Unconfigured Ad Widget

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

GRO index & corrected marriage entries query

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

  • GRO index & corrected marriage entries query

    When a correction/amendment is made and a new ref is entered in the index (at the bottom of the page), is it usual for only one of the parties to be reindexed?
    If so, does this create a problem once marriages are cross-referenced with spouse surnames?

    I have a Henry Claxton Etherington, son of Harrison Claxton & Martha Etherington, who was born before the marriage of his parents.
    He married as Henry Claxton in Sep 1902, his bride was Ada Foots. Today I looked at the church marriage register - the marriage took place on 8 Sep 1902, and Ada Foots was indeed married to Henry Claxton, son of Harrison Claxton.
    However, the vicar has underlined both Claxton names, and added the following note in the margin:
    ”For Claxton read Hetherington, otherwise Claxton. Omit particulars relating to bridegroom’s father. Correction 10 Feb 1911, by me …… vicar, in presence of Henry Hetherington/Ada Hetherington (both have signed) the parties married.”

    I have now looked at the GRO marriage index for Sep qtr 1902 and the name Henry Hetherington has been added at the bottom, with an a added after the original number. There is only the original entry for Ada.
    FreeBMD shows Henry Claxton marrying Ada Foots and also Ada Foots marrying Henry Claxton. Henry Hetherington, however, is paired with Henry Hetherington.
    Janet in Yorkshire



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

  • #2
    Janet,
    I did some research for a friend and could not find the births of either of the two names she was interested in. My friend was adament that the info she had given me was correct. With lots of help from very kind people, I did find them. They had been registered under the maiden name of the mother and because I was looking for the fathers surname, I could not find them.

    The couple married in 1937 and the children registered using the fathers name in 1937. This was a hand written entry at the bottom of the relevant surname page, with a cross ref for the date and maiden name they had originally been resgistered with.

    The funny thing is.....the children were fathered by the "father", but the reason as to why they were registered in the mothers maiden name and the couple did not marry for some years after is open to much speculation.

    Kathlyn

    Comment


    • #3
      That's an interesting one, Janet. I wonder whether 292a is actually a page with something like that vicar's note on it, stuck in next to page 292 which contains the marriage certificate? So they didn't really need to alter the index entry for Ada, just add one in for the surname Hetherington. Unfortunately they weren't expecting computerisation to come along and confuse things!

      Interestingly enough, the index entry on Yorkshire BMD only gives the names Henry Hetherington and Ada Foots - there is no listing for Henry Claxton on there.
      KiteRunner

      Every five years or so I look back on my life and I have a good... laugh"
      (Indigo Girls, "Watershed")

      Comment


      • #4
        Spitefully unnecessary of the Vicar, if Henry's natural parents had subsequently married!

        Even if they hadn't married, Henry was entitled to use whatever surname he wanted to, and he was being particularly pedantic in deleting the father's name.

        Unless there was some doubt in everyone's minds as to whether his father really WAS Claxton???

        OC

        Comment


        • #5
          Thanks all for your interest.

          OC, the correction was 9 years after the marriage - I would love to know WHY it took place?? Harry & Ada had at least 4 children, all of whom had Claxton as their surname & their son married as a Claxton in 1929.
          It seems that Harry was living & working in Hull at the time of the marriage, and continued to do so - whilst his father Harrison lived in his native Bridlington (about 30 miles away) until his death in 1919. I had wondered if it was at the couple's request - but if so, WHY???

          Kite - I found it an interesting conundrum! My first search had been for Etherington, Harry's birth reg name. When I didn't find that, I tried Claxton, rather than Hetherington. Just emphasises how we need to be open-minded about where we look, and also to THINK about the different information we find in different sources. My main purpose today at the record office was to confirm that this Henry Claxton was the son of Harrison (without buying a cert for a mere twig - I got more than I'd expected!
          Janet in Yorkshire



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

          Comment


          • #6
            Janet

            Ah, perhaps he grew up thinking Claxton was his real father, then found out later that he wasn't?

            The fact that the correction was nine years later does throw a different light on things - not the Vicar being spiteful after all, but someone actively requesting that the information be changed.

            OC

            Comment


            • #7
              My 2 x great grandmother Sarah Tordoff had a daughter in 1847 & a son in 1849 no father named on either certificate. In 1850 she married Joseph Bagley and the census of 1851 & 61 show both children as Bagley. In 1870 the son, Thomas married in the name Tordoff and went on to have 7 children. He used the name Tordoff on the census of 1871, 81 & 91 then on the 1901 used the name Bagley. In 1911 the 5th of his 7 children, a son Robert, married in the name Bagley. 26 years later Robert had his marriage entry altered to show his own & his fathers name as Tordoff. Thomas died 2 January 1936 & the alteration was made on 4 April 1936. I have always thought that perhaps following his fathers death Robert discovered his father was illegitimate and not the son of Joseph Bagley. I have never found any record of children born to Robert & his wife under either surname so I don't suppose I will ever find out the truth of the matter. It is interesting to note though that 3 of Robert's siblings who married before Robert used the name Tordoff so why did Robert use Bagley? The amendment shows in the marriage index on West Mids BMD.

              Mary M

              Comment

              Working...
              X