1
Family History Beginners Board / Re: Police Archives
« on: Monday 08 December 25 21:19 GMT (UK) »
Look for inquest or newspaper records.
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.
2
The Common Room / Re: Looking for any information on theatre performances late 1800 to early 1900
« on: Monday 08 December 25 09:56 GMT (UK) »3
The Common Room / Re: Falsified age on marriage licence?
« on: Thursday 27 November 25 09:55 GMT (UK) »
As a registrar I did a wedding where the bride & groom had told his family that the bride was 10 years younger than she actually was ( 55 instead of 65 - both bride and groom were second marriages).
She was so worried about them finding out she panicked and wanted to cancel the ceremony - but it did go ahead. I had to casually hold a piece of blotting paper over the age column on the register whilst the witnesses ( the groom's adult children) signed ....
She was so worried about them finding out she panicked and wanted to cancel the ceremony - but it did go ahead. I had to casually hold a piece of blotting paper over the age column on the register whilst the witnesses ( the groom's adult children) signed ....
4
Lancashire / Re: Lloyd/McLennan
« on: Tuesday 25 November 25 08:37 GMT (UK) »
It is quite a common scenario - a marriage breaks down and rather then divorce one, or both, marries someone else.
When they "married" in 1911 she wasn't free to do so, so it wasn't legally valid. Once the first husband has died they marry again.
I have exactly the same in my own extended family - a man who married in 1909, but then married someone else in 1916, falsely claiming to be a widower. In his case it was quickly discovered and he was sentenced to 6 months in prison for bigamy. On release he carried on living with his second "wife" as a married couple, having children ( and registering the births as though they were married) and when his first wife died in 1948 they went and got married again.
When they "married" in 1911 she wasn't free to do so, so it wasn't legally valid. Once the first husband has died they marry again.
I have exactly the same in my own extended family - a man who married in 1909, but then married someone else in 1916, falsely claiming to be a widower. In his case it was quickly discovered and he was sentenced to 6 months in prison for bigamy. On release he carried on living with his second "wife" as a married couple, having children ( and registering the births as though they were married) and when his first wife died in 1948 they went and got married again.
5
The Common Room / Re: World War One 'Death Penny'
« on: Monday 24 November 25 10:08 GMT (UK) »
You see a lot of them being sold in antique shops and online sadly. You could set up a name search on the main auction sites ( ebay, saleroom.com etc) to see if it appears.
There are also quite a few fakes around.
There are also quite a few fakes around.
6
The Common Room / Re: GRO website
« on: Monday 10 November 25 09:41 GMT (UK) »For births with no father named it shows dashes, rather than repeating the mother's surname as in FreeBMD.
The "dash" means that there is no mother's maiden name recorded - it always doesn't mean there is no named father on the entry.
7
The Common Room / Re: Bristol lies partly in Gloucestershire and partly in Somerset
« on: Thursday 30 October 25 14:11 GMT (UK) »And their current instruction can even confuse the registrar.
When I had to register my Dad's death, I was asked for his place of birth. I told them Queen Charlotte's Hospital, Marylebone. They said they had to go by the names of the areas now, and wanted to put Acton.
It took a lot of pursuading that it wasn't that the area had changed names. The hospital was in a totally different location, miles apart (and indeed had been in a third location for many years in between too).
Eventually, sense prevailed.
Obviously they hadn't read the manual properly ! The guidance, for the birthplace on a death registration, is that things like a hospital name aren't included only the town/village and county, so they should just have put:
"Marylebone, City of Westminster"
If you, as the informant really wanted it on there I would probably have entered it as:
"Marylebone, City of Westminster: Queen Charlotte's Hospital"
...although it would probably have been queried and got me a telling off during the quarterly checking process.
8
The Common Room / Re: Bristol lies partly in Gloucestershire and partly in Somerset
« on: Thursday 30 October 25 11:39 GMT (UK) »Up here, we in Cheshire recently gained the town of Warrington, which Lancastrians will know was always in Lancashireand belongs there IMHO
And under current BMD registration rules, places are always supposed to be recorded as they are NOW - so on the death certificate of someone born maybe a hundred years ago in Warrington and may have called themselves a proud Lancastrian, their place of birth would be shown as Warrington,Cheshire.
Will be potentially confusing for future researchers.
At a families very earnest request I did once record a birthplace on a death reg using its old historical details, which successfully slipped through the checking process. They were very grateful.
9
Herefordshire Lookup Requests / Re: Marriage / death cert ?
« on: Monday 27 October 25 09:40 GMT (UK) »Thanks Antony ( there’s not many of us called Antony , everyone puts a H in my name )
Very true - annoying isn't it !
(the reason you didn't find the birth originally using the full details is probably because the GRO site uses a leading zero on volumes so you need to put 06A, not just 6A)