Online GRO Indexes Queries Raised

[Hardwork]

Has anyone else been perplexed by GRO responses to reported errors and omissions in their online indexes?

I have too many examples to quote each one but here is one as an example:-

BIRTH John WRIGHT 1842 June qtr LINTON (the actual page number is unclear but begins 7 and the volume number isn't particularly clear either). This was reported by me as a missing entry as it doesn't come up in a search. It does appear in the online scans of the original GRO register scans at Free BMD.

The GRO response is:-

Current Status: Investigated – No amendment required
GRO Comments: Indexed data is correct.

As the GRO won't enter into correspondence what does their reply mean? Does anyone know or can hazard a guess?

Does it mean the data is correct and that it should come up on a search? (do they even consult what actually comes up online to the viewer or are they consulting a different source?) Or does it mean their index is correct and the entry doesn't exist? Or if the latter, does it mean their data is deficient and that it may appear in local copies? Alternatively, is it implying the clerk was having a bad day back in 1842 or so and just misread the entry or put it in the wrong place?

I can understand the GRO not wanting to get bogged down with answering individual queries but there are so many faults or apparent faults in the online index that I feel their responses as typified above are so unclear as to be useless in establishing the facts. My personal preference is to believe the handwritten registers rather than whatever source they use, as finding omitted entries at the GRO is not an unusual occurrence. Another favourite response is, "Indexed data not available". If it is not available to them who is it available to! Do they mean it doesn't exist? Or do they mean they don't bother consulting the local registrars, when their own sources are wanting? I'm interested to know of others experiences in error reporting and responses received and how they interpret them.

[meekhcs]

GRO will enter into correspondence, see my post Occasional Copy:A in General chat, but the answer is just as oblique!! I am waiting for a further email from them, but I suspect it will just contain the same info as the first!

To my annoyance they are unable to say why they have added OC:A to my Father's birth registration. There is nothing in the local records to suggest the registration has been amended, and yet GRO will only say that, that is probably why OC:A has been added.

[Hardwork]

GRO will enter into correspondence, see my post Occasional Copy:A in General chat, but the answer is just as oblique!! I am waiting for a further email from them, but I suspect it will just contain the same info as the first!

Well, they have only ever replied to me saying they don't enter into correspondence! I won't say you are lucky though, as it looks as if the information you received is just a token response.

[jonwarrn]

Possible baptism of John at Balsham, Cambridgeshire, 8 May 1842
Mother Mary Wright, Spinster, abode Balsham.
No father named.
The BT is on FamilySearch
https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903 ... 96N-H93L-C

There are a good few mistranscriptions in the new birth index, so that's one possible reason that John Wright can't easily be found in it.
That GRO page number isn't clear from the image, but it could be 78, and some other baptisms at Balsham around the time seem to relate to births indexed around pages 77-79 in June 1842, Linton (vol. 14)
FreeBMD have nine names indexed for page 78, really there should be 10.
Looking at the whole lot in Linton in June, there are a few entries that the FreeBMD team haven't been able to read the GRO page number for, but Findmypast and FamilySearch index both Phillip Brown and Mary Ann Mansfield on page 78 as well. (They do say that John Wright is on 78)
The ten can all be confirmed by a search in the new GRO index.
But, if we can hopefully include John Wright!, the original GRO index will then have 11 names on page 78, which is one too many!

Have you got the certificate?
Because otherwise it might open up the possibility that one of those births has been indexed twice, under two different surnames? Possibly due to a father being named on an illegitimate birth?
There are two Johns on page 78, John Wright and John Gifford.
The new GRO birth index has the other John
GIFFORD, JOHN
Mother's Maiden Surname: —
GRO Reference: 1842 J Quarter in THE LINTON UNION Volume 14 Page 78

We know in these situations there will only be one entry in the new index, not two. I think it was AdrianB38 who informed us on the old forum that the entry will be indexed under the (alleged?) father's surname, not the mother's.
Any sign of John Gifford!
Jon

[jonwarrn]

Any sign of John Gifford!

I think there is, in 1851 and 1861, living in Great Shelford.
Age 8 in 1851, born Shelford. Parents William and Mary.
Age 19 in 1861, born Balsham, father William is widowed.

