Results 1 to 6 of 6
  1. #1
    v.wells
    Guest

    Default Same marriage twice

    William Stuart m Amelia Isaac 1857 Honiton vol 5b p40a 1Q
    William Stuart m Amelia Isaac 1857 Honiton vol 5b p45 2Q

    They had children as are in 61 census but separated in 71 census, where William appears at his parents home as single, labourer; Amelia is at his brother's home as housekeeper with children. I then found another marriage for Amelia in 1873. Is this a screw up with GRO - I noticed page 439 on top of 2Q marriage but not in 1Q.

    Same thing on freeBMD. This confuses me
    Last edited by v.wells; 16-06-2008 at 10:40 PM. Reason: left out Honiton

  2. #2
    Super Moderator - Completely bonkers and will never change.
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    England
    Posts
    9,636

    Default

    Hi Vanessa,
    When transcribing a marriage PR I did a lot of checking of names to the GRO Index and found that one marriage which had taken place on something like 29th September actually appeared on the Index for the December quarter when it should have been in the September quarter.
    I suspect that is what has happened here. It's been corrected and added to the correct quarter - hence the reason why William is squashed into the list. To keep the page numbers for the quarter correct they've had to use 40a as there are already 2 marriages/4 names on page 40.
    I suspect that some silly person turned too many pages in the PR and entered all the details of the marriage out of order so if you look in the register the dates on the marriages will read something like 14Mar, 1 Apr, 7Apr, 7Apr, 28 Mar, 12Apr.
    Pam
    Last edited by Pam Downes; 17-06-2008 at 1:16 AM. Reason: Quoted example of dates in wrong quarter. Doh!

  3. #3
    Super Moderator - Completely bonkers and will never change.
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    England
    Posts
    9,636

    Default

    P.S. Am a bit confused about your reference to page 439. Honiton doesn't use page 439 in either 1857 or 1873.
    Pam

  4. #4
    v.wells
    Guest

    Default

    thanks Pam. What you say makes sense now that you've explained it. The page 439 was on the top of the second quarter marriage in 1857 - that's what made me think an error had somehow been made. Thank you for looking. I shall then order the first quarter marriage.

  5. #5
    Super Moderator - Completely bonkers and will never change.
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    England
    Posts
    9,636

    Default

    Now I've had a look at Amelia's entry in the June quarter register I see what you mean. 439 is just the page number in the GRO book, and is nothing to do with the volume and page references.

    Added approx 12 minutes later: But don't ask me why the page numbers of the Index book are written on only some pages.
    Pam

  6. #6
    v.wells
    Guest

    Default

    Okay, I figured as much. I will continue on the brick demolishing!

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Select a file: