RootsChat.Com
General => The Common Room => Topic started by: RW1 on Monday 17 July 23 12:20 BST (UK)
-
Hello
I'm interested in seeing the death certificate that I've found on freebmd.org:
GREENE, MALE - SEP 1861 PANCRAS VOL 1B PAGE 86
I have looked at the scanned image used by freebmd.org and believe this is transcribed correctly in freebmd.org, but I cannot find it on the GRO website inquiry in order to buy the certificate. Other entries from the same sheet, eg WILLIAM HENRY GREENE, Clerkenwell, 1B, 340, do appear on the GRO website.
I've tried the "phonetic" and "similar sounding" options on GRO, as well as anything I thought GREENE may have been mis-transcribed as.
I phoned GRO and was told not to use the free entry, paper certificate order screen (£11), using all the correct details, as GRO wouldn't be able to find it either and I'd get an "incorrect order details" response (and lose my £11). But I was advised to send in a query to "firstpointofcontact@gro.gov.uk", which I did and enclosed the scanned image from freebmd.org. I assumed (wrongly) that GRO would correct the entry (however it was wrong), it would then appear on the website and I'd be able to order the certificate.
I had a reply from GRO saying "index holders are aware of the existence of errors and GRO does not guarantee the accuracy of the data supplied". Who are "index holders"?
GRO also states that due to the scale of the task of updating errors, "it would be impossible to update all the copies of our indexes".
GRO also suggests that I send a photocopy of the death certificate to GRO, PO Box 2, Southport PR8 2JD. I wonder why they think I already have it! Or where I got it from! Or what they will do with it, if they don't correct errors!
The only solution that I can think of is to contact the actual register office in London (Pancras or successor)?
Many thanks for any other suggestions.
-
That sounds like the GRO being extremely unhelpful. Yes maybe the register office is the only way to go. Have you found a burial?
Is this the birth?
GREENE, - GREENE
GRO Reference: 1861 S Quarter in PANCRAS Volume 01B Page 130
-
Is this the birth?
GREENE, - GREENE
GRO Reference: 1861 S Quarter in PANCRAS Volume 01B Page 130
Yes, I believe it is - child of Charles Greene and Selina Greene (also née Greene).
-
Did the couple live to be on the 1911 census, where a wife stated years married how many children born alive & how many still alive.
-
Did the couple live to be on the 1911 census, where a wife stated years married how many children born alive & how many still alive.
No, and they also lost at least two other children soon after birth (I have the burial records for those, confirming the address, but not for this unnamed one). In fact, only their first child survived.
-
Sounds like it could have been rhesus incompatibility to me.... What were the ages & causes of death of the two for whom you have found burials?
ADDED - not that this would help you request for the 1861 death certificate....
-
There is a facility online to report a missing index entry to the GRO
https://www.gro.gov.uk/gro/content/certificates/indexes_report.asp
Choose Missing Entry in the Death Index and complete the details you have from Free BMD.
Put a comment to say you can see this in the old printed index but its not in the online one and ask that they review and amend if needed.
It can take a while for them to both review and amend but in my experience it does get done. I reported a missing entry from the births index on the 12th July, its now included in the online index.
You have to keep checking back on your reported errors list to see if its been dealt with and what the outcome was.
Boo
-
Sounds like it could have been rhesus incompatibility to me.... What were the ages & causes of death of the two for whom you have found burials?
ADDED - not that this would help you request for the 1861 death certificate....
I suspect that Charles and Selina were first cousins - I am working on trying to prove this! Unfortunately, the St Pancras Cemetery register does not give cause of death. Daughter Julia was only 8 hours old; son Charles was 3 months. Their eldest child, Ernest Charles, appears to have been unaffected by any chromosome(?) problem, at least to the extent that he married and had a family and lived to be 82.
-
There is a facility online to report a missing index entry to the GRO
https://www.gro.gov.uk/gro/content/certificates/indexes_report.asp
Many thanks for this. I will give it a try - perhaps I was just unlucky with the GRO respondent to my email. There was no suggestion to do this.
-
Many thanks for this. I will give it a try - perhaps I was just unlucky with the GRO respondent to my email. There was no suggestion to do this.
To be fair, under any list of search results on the GRO site (even if there are no results) right at the bottom of the page it says
Noticed a problem with a record in the GRO Indexes?
You can report it to GRO and help us improve the quality of information available.
Clicking on "report it to the GRO" takes you to the url I posted.
Boo
-
I have looked at the scanned image used by freebmd.org and believe this is transcribed correctly in freebmd.org, but I cannot find it on the GRO website inquiry in order to buy the certificate.
The GRO are using the original documents to create the new indexes, so whether or not FreeBMD has transcribed the old indexes correctly or not is irrelevant as the GRO are not using them.
Other entries from the same sheet, eg WILLIAM HENRY GREENE, Clerkenwell, 1B, 340, do appear on the GRO website.
You need to look at page numbers, I am not sure what you mean by 'sheet'.
The two deaths that are missing from the GRO indexes with that page number are both unnamed males GREENE and WEEKS, probably infants, so perhaps the nature of these two registrations somehow led to an indexing error.
