Genealogy Chat

Thanks for the information, it supports my theory abut names given verbally and also wrongly transcribed later on. The marriage cert. in question is 1892.

There was a thread on this subject a little while ago.

Only a small handful of local Register Offices have the original copies in their possession. Many have been destroyed, others may have been deposited at the loacal Archive Centre, so even a scanned copy, is in most cases, a copy of someones transcription. Whilst some of the larger office may have sacnning facilities so at best you receive a typewitten copy, or more often a handwritten one at the time you order it.

Errors such as this are common. My own marriage certificate is wrongly transcribed for both our names, would you believe. Looking at the original in our possession it is easy to see why it happened. We have logged a correction at the GRO, which they have now made, but obviously the filmed index in the possession of sites such as Ancestry and Free BMD are incorrect.

You can always query it with the registrar but the original can not be changed, even if wrong, only an amendment noted if the details can be proven.

My great grandfathers' marriage actually has the wrong surname - he was married in the next parish as my great grandmother was already in her ninth month of pregnancy with my grandfather, so it could be the vicar, not knowing him, misheard his broad yorkshire accident.

Don't forget that no one made any checks on the information given, many could not read or write so the vicar or registrar wrote down what he heard.

What period are you talking about?

I am wondering if anyone else has problems with typed certificates? I have received one from Manchester for a marriage between James Marsden and Susan Jane HEATON. Father's name is given as Thomas HEATH (deceased), however on her birth cert. her father's name is given as Thomas HEATON!. Is this a transcription error (as bad writing could make it look like Heath) and is there any way of ordering a copy of the original (bristol to manchester is a long way to travel to see it in the flesh). Also a witness is given as Elizabeth EATON (no H) but there was a sister Elizabeth (HEATON). Lastly why do some places insist on typing them rather than scanning the original?