Any explanations please as to why....

[Val in Oz]

a marriage certificate I purchased in 1995 for the marriage between John Read and Jane Rose Robottom should differ from the parish entry in the LMA records.
They married 5/7/1846 at St Mark, Myddleton Square, Islington

The actual LMA entry shows- John Read - full age - bachelor - watchmaker of Spencer Street - father John Thos Read - occupation water-gilder? (I think)

Jane Rose Robottom - full age - spinster of Napier Street - father William Robottom - dead

BUT - the cert I received many years back reads - for both the fathers;

John Thos Read - occupation illegible
Wm Rose - occupation illegible (although I did decide it must say 'dead')

Because it said her father was Wm Rose - all these years I have been thinking that she was born Jane Rose and that Wm Robottom was her stepfather.

I feel rather cheated, and wondered just where they get their information from - or did they just make an error when they copied it?

Just the same - I have been under a misapprehension all these years.

[Kit]

oh Val, how awful.

How much time and effort have you spent on William Rose?

[Val in Oz]

Enough to make me slightly mad - to say the least.....lol

It does make me wonder how many of the certs I have purchased have slight errors in them - that could change the whole structure of the tree......grrrrrrrrrr

[maggie_4_7]

Can you confirm some of the other information you've purchased through the LMA records?

What a pain though - it was copied wrong, I have a few certs from the 80's that are handwritten by a clerk at the time. But I checked all of them now myself but back then it was an awful lot of leg work if you were on a Wild Goose chase :mad:

[Val in Oz]

I will certainly be checking all those I can now - just to be certain Maggie,

I always thought that the certificates purchased were 'gospel' - so to speak.
Having said that I know that people can 'give' wrong information to the registrar - but this was copied from a perfectly legible church record ...well apart from the word after 'water'

This certificate is probably one of the most difficult to read that I have ever received from them, and as it was one of my first, I remember feeling really disappointed at the time.

I guess one out of a lot isn't too bad........but now I feel I should go back and recheck all the others...............slopes off dejected

[Nell]

The certs are copies that are sent to the GRO, and I think they are done in a batch and sent quarterly, whereas the actual parish entry will have been written up at the time of the marriage and signed immediately after the ceremony.

But mistakes can occur at any point, when recording the original certificate, when its copied out, when its reproduced etc. And even if its all easy to read and makes sense it doesn't mean that the information recorded is right either!

I always advocate looking at the original register entries where possible - and luckily we are getting more of these online which makes it easier.

Have you tried finding Jane as Robottom in previous censuses and for her baptism?

[Val in Oz]

Thankyou Nell, yes I shall certainly be doing a search for Jane Robottom now I know her 'correct' name...............it will give me something to do over the long weekend......lol

[Merry]

As Nell said, thre are several stages at which the mistake could have been make. If you got your cert from the GRO and it's a copy of the image from their film, then the mistake was made by the vicar when he wrote up his quarterly return for the GRO. If you got the cert from the local register office then, if it's a copy of the actual cert, then the mistake was made at the time of the marriage (fairly unlikely) or if it's a copy (handwritten or typed), more likely the mistake was made by the copying clerk at the time you bought your cert.

Whichever it is, all very annoying for you.

I have three or four certs bought from local reg offices where the present day clerk has hand copied the Victorian handwriting and totally mis-read the original information.

[Val in Oz]

It came from the GRO Merry, so maybe it was the vicar's mistake, however it was hand written and the writing was soooo hard to read....I really think they can all share the blame......lol - at least now I am grateful I subscribed to ancestry for the LMA records, which I am really enjoying as so many of my lines were from that area. I have managed to sort a lot of the 'same name' ones into various family lines now.......:D

[Olde Crone]

I've told this before, but I have three copies of a marriage for one coupkle.

GRO copy (photocopy)
Local Register Office copy (handwritten modern day)
Photocopy of entry in the church register.

You would hardly know it was the same couple!

Their ages have been swapped, their fathers' first names swapped, their street addresses given as any variation of South Street/Smith Street (both of which existed at the time of the marriage) and so on.

Interestingly, the church register copy contains a definite mistake (father's first name) which appears correctly in the local RO copy but as a mistake in the GRO copy! Sort that out if you can....

OC

[Val in Oz]

OC.....:confused::confused:

it is almost a case of "pick a number....any number".....lol