Unconfigured Ad Widget

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

How could I be so stupid??

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • How could I be so stupid??

    My great great grandfather Joseph Hoyland divorced his wife in 1880. I have all the records for this mess!

    In 1891 Joseph has a new wife Maria. I have searched for years and sent for several wrong certificates for this marriage and for a long time now I have assumed Joseph and Maria did not actually marry.

    I had another search today just looking for any Joseph to any Maria. And I FOUND it in 1886 ... transcribed on FMP with enough details so I know it is the right one. I have ordered the certificate straight away. Sooooo pleased!!!!

    Why was I stupid? Joseph's surname has been given as HAYLAND instead of HOYLAND. I know full well this is a common error so why didn't I check that. AAAARGH!

    Message to everyone. CHECK THE VARIATIONS

    Anne

  • #2
    Yup, done this myself.

    Looked over and over and over again for James Holden in 1891. Not a sign of him.

    SKS found him immediately mistranscribed as Holdan!

    OC

    Comment


    • #3
      The spelling errors in a database index still happen: some friends of mine married in the 1990's and the groom is indexed as Soanes instead of Soames. His name is spelt correctly on their marriage certificate - it is the index which is incorrect. (I found the database error after searching for the bride and forename only of the spouse.)

      Jay
      Janet in Yorkshire



      Genealogists never die - they just swap places in the family tree

      Comment


      • #4
        Well I am more stupid ,for years have searched for an Irish Marriage, as I assumed she had stayed there, but finally a contact found she had married and died in Nottingham
        Wonderful when you find the answers isn't it.

        Comment


        • #5
          LOL, yes I was so excited my OH thought there was a disaster, I was shouting so much! I knew you'd all understand my joy.
          Anne

          Comment


          • #6
            That’s why an * is my favourite character LOL Glad you found it at last

            Comment


            • #7
              It is so maddening isn't it, Ann. I looked for my GGrandfather "Ansboro" death in India so many times. I found him as "Ausboro".....I was well chuffed but I have since found some others in his family transcribed the same way......Now I'm not sure which is the right surname because I think he was a bit of a fibber anyway!;)
              Jacky

              Comment


              • #8
                I share your joy Anne. My block was Adams, my great grandfather's birth - transcribed as Adnams. Took me years to find that. The cert was Adams tho'.
                Kat

                My avatar is my mother 1921 - 2012

                Comment


                • #9
                  Got the certificate today. My gg grandfather wasn't trying to hide anything. I'm thinking he could have put 'widower' in the condition column and no-one would have known better as he was away from his home area. What is actually on the certificate is 'Legally divorced'. This marriage was in 1886.
                  Being a copy from the GRO we can't be sure what his signature looked like but clearly the person who did the copying when it was originally sent to the GRO had difficulty in deciding, the handwriting is a bit fudged! Hence being indexed Hayland instead of Hoyland.
                  Anne

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Thats interesting Anne, was that the norm for divorced people ?

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Anne in Carlisle View Post
                      Got the certificate today. My gg grandfather wasn't trying to hide anything. I'm thinking he could have put 'widower' in the condition column and no-one would have known better as he was away from his home area. What is actually on the certificate is 'Legally divorced'. This marriage was in 1886.
                      Being a copy from the GRO we can't be sure what his signature looked like but clearly the person who did the copying when it was originally sent to the GRO had difficulty in deciding, the handwriting is a bit fudged! Hence being indexed Hayland instead of Hoyland.
                      Anne
                      What a great result Anne. It would be well worth you contacting the local registration office to find out if they would send you a facsimile copy of the original certificate so you could get that important signature.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Saying you were divorced is what you are supposed to say, Val. I do quite admire him for being truthful. His first wife was still living (in poverty) in the nearby town. Unusually it was her that ran off with a younger man leaving several children behind. Of course we have no idea (even from the divorce papers) of how she might have been treated before she left!

                        GL the thing is I think I can see the workings in the head of the copyist. He/she had to write Hoyland 3 times, first two for groom and his father and lastly for the copy of the signature. It is in the first two you can see he has probably written Hoyland but changed it a bit. He then confidently writes Hayland for the last one. All the other details my gg grandfather has given are exactly right so I shall give him the benefit of the doubt.

                        Anne
                        Last edited by Anne in Carlisle; 29-10-18, 18:43.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Val wish Id never started View Post
                          Thats interesting Anne, was that the norm for divorced people ?
                          I was divorced when I married my current husband and it shows as 'previous marriage dissolved' on the certificate that was 1991.

                          You did have to say 'divorced' and I believe I had to provide the papers to confirm - of course for a woman it is more noticeable as the father's surname would most likely be different to hers.

                          Margaret

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Margaret

                            Yes, odd that one has to prove divorce but not widowhood. I have never understood why.

                            OC

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Olde Crone Holden View Post
                              Margaret

                              Yes, odd that one has to prove divorce but not widowhood. I have never understood why.

                              OC
                              You certainly do now - a person giving notice to marry is asked if they have been married before - if yes, then they need to show how that marriage was ended and that would usually require either a divorce decree or death certificate.
                              Retired professional researcher, and ex- deputy registrar, now based in Worcestershire. Happy to give any help or advice I can ( especially on matters of civil registration) - contact via PM or my website www.chalfontresearch.co.uk
                              Follow me on Twittter @ChalfontR

                              Comment


                              • #16
                                Thanks Antony. My experience was in the early 1970s! I had a job to find my decree absolute and several people said I should just have said I was a widow because "you don't have to prove that".

                                OC

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X