Volume and Page No BDM

[steveh37]

My great grand mother (Rosina Rambridge nee Polglaze) according to the 1881,1891 & 1901 Census states she was born in Devonport, Devon aged 16, 26 and 36 respectively, but when I did a search for her on BDM the only result I got was for a Rosina Boynes Polglaze registered Q2 1864 Stoke T 5b 333 could it be at all possible that who ever typed up the entry should have typed Stoke Dameral instead|help|

[Geoffers]

It seems likely. These indexes were originally handwritten; as the volume wore out with use, they were re-typed. It was a pain in the neck going all the way to London, just to find that the volume you wanted was not available.

The check here is the volume number. Each volume represented a different area. Volume 5b covers Devon. So, yes, if it reads Stoke T in the index, it ought to read Stoke D.

[Alan Welsford]

You can be confident if everything else for that Quarter, Volume & Page is for the registration district you are expecting...

In this case....

Surname First name(s) Age District Vol Page

Births Jun 1864 (>99%)
--------------------------------------------
BROWN Sarah Louisa Stoke Damerel 5b 333
COLEMAN Lily Adeline Sarah Stoke D 5b 333
DREW William Stoke D 5b 333
FINN Caroline Martha Stoke Damerel 5b 333
HILL Eli Stoke Damerel 5b 333
MCKENZIE Matthew Robert Stoke Damerel 5b 333
POLGLAZE Rosina Boynes Stoke T 5b 333
WINCH John Henry Stoke D 5b 333

It's blatantly obvious that if the page and volume are correct, it was meant to be Stoke D not Stoke T.

This is about the third example in as many weeks of a wrong Registration district, apparently because a manuscript page has been wrongly transcribed into type. (We've had Bridge garbled to Bristol, for example).

I asked the question before, and would still like to know....

Are the GRO happy if you apply for a certificate using the "right" reference, even if it no longer appears in their indexes, because of the copying error ?

I can't see why not, but then I've never tried it.

Alan.

[steveh37]

Thanks Geoffers, thought as much but just needed someone else's confirmation that I was right in my assumptions

[Peter Goodey]

Note that FreeBMD very helpfully flags "Stoke T" in italics.

What does it mean if a district is in italics?

It means that the district name may be incorrect. FreeBMD performs a number of checks on the district as transcribed and if one of these indicates that the district may be an error we show it in italics. Click on the district for further details.

[steveh37]

Thany you Alan for your input, and I sure there are loads more mistakes on the Bmd that other people have found. Its a shame that none of them ever get corrected..

Peter thanks for pointing out what it meams if a district is in italics, if I had looked more closely at what they all stand for on FreeBMD I wouldn't have posted the Question, but unfortunately I tend to leap before I look...

[Alan Welsford]

I think it's good that you asked the question.

I've seen several very detailed documents on how errors get into the indexes, and indeed at least 2 full books have been published on the topic.

But what Geoffers refers to about errors being introduced as handwritten indexes get recreated as typed doesn't seem to be that well acknowledged, (or at least not in what I've come across).

If they can't get the registration district right, goodness knows how often they must have screwed up the page number.

(I'm not having a go at those who have maintained them - if the images are anything to go by, some pages are close on unreadable).

I still don't know if the GRO will accurately provide a certificate if you provide the right details, but they can no longer actually be found in their index.

As I said before, I can't see why not, but I've yet to try it. I'd like to hear confirmation that it's not a problem.

Alan

[Wilkes_ml]

Well, I just recently applied for a birth certificate of Elijah Morgan Sep Quarter 1837 at Frome. The GRO Index is typed, and the reference number is clearly 10 223.

I received the birth certificate no problem, but the covering pink slip has the GRO page number crossed out, with the number 277 written next to it in black pen, and at the side in red pen is written W/R which I assume means wrong reference.

In this case, they managed to find the correct entry, but do they check these inconsistencies, or just assume that it is us that have made the error when reading the reference number from the index?

I have gone back to the index page and double checked that I have read it correctly.

[Alan Welsford]

Given that you are talking about the first year of civil registration, but the index is a nice clear typed copy, it's obvious it's one of those cases where a poor quality or badly damaged handwritten page has been copied as a typed version.

In this case FreeBMD proves it's worth as the entry has the Registration District "Frome" in italics.

This means something isn't right with one or more of District, Volume or Page.

If you click on the entry it says
"The page number is not within the range expected for the district. Note that there a number of possible reasons for this, including an error in the district, the page, the volume, the date or the type of entry. Further information may also be available here "

And click again, it shows the valid volume & page range as....

QTR VOL PAGES DISTRICT
Sep 10 275-293 Frome

which 277 obviously falls within.

I'd say in this case the GRO almost certainly knew the error to be in their index, and not a mistake by you.

Whether they then hand-search the 19 or so pages of the register that had Frome births on, or whether they still have access to the old page of the index, before it was retyped, I'm not sure. As they have written a page number, I could almost believe the latter is true, as why would they bother, if just hand searching the register.

Does anybody know, please ?

Alan