[Hardwork]

e know in these situations there will only be one entry in the new index, not two. I think it was AdrianB38 who informed us on the old forum that the entry will be indexed under the (alleged?) father's surname, not the mother's.

Thank you for your reply, lengthy explanation and research jonwarn. Unfortunately, though, that does not explain why the GRO say that "Current Status: Investigated – No amendment required, GRO Comments: Indexed data is correct." The fact that they may be able to tie John GIFFORD to John WRIGHT does most definitely not make the index correct as they assert.

Anyone with even basic understanding of indexing should realise that all entries should be transcribed, even if an entry is made under two separate surnames and results in two entries. An index is a finding aid and not designed to record a specific number of births. What may be obvious to someone looking for John GIFFORD, for example is unlikely to be of help to someone trying to trace John WRIGHT.

I haven't got the certificate - but how would I find the reference or even existence of a person called John WRIGHT to order a certificate anyway when the name hasn't even been included in the new index? It just shows up the absurdity of the GRO creation. Searching an index is not meant to be a guessing game. The words chocolate and teapot come to mind. An alleged father's name is just that - alleged and has no relevance in law so most certainly shouldn't be used as the primary index for a birth document, unless the original entry has been amended, in which case it should, and needs to be, clearly linked to the original entry.

Genealogy sometimes leads us to feelings of despair without the basic failings of public servants obstructing our endeavours. Like so many things seem to be these days, something imperfect that worked is now replaced by something unfit for purpose - but no doubt cheaper - and which shows it.

[AdrianBruce]

... Anyone with even basic understanding of indexing should realise that all entries should be transcribed, even if an entry is made under two separate surnames and results in two entries...

That might be your understanding of good indexing - and mine! - but sadly it's not how the GRO decided it should work. You asked what the GRO mean - well, that's what they mean.

As I have said before, I am uncertain whether the GRO ever knew they'd changed the rules in the case of illegitimate children with two parents listed. After all, if I wish to be purist and pedantic, I could point out that there is actually no indication at all on a BC of whether the parents are married or not. It's all deductions based on the surnames of the two parents - different was originally assumed to mean unmarried and identical was originally assumed to mean married. There is no explicit evidence on the BC and the Registrar had no explicit evidence either.

... An alleged father's name is just that - alleged and has no relevance in law so most certainly shouldn't be used as the primary index for a birth document ...

Now there I would disagree with you. There's no question of "allegation". The certificate records a father and the index records the father's name. That's all it is - a name. It's not "alleged" but neither is it "accepted".

[Hardwork]

drianBruce - I just wrote a lengthy and detailed reply to you that just disappeared after pressing "Preview"! Time wasted. However, it won't move the debate on. Quite simply the reality is that the people tasked with creating and maintaining the indexes are patently not up to the job. Those indexes begun in 1837 are far more complete than the modern version. So much for progress.

Another point though is that the GRO welcome submission for omissions (of which there are more than a few). As in the case of John WRIGHT, if those submissions are rejected without adequate or accurate explanation, one is faced with two choices. Not to bother submitting them at all, or continually re-submitting them until a genuine reason for non-acceptance is forthcoming. Pigs might fly! Well, I suppose the latter will generate more public money to be thrown at an inferior product. It'll keep the civil servants in work and happy, and show up the substandard quality of the service offered!

[AdrianBruce]

Those indexes begun in 1837 are far more complete than the modern version.

The 1837+ indexes are definitely more useful for the case of both unmarried parents listed on the BC. No argument from me. But the same 1837+ indexes don't contain the mother's maiden name until much later. So you pays your money...

if those submissions are rejected without adequate or accurate explanation

Their responses are certainly as clear as mud. Which is partly why I wonder if they know that they changed the rules.

[Hardwork]

Indeed, Adrian but it only takes people to put postems based on info from certificates onto FreeBMD to overcome that and make it if not more useful, as useful. We shouldn't really though be having to discuss the deficiencies of a publicly funded, government run system, unfit for purpose. Those responsible for it should be seeking to improve it and instead of treating us like the great unwashed, but as the paying customers we are. I think it clearly shows the set up has been created by people who have very little understanding of its function and who refuse to acknowledge the weaknesses inherent it.