Tickettyboo has described the process for reporting a missing entry.
Debra :)
-
Hi
As I said, I will try the error reporting tool. I have used this before for incorrect entries, but I've never had one missing altogether before, which is why I probably wasn't in that thought process!
Thank you again for your replies.
-
The two deaths that are missing from the GRO indexes with that page number are both unnamed males GREENE and WEEKS, probably infants, so perhaps the nature of these two registrations somehow led to an indexing error.
They are not missing.
These are they, both male, but which is which? :-\
Name: —, —
Age at Death (in years): 0
GRO Reference: 1861 S Quarter in PANCRAS Volume 01B Page 86
Name: —, —
Age at Death (in years): 0
GRO Reference: 1861 S Quarter in PANCRAS Volume 01B Page 86
-
Maybe the Greene registration is the first one, alphabetically it is!
-
Thanks for that, I would not have thought to put dashes in the name boxes. :)
Rosie
-
Thanks for that, I would not have thought to put dashes in the name boxes. :)
Rosie
Nor me! Thanks.
-
As you have found, unnamed children are indexed on the GRO on-line index with both a blank surname and forename. Why they don't use the same indexing rule as other entries and show the surname as that of the the father/mother ....I've no idea.
Not very helpful for research ....
The call centre staff are there to take 7 process orders - I don't think many of them have much knowledge of registration rules and how their own systems work .... an email through the contact point does sometimes get a more useful response (but not always).
-
Maybe the Greene registration is the first one, alphabetically it is!
It is! Just ordered image. Died 23 August 1861 (same as birth), aged 6 hours, son of Charles Greene, Newspaper Reporter; cause of death: Premature.
Many thanks.
-
Brill, as usual I have learned something today from rootschat!!
-
Maybe the Greene registration is the first one, alphabetically it is!
Entries on the page are in chronological order by registration date (and time), whoever walked through the door 1st to register the birth/death was registered 1st, so was 50/50 which one was which.
-
I was actually referring to the two search results on the GRO website, not what order the registrations appear in the registrar's book.
I guess as they have no surname in the new index, there was no order, so, yes, a 50/50 chance of getting the right one first!
-
As you have found, unnamed children are indexed on the GRO on-line index with both a blank surname and forename. Why they don't use the same indexing rule as other entries and show the surname as that of the the father/mother ....I've no idea.
That's something I didn't know. Thank you Antony.
Although I have two children whose records contradict that, one un-named male and one un-named female, both died within 24 hours of birth. Both have a single dash in the Name column in their birth entries in the register, and a " - Merriweather" or " - Merryweather" in the Name and Surname column in their death entries.
They are in the online index as:
Births: "MERRIWEATHER, - " (1883/Q1/West Ham/4a/75) and "MERRYWEATHER, - " (1884/Q3/West Ham/4a/96)
and deaths: "MERRIWEATHER, - " (1883/Q1/West Ham/4a/32) and "MERRYWEATHER, - " (1884/Q3/West Ham/4a/54)
But your information has prompted me to search again for another rumoured child that I have so far been unable to find any trace of.
-
Not a consistent approach then !
I did once ask GRO if they could supply a copy of the rules/guidance that the transcribers were given to work from when the on-line indexes were being created. I was told that because the transcription was managed through the 3rd party company working on the digitisation project, they didn't have them....
I suspect they probably do, somewhere, but without seeing them, and knowing how closely they were followed, we have to make deductions from the entries we find.
-
Thank you to jonw65 and AntonyMMM I'd never have thought of trying a dash in the surname field.
I got nosey about this and checked 1861, by vol for death entries that use a dash. LOTS and that's just one year (see attached image, deaths only)
So I'd think lots of folk have the same problem we have seen here which thanks to jonw65 was resolved. Not everyone reads Rootschat, can't search this database just using a year/quarter vol and page no. so anyone looking for deaths of babies born and died too soon is denied the opportunity of purchasing a digital image for £2.50 and maybe would have to pay a full £11 for a cert from a local registrar. That seems wrong to me.
I wonder what would happen if we reported one of these as a missing entry? Would it be added correctly with a surname, hmm ...I may give that a whirl to find out :-)
Boo
-
I've submitted an FOI request to GRO for the transcription/indexing rules used for the digitisation project .....if/when they manage to find them I'll post the details.
-
Well done. A request from you should carry some weight.
-
And well done, Boo. That's a lot of dashes!
-
Thank you to jonw65 and AntonyMMM I'd never have thought of trying a dash in the surname field.
I got nosey about this and checked 1861, by vol for death entries that use a dash. LOTS and that's just one year (see attached image, deaths only)
Boo
Births and Deaths are two different cases.
A Birth with no given name may be a child that didn't survive, or one who was registered before being given a name.
A Death with no name on the record is not necessarily a deceased infant.
It could be a dead body found in a field, a person lost at sea, a vagrant whose name nobody has ever known, or several other possibilities.
But if the register contains a surname, I can see no reason why that entry shouldn't be indexed as such.
-
A Birth registered before being given a name to a married couple or unmarried mother should have a surname indexed whether they survived or not, even if the forname is unrecorded and not subsequently added after baptism & despite the fact there is no actual column for the child's surname.
