Can anyone interpret this? I am very puzzled.

[loo]

I just received a marriage certificate in the mail, and there is something on it which I don't understand.  If I had the skills, I would scan it in so that you could see, but I think a description will tell you what you need.

Under the bride's father's name, the person has written "William Leopold", and then under that, "(deceased)".  Then they have drawn a line through "William", and have written "August (II)" above it.  (You can tell that the line was drawn after the "(deceased)" was written in because of the spacing.)  Then, over on the right side of the page, outside of the box that is the record, they have written "Eleven" plus the registrar's initials.  The writing is all very neat and clear.
The reality is that the father's name was August and he was indeed deceased.  His father's name was Frederick, so it's not that he was the eleventh August Leopold.
This could be a really important clue for me, if only I knew what it meant.
Any ideas?  If not, is there anyplace in officialdom where I could ask?
thanks

[suttontrust]

Could it be something to do with the date?  What year are we talking about?

[sjsbc]

Hi,

Could it be a correction to the entry made at a later date by the registrar.  He has initialled the correction.

Maybe he also kept a record of such ammendments and this one is number 11 on that list.

All speculation, but your knowledge from elsewhere would support the view that the entry was ammended to insert the correct father's name.

Sue

[sillgen]

It is not clear how you got this certificate but try writing to the local register office and ask them what it means.   I would be fairly certain that it was an amendment done at a later date but they will be able to confirm that.
My husband was put down as age 53, not 35 on our marriage certificate and when we eventually noticed, some years on, we had to get it altered and it has an amendment in the margin so it does happen!
Andrea

[PrueM]

Hi loo,
I think the others are right about it being an amendment.  They changed his name to read "August" and then what looks like "11" is the little reference number so that the registrar could sign it off in the margin.  It could be 11 or possibly II (2 in Roman numerals).  I have a couple of examples of this myself in certificates I've collected, usually where a registrar has made a glaring spelling mistake! 
It's a bit like a footnote or endnote in a book - a little number above a word in the text refers to a note at the bottom of the page.
Prue

[loo]

The date was 11 Jan. 1902.  I can't think that the fact that it was the eleventh has anything to do with this though.
This marriage took place at a Congregational Church.  I must admit I am fuzzy about who exactly fills these forms out that we get when we order them, since obviously the Registrar is not present at church weddings.  Therefore I'm having trouble figuring out how much of this was the Registrar's actual doing, and how much might reflect some sort of error on the minister's part.
Now that you have had an opportunity to make some comments, I will add another bit.  (I didn't want to prejudice anyone before, in their interpretation.)  My extra bit is this:  There really was a William Leopold, but he was not a member of the bride's immediate family (i.e. not one of her siblings,  both parents being deceased).  I believe, but have not yet proven conclusively, that William was her uncle.  One of the things that makes it difficult to prove is that there is almost no evidence of interaction between them, and no family memory of it as far as I have been able to discover.  The bride's father had died only two years previously.  I have a hunch that William, his brother, was filling in for him, and probably gave away the bride.  I suspect that the minister got confused about the two names.  He knew her father was dead, but he also had this William person in front of him who was sort of acting like a father, he probably didn't know the family at all, and just got confused, and then perhaps corrected it himself.  Therefore, I think, it was the minister who made the original error.  Otherwise, I must think that the name "William" just happened to appear at random, which seems strange;  I just can't account for why it might have been selected, as it doesn't sound remotely like August.
I got the cert from the PRO, but I could definitely ask the local registry office, and see what they say.  Never thought of that.  I also wondered if the church record might be of any use (never having yet seen any, I'm not sure).   Also, this marriage was by licence, and I wonder if tracing the licence would prove fruitful.  What do you think?
I should add that the item in brackets is very simply written.  It does not have tails on it as you would often find in Roman numerals.  It's really just two simple parallel strokes, such as in the simple format of Roman numeral 2, or the arabic number eleven).
I appreciate all your comments, and would be interested in any further ones you might have.
thanks.