errors on trees

[Guy Etchells]

Yes ever since the 1836 Acts to the current Births and Deaths Registration Act 1953 and Marriage Act 1949 it has been a legal requirement for the Registrar to allow searches to be made in their registers.
As the 1953 Act states-
"32. Every registrar shall at any time when his office is required to be open for the transaction of public business allow searches to be made in any register of births or register of deaths in his keeping, and shall give a copy certified under his hand of any entry therein, on payment of the following fees respectively, that is to say-"

The 1949 Act states-
"63.-(I) Every incumbent, registering officer of the Society of Friends, secretary of a synagogue and registrar by whom a marriage register book is kept shall at all reasonable hours allow searches to be made in any marriage register book in his keeping, and shall give a copy certified under his hand of any entry in such a book, on payment of the following fee, that is to say-"

A number of years ago when some genealogists were being refused access to the registers I took the matter up with the Registrar General who assured me that all registrars were still obliged to allow access.

Cheers
Guy

PS The public were also allowed access to registers held by Superintendent Registrars until 1974 when access was withdrawn.

[mofid42]

Thanks for the explanation Guy.
 
After I had been researching for a while I also had problems with some local registrars offices refusing to supply certificates for family history purposes. This would have been around 2000/1. It wasn't across the board so I can only presume some were making up their own rules. It was mainly those is cities and large towns, the rural ones remained obliging 

[Guy Etchells]

Thanks for the explanation Guy.
 
After I had been researching for a while I also had problems with some local registrars offices refusing to supply certificates for family history purposes. This would have been around 2000/1. It wasn't across the board so I can only presume some were making up their own rules. It was mainly those is cities and large towns, the rural ones remained obliging 

Yes, many Registrars are unaware that civil registration was principally set up because the poor registration occurring in the earlier ecclesiastical system of registration of baptisms, marriages and burials undermined property rights, by making it difficult to establish lines of descent.
That added to the complaints of Nonconformists, led to the establishment of a Select Committee on Parochial Registration in 1833.
That in turn, established the modern system of civil registration, and set up the General Register Office to administer it.

http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1833/mar/28/parochial-registration

I am amazed at the number of genealogists, professionals included, that do not realise that family history is one of the corner stones of the establishment of both the Ecclesiastical system for registering baptisms, marriages and burials and the civil system for registering births, marriages and deaths.
Unfortunately this ignorance of their rights makes it easier for the few rogue registrars to refuse to supply certificates that is their legal duty to supply.

I challenged Karen Dunnell, the Registrar General back in 2007 on that very subject, with a result she sent an instruction to all Registrars and Superintendent Registrars reminding them that it was their legal duty to supply certificates to genealogists.

Cheers
Guy

[chempat]

I object to your use of 'rogue registrars' - the system was not set up for the express purpose of allowing many people to dabble in their family history.
Laws can be put in place with many unforeseen consequences.
And this conversation reminds me of the saying:
'Rules are for the obedience of fools and the guidance of wise men.'

[Guy Etchells]

I object to your use of 'rogue registrars' - the system was not set up for the express purpose of allowing many people to dabble in their family history.
Laws can be put in place with many unforeseen consequences.
And this conversation reminds me of the saying:
'Rules are for the obedience of fools and the guidance of wise men.'

You might object, as you have every right to do so, but Karen Dunnell, the Registrar General used those very words in her letter to me when she assured me "the incidence of registrars not complying with the law was limited to a few rogue registrars".

Cheers
Guy

[JaneyH_104]

So, this is my first dip into a "general conversation" on here rather than a specific request for help. (It's about all I can manage today, being off work ill...)

With regards to the question, errors on public trees, I can see different sides to the story.  My research is on a public tree on Ancestry, and I'm happy for people to see it and comment on it.  I believe that I'm quite a methodical person, and would rather leave gaps in information than make tenuous links.  Everything I've done over the last couple of years I think is correct, but there may be things that are wrong.  If someone were to point out an error on my tree I'd certainly look at it again.  I doubt I'd comment on someone else's tree though, even if I was sure there were mistakes.  Their tree, their problem, is my view. 

I do look at public trees, but only ever to give me leads to follow and either confirm or disregard based on the evidence I can find.  Some have certainly been useful; one recently helped me identify a mistake on my tree which I've now put right. 

[Bee]

I do look at public trees, but only ever to give me leads to follow and either confirm or disregard based on the evidence I can find. 

That is the reason I was looking at public trees in the hope that I might find some information that I didn't already have, assuming that I could verify the accuracy of such information.

[confused73]

I sometimes look at other peoples trees as occasionally I have found hints about my family that I have been able to follow up. Yes it can be frustrating to see obvious errors,  but at the same time it has got me going back and double checking that my facts are correct, we can all be convinced that we are right and miss a vital clue. It is when it is a very close relative that you know, that is a bit frustrating when you are ignored.

[msr]

I will also look at other trees, but that's because Ancestry will keep throwing out hints, sometimes quite ridiculous ones.   

If my Mary lived all her life in the UK I cannot understand why Mary, born and died in the US has any connection at all. so those I tell Ancestry to ignore.  If, however, there is a tree seeming to match the relevant details I take a look, hoping to find a new researcher to contact.

Sometimes the trees are public so I can take a look to see if this is really the same person, but often they are private, which is fine, I understand some of the reasoning behind that option.   
It is so very easy to send a message to the owner of both types of tree, and patiently await a response.  Sometimes they come, sometimes not.

If one absolutely knows that there is a blatant error on another person's tree why not advise them of it?  I would welcome the knowledge.  Similarly, if some information is found about a particular person which has eluded discovery for some time I would be overjoyed and pass on my thanks.