A few days ago I sent for a PDF of a birth certificate from the GRO (England & Wales) site, using their indexes. Today I received a refund with the message:
Birth Certificate: IVY MANNING born in LIVERPOOL
We have been unable to process your application, please refer to the paragraph below.
There is an inconsistency in the indexes which occurred when the index was compiled; we are therefore unable to trace an entry with the details supplied.
A full refund of ...
Anyone care to suggest what the possible problem might be? (Apart from the obvious "index is wrong"...)Details
1. This is the GRO site index that I used to send for the PDF:
Name: Mother's Maiden Surname:
MANNING, IVY DELAPHINE, RENNIMORE
GRO Reference: 1918 D Quarter in LIVERPOOL Volume 08B Page 113
2. This is the FreeBMD index from the FreeBMD site:
Births Dec 1918 (>99%)
Manning Ivy D Rennimore Liverpool 8b 113
Looks like a good match to me. And the FreeBMD image looks like that. So that seems to make it unlikely that there's a misread of name, volume or page
, because it's been done twice (note that the GRO site index gives the full middle name, so it's not a copy of the FreeBMD data).
3. If I use FreeBMD to list v.8b p.113, then there are 5 entries, which I think is the normal number.
4. The local Registrar's BMDs are on http://www.lancashirebmd.org.uk/
, which seems to have indexes for around
her entry - it does not
have a birth index for Ivy Manning in Lancashire in 1900-1925 apart from one in Preston in 1901. Not plausible.
5. You can use Lancs 'BMD to list off entries on a page in the local Registrar's book, providing you have a name to start with. The GRO entries for v.8b p.113 & thereabouts appear to come from the Abercromby sub-district of Liverpool district. The local Registrar's pages are ABE/41/9 to /11 and /9 (the best bet for Ivy) seems a bit messy - I've only found 7 entries so far.
I did the above to double check if there were any "obvious" name problem created between Liverpool and the GRO. Can't see one. Adoption?
OK, I know. Formal adoption didn't start until 1927. But as well as Ivy's BC, I also sent for her mother's death certificate. And the informant is "Ivy Kielema, adopted daughter
...". (Kielema is the married name of Ivy Manning)
Could it be that Ivy's 1918 BC (which surely did
exist to be indexed - twice!) was actually her biological(?) birth certificate but was marked up (informally?) as an adoption from birth, showing the adopted surname (Manning). In which case someone from the GRO today has seen that, thought that's not supposed to be there but should be in the Adoption Register (despite it being before it came into use) and forbidden access in the same way that access to the Adoption Register proper would be??? Is that likely?
Any alternative suggestions welcome. (And yes, this is the family from http://www.whodoyouthinkyouaremagazine.com/forum/topic17539.html
- still throwing up weirdness!)