GRO page number Q

[Merry]

Thanks to Kate I am trying to correct my tree having got the wrong 4xg-gpts on this week's To4g.

I need to get a death cert for a woman who was buried 5th Jan 1842.

I assumed this is the reg as it's right name and place:

Deaths Mar 1842
JEFFERIES Jane Keynsham 11 109

but whilst checking the page number (I guess I don't have to do that any more, but old habits die hard!) I noticed that the Keynsham pages for the Q run from page 97 to page 113. As Jane Jefferies was buried so close tothe start of the Q I would have expected her registration to be on an early page number, so now I'm wondering if this is the right registration!

Am I right in thinking a ref check can no longer be requested?

know I could go through the local office, but I am lazy and it's so much easier to order online! (usually :rolleyes:)

[ElizabethHerts]

Merry, how do you check the page number? I have never known. :o

I know you helped me a while ago find the correct death certificate for my ancestor Sarah White, and you were able to say where she died by the reference number. I never did understand how!

[Merry]

To see the range of numbers for a particular district and Q, I just do a search on FreeBMD with no name in the box, but including the district name and restricting the date to one Q. That brings up a long list so you can see the range of numbers used.

Actually, thinking about it, the next thing I'm going to say probably answers my Q about Jane Jefferies, so I'm glad you asked as I just needed my brain jogging!

When the local reg office reported the Q's events to the GRO they did it in date order, but that was the date order for each subdistrict in turn, so when the GRO received the data from the local office the eventual page number for an individual event would depend on the order the GRO used the subdistrict data.

So, Keynsham had 5 subdistricts (Bitton, Keynsham, Kingswood, Newton, Oldland) and the data for each would be submitted in date order. The GRO page numbers for Keynsham (97 to 113) would start with reg's Jan 1st for one of those subdistricts, which would run through to reg's 31st March for that sub-district and then move on to the next sub-district (this is the part I had forgotten about!). So, we can probably surmise jane Jeffereis did not die in the first sub-district indexed by the GRO and probably not the second or third one either!

As for your relative, Elizabeth, I don't know if it's the one I'm thinking of, but what I sometimes do when faced with several possible registrations within a ten year span is to consider where the person was last living and which subdistrict that was, in order to make a guess at which subdistrict they died in. then go to each possible death reg and look at the other people who were registered on the same GRO page number. These people will have been registered in the same subdistrict as the death in question. Hopefully there will be someone on the page with a unique enough name to find them on the previous census to see which sub-district they were living in. Obviously I am entirely relying on no one moving house, but at least (especially if you can check more than one person) you may be able to work out which sibdistrict registrations you are looking at. Then considering how long it was since the last census was taken etc etc etc it might be possible at least to decide the most likely death registration. The same method can be used for births of course.

[Merry]

Still trying to work this out. Notes made on BK6

This lady is the same page as my Jane Jefferies:

Deaths Mar 1842
GINGELL Ruth Keynsham 11 109

and this is her burial:

GINGELL , Ruth Abode: Soundwell
Buried 16 Jan 1842 aged 77 Parish: Kingswood, Holy Trinity


I have seen Ruth in 1841 and guess what? Ancestry say her address at Soundwell (where she also died according to the above burial) is in Bitton subdistrict, but my Jane died in Oldland subdistrict so I don't want to see Ruth in Bitton! However, FMP say Ruth was in Oldland subdistrict!

This is the sort of confusion I could do without! lol

It has to be said that one might expect Bitton civil parish (Ancestry and FMP agree on that for Ruth Gingell's 1841 address) to be in Bitton Subdistrict, but things are not always that straightforward!

I guess I will have to see if I can match a different person!! lol

[Phoenix]

Bear in mind that there may have been different registrars for subdistricts.

I got fooled that way into getting the wrong death cert when two men with the same name died in Portsmouth. I chose the lower no as I knew my man was buried first. Wrong!

[Merry]

Ruth Gingell is living in enumeration district 7 of the civil parish of Bitton according to Ancestry. This is the description page for ED7:

http://search.ancestry.co.uk/Browse/view.aspx?dbid=8978&iid=GLSHO107_361_361-0427

I see Oldland gets a mention (good!) but I'm not entirely sure how (if?) townships have a bearing on sub-districts and what it says where "township" is crossed through.

[Merry]

I got fooled that way into getting the wrong death cert when two men with the same name died in Portsmouth. I chose the lower no as I knew my man was buried first. Wrong!

lol Phoenix! Buried first but not in the first subdistrict indexed!

Bear in mind that there may have been different registrars for subdistricts.



Do you mean more than one for a sub-district or different ones for different subdistricts or something else? :o


I thought there was only one register book of each type (I'm talking births and deaths here, as marriages are a different animal!) for each subdistrict???? That's what the registrar at Bristol told me.

[Merry]

Having checked all ten people on Jane Jefferies page the first 8 were all living (at death/burial) in places FMP say are in Oldland subdistrict and Ancestry say are in Bitton. Apart from Jane, only the very last one on the list died in Mangotsfield which I know from lots of other certs I have, is definitely in Oldland subdistrict!!

Plus there are no other burials listed for a Jane Jefferies in 1842, so I guess this must be the right registration after all.

*sheepishy slopes off to order the cert before being in trouble with kate* :o

[ElizabethHerts]

It's all very confusing! ;(

[Merry]

It's ordered now, so I don't want anyone pointing out anything clever but negative :o:mad:

[Merry]

It's all very confusing! ;(

That's what I think when you say things about the use of language and grammar!

[ElizabethHerts]

that's what i think when you say things about the use of language and grammar!

:d:d:d

[Tom Tom]

This has made my head spin!

I have never thought of searching all the deaths in a quarter, or looking at the others on a page and trying to find them on a census to narrow things down.... great tip Merry!


Can't wait for your cert to arrive now, want to know if it is her. Bet she died of "Old Age!"

:)

[Merry]

lol Me too, Tom!

Erm, you realise all this is down to you? If you hadn't found those Jefferies and Drakes together Kate probably wouldn't have looked for the Drake/Jefferies marriage and I wouldn't be buying this cert! (and I would still have a lot of wrong people on my tree!)

[Tom Tom]

I have been following the thread but couldn't think of anything intelligent to add.

All down to me!? Not sure if that is a good thing! ;)

[Merry]

Yes, it is!! I don't want someone elses tree, I want mine! lol I had made a mistake and never gone back to look harder......

[Tom Tom]

Phew!

I wish I could look at some of mine (the brickwalls!) and decide I had made a mistake and it was in fact that family that I can quite easily trace back another 200 years, but alas, do not think it is the case.

[Merry]

lol! No, usually it's the other way about!