
SHMOSH
SCHMIRSH
SMIRCH
SHMOUSCH
SCHMAUSCH
SCHMOUCH
SCHMAUSCH
I've no idea yet which one is likely to be correct!
With these & other searches the results are giving me more questions than answers. ;D
My apologies, but I believe you are being very harsh.
Elsewhere you have stated that these people are Jewish and/or German. It is very possible that they do not know how to spell their own surname, and, with a heavy accent, the Registrar has to do his/her best to interpret that surname.
-
Don't take any results as gospel, take everything with a pinch of salt as with so many sites.
Sacerdote & Clara BONNY had 8 children, but I could only find birth registrations for five of them on FreeBMD. Using this new GRO search I couldn't find any of them so tried again without using Clara's known maiden name. I found them all, (the missing three didn't use the names they were registered with) but all of them had their mother's maiden name as BRAHM, but it should have been ABRAHAMS, the A & S having gone AWOL!
Even worse with the children of Michael & Bertha COHEN. Seven children with the mother's maiden name different on each one, so I have:
SHMOSH
SCHMIRSH
SMIRCH
SHMOUSCH
SCHMAUSCH
SCHMOUCH
SCHMAUSCH
I've no idea yet which one is likely to be correct!
With these & other searches the results are giving me more questions than answers. ;D
My apologies, but I believe you are being very harsh.
Elsewhere you have stated that these people are Jewish and/or German. It is very possible that they do not know how to spell their own surname, and, with a heavy accent, the Registrar has to do his/her best to interpret that surname.
Could they all read and write English,if not it is highly likely that each registrar would spell the name the way they heard it. Even something as simple as my name Carol,is often mispelt as Carole. Imagine if the person involved could nto read it so would have no idea if it was correct or not( what was the correct way to spell it,is there one? !) ;D
-
..... but all of them had their mother's maiden name as BRAHM, but it should have been ABRAHAMS, the A & S having gone AWOL!
Coincidentally, I saw a repeat of the Alex Kingston episode of WDYTYA? a day or two ago, where that exact thing was mentioned. The expert they spoke to said this happened often and they were effectively interchangeable.
-
My apologies, but I believe you are being very harsh.
Elsewhere you have stated that these people are Jewish and/or German. It is very possible that they do not know how to spell their own surname, and, with a heavy accent, the Registrar has to do his/her best to interpret that surname.
"Harsh"? In what way has Betty been "harsh"? ???
She's just shown us some spelling variations of a difficult name, and a not-so-difficult name.
Examples of why we sometimes have to think outside the box.
-
I found one on FreeBMD for Guisborough district but GRO Index had it as Lofthouse, which is now known as Loftus, a town in the Guisborough Registration District. As far as I know, Lofthouse/Loftus has never been a Registration District.
With use of Union etc it appears that the new index may be utilising exactly what was written at the top of the page at the time the Book was filled in so if 'wrong' the error may well have been made 100-150 years ago (assuming it is not a modern transcription entry from illegible handwriting on the page).
Lofthouse was a Sub-District within Guisborough, though generally we only come across these when we see the paper or pdf certificate.
The official paper version would say Registration District Guisborough / Birth in the Sub-District of Lofthouse.
The old page would look something like the attached from a pdf last week. In this case the Superintendent's Registrar's District Warwick should be typed into the computer, not the District Radford.
Registration County : Yorkshire North Riding.
Created : 1.7.1837 (originally "Guisbrough").
Abolished : 1.10.1936 (to become part of Cleveland and Whitby registration districts).
Sub-districts : Danby, Guisborough (Guisbrough), Kirk Leatham, Lofthouse (Loftus), Marske, Skelton.
https://www.ukbmd.org.uk/genuki/reg/districts/guisborough.html
Sometimes the Superintendents District name was identical to the Sub District name eg Births in the Sub-District of Southam in the Superintents District of Southam. Only way to tell for sure if the error was made then or now is to order the pdf but I'd probably put my money on the the computer entry. Can see me doing that after had spent an entire day inputting.
-
My apologies to you, also, Sloe Gin :-[
My interpretation was that Betty was "miffed" that there were so many interpretations of her ancestor's surname:
"Even worse with the children of Michael & Bertha COHEN. Seven children with the mother's maiden name different on each one, so I have:
SHMOSH
SCHMIRSH
SMIRCH
SHMOUSCH
SCHMAUSCH
SCHMOUCH
SCHMAUSCH
I've no idea yet which one is likely to be correct!"
However, she, herself, had to ask on the Europe Board, as to which one might be correct :-\
-
For goodness sake, why do people have to take everything the wrong way!! Yes, I am aware that a heavy German or Polish accent would be difficult for English ears in those days (goodness knows, the Kent accent seems to have caused problems!)
My point was we cannot believe ANYTHING we read, as most of us here know, & to stress this to new people searching. I had two of the birth certs so took her name as SMIRCH/SCHMIRSH, at least now I have had to query these variations & hopefully find the right name, so I can thank the GRO for that.
Thank you sloe gin, yes, this does shows we do have to think outside the box :)
My apologies to you, also, Sloe Gin :-[
My interpretation was that Betty was "miffed" that there were so many interpretations of her ancestor's surname:
"Even worse with the children of Michael & Bertha COHEN. Seven children with the mother's maiden name different on each one, so I have:
SHMOSH
SCHMIRSH
SMIRCH
SHMOUSCH
SCHMAUSCH
SCHMOUCH
SCHMAUSCH
I've no idea yet which one is likely to be correct!"
However, she, herself, had to ask on the Europe Board, as to which one might be correct :-\
-
Thank you ReadyDale, I'll make a note of that in my tree. You learn something new every day on RootsChat :)
..... but all of them had their mother's maiden name as BRAHM, but it should have been ABRAHAMS, the A & S having gone AWOL!
Coincidentally, I saw a repeat of the Alex Kingston episode of WDYTYA? a day or two ago, where that exact thing was mentioned. The expert they spoke to said this happened often and they were effectively interchangeable.
-
The 1901 GRO Name report for Ireland lists just Abram as a synonym of Abraham but John Grenham's website lists the following as utilised in C19 (admittedly Irish) records: Abraham / Abrahams / Abrahamson / Abram / Abrams / Abramson / Ebram / Habram
-
Another tip - just because mother's maiden name isn't recorded, doesn't mean it isn't on the certificate. I ordered one which arrived yesterday. It's from the third quarter of 1837, so obviously early days of civil registration. Indexed as FRAZER, Frances Elizabeth, mother's maiden name is a dash.
Here's the info on the PDF:
Name: Frances Elizabeth
Sex: Female
Name and surname of father: William Frazer
Name and maiden surname of mother: Mary Nind
Informant: Mary Frazer, mother, Evesham
So it looks like the mother's maiden name is there, but maybe because it doesn't say "Mary Frazer formerly Nind" it wasn't indexed, but it's easy to work out that it's her maiden name and she is married to William Frazer.