Deaths of unknown persons in fields and at sea would surely involve a coroner, an estimate of age on the cert & a way of distinguishing from the infants.
I would have expected there to be a surname in the name column as in these Bentley deaths of infants in N.I. and Phil57's deaths, but it is unclear from RW1's reply whether that was the case or not.
https://civilrecords.irishgenealogy.ie/churchrecords/images/deaths_returns/deaths_1915/05283/4467982.pdf
https://civilrecords.irishgenealogy.ie/churchrecords/images/deaths_returns/deaths_1886/06244/4787702.pdf
If the name box was entirely blank then that might explain the double dash, and the period indexes interpolated from the occupation or informant's column.
Looking on Findmypast there were 4,239 male+surname deaths and 2,883 female+surname deaths 1861 = 7122.
There were 269 forname 'Female' surname 'Unknown' and 565 forname 'Male' surname 'Unknown' with entire pages handwritten as that in the original index images = 834 for 1861.
There were also 15 Unknown Unknowns indexed and some with fornames but surname Unknown (perhaps Fred the tramp). 888 in total indexed 1861 with surname Unknown. So 240% more in the new index than the old.
FreeBMD shows 16 Unknown Unknown deaths 1861 but doesn't count the number of results for you.
GRO say in FAQ's
Q10. 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.
for comparison GRONI state the following
Illegible names
There are several reasons why names may not have been recorded for example if the name is illegible and has been impossible to capture for the index. In these cases ‘not captured’ has been inserted to allow searching. ...
It is also common in the case of older records that a birth was registered before the forename of the child was agreed. In these cases ‘not captured’, together with the surname, may help you find the record.
This will also be the case for the forenames and surnames of some foundlings (an abandoned baby where the parents are unknown).
https://www.nidirect.gov.uk/articles/search-gronis-online-records
-
Last year we had a thread where an indexed birth couldn't be found in the GRO indexes.
https://www.rootschat.com/forum/index.php?topic=860372.0
Having found that only one of the 9 FreeBDM indexed births for that district/quarter/vol/page appeared in the GRO indexes, I submitted corrections for the other 8 and the answer was 'Investigated - no amendment required'
These are the 9 entries on FreeBMD
Births Sep 1838
DUNN Aaron Woodbridge 12 438
GOODING John Woodbridge 12 438
HUBBARD Aaron Woodbridge 12 438
LINSTEAD Mary Ann Woodbridge 12 438
MARSH Samuel Woodbridge 12 438
SHEMING Hannah Woodbridge 12 438
STARKS Henry Woodbridge 12 438
WOODS Male Woodbridge 12 438
WRIGHT John Woodbridge 12 438 does appear in the GRO indexes
I decided to try the wildcard * with each letter of the alphabet in male and female searches, sometimes it works, sometimes not. These are the results:
Male search
E, - W
GRO Reference: 1838 S Quarter in WOODBRIDGE Volume 12 Page 438
F, MARY M
GRO Reference: 1838 S Quarter in WOODBRIDGE Volume 12 Page 438
G, - -
GRO Reference: 1838 S Quarter in WOODBRIDGE Volume 12 Page 438
H, U ST
GRO Reference: 1838 S Quarter in WOODBRIDGE Volume 12 Page 438
J, - H
GRO Reference: 1838 S Quarter in WOODBRIDGE Volume 12 Page 438
T, L S
GRO Reference: 1838 S Quarter in WOODBRIDGE Volume 12 Page 438
W, SAMUEL G
GRO Reference: 1838 S Quarter in WOODBRIDGE Volume 12 Page 438
Y, H J
GRO Reference: 1838 S Quarter in WOODBRIDGE Volume 12 Page 438
Female search
B, - -
GRO Reference: 1838 S Quarter in WOODBRIDGE Volume 12 Page 438
I have no idea what is going on here. Surely all of those names are not illegible on the documents and if they are, do they not have a system where these entries are passed on to a second or third indexer? Why did they not amend the indexes when I submitted the enquiry, could they not read them either?
I hate complaining about things that are good but this is stretching the friendship a bit far ;D
Debra :)
-
Phew what a project, well done.
-
A Death with no name on the record is not necessarily a deceased infant.
It could be a dead body found in a field, a person lost at sea, a vagrant whose name nobody has ever known, or several other possibilities.
But if the register contains a surname, I can see no reason why that entry shouldn't be indexed as such.
I agree and am trying to understand how this indexing has been done in the hope that I can possibly get round it if all else fails and find the entry I may need to get the register image.
I did a search for Deaths surname -, male, Q1 1861, vol 1a, its a small sample but I just want to get an idea of what I can find out
GRO online gives 18 results
6 are age not known
1 is age 12
11 are age 0
I checked the refs on Free BMD
All 18 have forename as Male
4 have surname Unknown and correspond to age unknown entries
14 have surnames recorded,
2 of which match to age unknown entries
1 matches the age 12 entry
remaining 11 all match age 0 entries
Boo
-
There are some entries as well with an ellipsis (three dots) in the surname field, rather more births than deaths in 1861. I think this is when the transcriber cannot read the name