|
Up until the 1860s the GRO register was written by copy writers inevitably introducing errors. Some of the GRO archive remains in handwritten format.
Quite a lot was typeset from the copywritten records and of course that made for more errors. From about 1940 chunks of the GRO were typed or copy typed using poor quality ribbons etc once again creating more opportunities for error. From the 1980s the BMD is in computer format only and thus there is no scan for a cross check.
Apart from typo errors user errors eg cannot spell mother's maiden name on birth cert properly, mother does not know maiden name, double entry of marriage are rife.
The many errors in what became known as the St Catherine's Index are covered by various sources and a chunk has been rebuilt as a demonstration without errors. So far Ancestry, FMP et al have declined to complete the work.
The GRO index which is part of Ancestry is NOT identical to freeBMD. (a) it is far more complete going on to 2006 (b) the postems added to FreeBMD do not appear (c) corrections accepted by FreeBMD are very slow to appear if at all.
FreeBMD itself is very idiosyncratic. There are a lot of records missing (for years where FreeBMD claioms "complete" ) yet FreeBMD has no way for a user to submit any such record. This is most obvious with the marriage records which are a real mess. FreeBMD has a tortuous way of accepting corrections which are based solely on the scan issued to its volunteers. These are of mediocre quality and where better scans are available FreeBMD seems not to bother. FreeBMD does not have any scope for correcting errors of fact other than a postem.
Use the Ancestry version of the GRO to check if in any doubt - access is free at UK libraries.
The correlation between the census records and the GRO register can be very poor. Adults were not always aware of their birthplace or exact age and could be way out. They also lied.
In short do not rely solely on UKGov BMD and census records to build a tree make sure to get some cross check from another source. Buying the cert rarely adds much additional info. though they can be entertaining ( marriage witnesses ) and informative ( death certs.).
There was a surge in bigamous marriages 1915-1925 so take that into account when looking at 1914-1930 records. For similar reasons gro reg parents and actual parents 1940-1947 were often divergent from fact.
Since the 1960s it has been possible to re register a birth. The original index record remains on public file but is flagged and cannot be used for passports etc. For example a women may be married to (A) and have some children with (A) but others with (B). The latter are nevertheless registered as children of (A). At some point the mother marries (B). The couple then re register children of (A) as children of (B). This all went on before DNA and could (and did) generate some prize disputes.
fwiw the original GRO certs ( not the fiche ) are held in an archive in Dorset and there is no public access. Copy certs purchased from the GRO are generated from the fiche and are often poor quality.
|
|
Thanks Jan
Thank goodness for the "phonetic" option :-)
|
|
I might have it totally wrong, but I suspect it happened from the start, as the typed images you see are the GRO indexes, compiled from info provided from the local register offices. You can see how errors might easily creep in.
This might be of interest:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Register_Office_for_England_and_Wales
Jan
|
|
Does anyone know when or if the typewritten lists were taken from handwritten originals ?
I have an entry where the name is incorrect but it does tally with the scan which is a typed one so I cannot get it changed {I will add a postem} but I wondered when the changes started
|
