Moderator Control Panel ]

GRO Refund for "an inconsistency in the indexes"

A problem shared is a problem halved. Post your brick walls here and see whether you can offer advice to others

Re: GRO Refund for "an inconsistency in the indexes"

Postby AdrianB38 » Mon Apr 22, 2019 2:15 pm

Good job someone's keeping up, Ian. ;)

I'd even said (in relation to his October 1960 burial)
Maybe he was a "friend" of Ivy - who'd married Philip Brooks in Q2 1960 by now.

It just feels very peculiar somehow with his burial in a grave that was owned by Ivy after her (apparent) 1960 marriage. If this was the same Mr Totton on the birth certificates that I haven't seen, I'm not sure I believe them... Not sure why... well, apart from the fact that "mother" Edith's two BCs for her two children are distinctly dubious...
Adrian
AdrianB38
 
Posts: 2615
Joined: Tue Jul 27, 2010 4:07 pm

Re: GRO Refund for "an inconsistency in the indexes"

Postby AdrianB38 » Mon Apr 22, 2019 7:32 pm

ianbee wrote:... But where is that burial register on FamilySearch? There seems to be a gap!
The grave ref is 454 CE7, although in the register of graves for CE 7 Jane is in 453 (a public grave)
...

Judging by the entry for Mees, also in a public grave, the only thing we are really missing is the address. And who knows, that might be a hospital?

I can't decide whether that burial register was lost altogether, or whether it's not been catalogued - being logical about it, I get the feeling that Register 7 should have been on film 5893469 - but that film doesn't exist.

Thanks for wading through Bootle, Ian. If we could but locate Ivy's death... (Unless she's a super-centenarian, of course and still alive!)
Adrian
AdrianB38
 
Posts: 2615
Joined: Tue Jul 27, 2010 4:07 pm

Re: GRO Refund for "an inconsistency in the indexes"

Postby AdrianB38 » Wed May 01, 2019 11:46 am

Again, fyi:
I received Ivy's birth certificate this morning from the Liverpool Superintendent Registrar. It is, as I hoped (and without asking), a "photo" of the relevant entry done on a certified blank.

New GRO index previously identified by Ian
HARRIS, IVY DELAPHINE MANNING
Mother's maiden surname WHITE
GRO Reference: 1918 D Quarter in LIVERPOOL Volume 08B Page 126

Slight surprise - this format looks like a normal legitimate birth - but as I'm sure some of you will already know, a new GRO Indexed birth with a mother's maiden name, can still be illegitimate.

In this instance, no father's name is entered at all, and the mother is "Nellie Harris formerly White, housekeeper". Ivy's name is "Ivy Delaphine Manning" - all in the "Name" column, so her name would normally be interpreted for indexing as Ivy Delaphine Manning Harris, as it was here.

The birth was at 27 Upper Parliament St, Abercromby, Liverpool on 1 October 1918. The birth was registered in this form on 31 October 1918 - the informant is described as "Nellie Harris, Mother, 10 Pump Street, Hartlepool, as per Declaration dated 26th October 1918".

So we have Hartlepool and Liverpool to investigate... Slightly tricky to tell but I don't think that Nellie did sign where it requires "Signature ... of Informant" - perhaps whatever was in that Declaration was signed by her and the Declaration was then used to (a) compile this birth certificate and (b) cancel the earlier one that, based on the surnames involved, seems to have claimed that Ivy was Edith's daughter.
Adrian
AdrianB38
 
Posts: 2615
Joined: Tue Jul 27, 2010 4:07 pm

Re: GRO Refund for "an inconsistency in the indexes"

Postby ianbee » Wed May 01, 2019 7:54 pm

Thanks for the update, Adrian.
When you say "by declaration" do you mean that Nellie did not attend at Liverpool (thus not signing) but gave the information in (presumably) Hartlepool?
How all this happened, the (again presumed) registration of the birth by the Mannings, and the second registration from Nellie's info, is fascinating.
Nellie came(?) to Liverpool to give birth knowing that her baby was going to be adopted?
Ian
ianbee
 
Posts: 2342
Joined: Wed Jul 28, 2010 4:51 pm

Re: GRO Refund for "an inconsistency in the indexes"

Postby AdrianB38 » Wed May 01, 2019 8:21 pm

ianbee wrote:... When you say "by declaration" do you mean that Nellie did not attend at Liverpool (thus not signing) but gave the information in (presumably) Hartlepool? ...

Well, it tends to look that way - exactly why she gave that declaration, I have no idea, but she did. I think I remember Antony M explaining that deaths could be reported anywhere but the entry in the register would be made in the area where the death had occurred. Whether the same thing happens for births, I don't know and whether it would be noted as "as per Declaration" or some other phrase, I also don't know.

ianbee wrote:... Nellie came(?) to Liverpool to give birth knowing that her baby was going to be adopted?

Well, I don't really know which way round it was... Was she working in Liverpool to start with? Quite possibly, else how did Edith Manning get in touch with her? Or was there a network of unofficial adoption agents???

I can't, of course, yet find anything that might look like a plausible marriage of a Nellie White to a Mr Harris, but there are so many variants of Nellie that that might be understandable... A census record or two in the Liverpool area started looking like candidates but don't seem to come up with maiden names of White.
Adrian
AdrianB38
 
Posts: 2615
Joined: Tue Jul 27, 2010 4:07 pm

Re: GRO Refund for "an inconsistency in the indexes"

Postby AdrianB38 » Wed May 01, 2019 8:23 pm

Oh - and I suspect Edith did all the work - it's October 1918 and Captain Ezra Manning is somewhere in the Middle East, I think...
Adrian
AdrianB38
 
Posts: 2615
Joined: Tue Jul 27, 2010 4:07 pm

Re: GRO Refund for "an inconsistency in the indexes"

Postby AntonyM » Thu May 02, 2019 6:46 am

ianbee wrote:Thanks for the update, Adrian.
When you say "by declaration" do you mean that Nellie did not attend at Liverpool (thus not signing)


Yes - the reply given by Adrian is correct.

The words "by declaration" or "per declaration" in the informant column mean that the informant attended an office outside the required district to give the information. The information (called a declaration) is then sent by post to the correct district who complete a register entry from it. The informant never therefore signs the actual registration, just the declaration form. The date of registration will always be a few days later than the date of the declaration.

The process was included in the 1874 B&D Act, so you will find occasional examples from then. It is quite common for births now, and can also be done for deaths, but less often.

The entry won't tell you which office the informant attended, but you can usually make a reasonable guess based on the address shown (in this case Hartlepool).

Note - the words "after (or by) statutory declaration" mean something else and are usually connected to re-registrations and corrections.
AntonyM
 
Posts: 367
Joined: Sun Mar 16, 2014 3:12 pm
Location: Buckinghamshire

Re: GRO Refund for "an inconsistency in the indexes"

Postby AdrianB38 » Thu May 02, 2019 10:02 am

Thanks for the confirmation, Antony. I was going by logic and background, rather than detailed knowledge, so it's comforting to know that on this occasion, I wasn't far out.

Sent from my Moto G6 Play using Who Do You Think You Are? Magazine Forum mobile app
Adrian
AdrianB38
 
Posts: 2615
Joined: Tue Jul 27, 2010 4:07 pm

Previous

Return to General research queries


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

cron