No announcement yet.

Marriage entry shows 2 different page numbers

  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    Marriage entry shows 2 different page numbers

    I am doing some research for someone and found a marriage that took place in 1970

    Registration Quarter: Jan-Feb-Mar
    Registration district: Exeter
    Inferred County: Devon
    Volume Number: 7a Page Number: 840

    for the same names there is also exactly the same registration but with page 841

    Has anyone any idea what this might mean? if anything.

    It’s not because of a known spelling error in one of them is it? Could be that when they made a correction, the page got listed wrongly. Have you viewed the pages to see if both are typed entries or one is handwritten entry on the bottom of the page?


      Can you look at the actual images of the two entries?

      If it is on Freebmd, you can do that ...... just click on the spectacles at the right of the entry

      Note:- I've just checked my own marriage in 1967, and it is possible to see the scan of the page then
      My grandmother, on the beach, South Bay, Scarborough, undated photo (poss. 1929 or 1930)

      Researching Cadd, Schofield, Cottrell in Lancashire, Buckinghamshire; Taylor, Park in Westmorland; Hayhurst in Yorkshire, Westmorland, Lancashire; Hughes, Roberts in Wales.


        Looking at the scan of the original index, the typewriter has a damaged number 0, which looks like a 1 if you glance at it. Ive looked at both scans and it is from the same page,just depends how you interpret the faint 0.



          Sorry Ladies. GallowayLass , Sylvia C and Olde Crone Holden

          I did not get any notifications of your replies and of course with age I completely forgot I had posted on here LOL!

          I have amended my settings back to what they were i.e. be notified by email if someone replies to me - I guess the move to this 'new look' changed some things on the way over.

          Thanks for your responses, both the entries were type written and looked quite clear to me but obviously they must be some sort of clerical or other error rather than anything more substantial.

          Apologies again for appearing to ignore you.