Genealogy Chat

ist Q 1909

George Pidgley married Fanny Gritt Christchiurch (Hampshire) RD ( they did and it is supported by 1911 census !!)

They do not appear on the same page

George Pidgley appears as Vol 2b Page 1009
Fanny Gritt as Vol 2b Page 1000

I think they should both be 2b 1000 but before submitting a correction would appreciate someone else's opinion

Edit-sorry forgot to say it is the scans that I am not clear on

You must check the IMAGE before submitting corrections.

freebmd will not accept corrections which aren't fully backed-up

If it isn't clear.........add a postem

The IMAGE for GEORGE is very clear on FMP............1009

Slightly blurred for FANNY.......but it is 1009

FMP brings up George Pidley on 2b 1009 with the only potential spouse as Mary Phillips. The image definitely shows him as 2b 1009 as it does for Mary.

The last 0 on Fanny's image is unclear and could be a 9. It could be compared to either a 0 or 9 in the same column on the page and go either way but my bet would be the 0 (unless you know it shouldn't be!)

Suggest you look at the '9' on the entry immediately above that for FANNY.............

The OP has already told us that george PidGley married Fanny

1911 England, Wales & Scotland Census Transcription

First Name Last Name Relationship Condition Gender Age Year Of Birth Occupation Birth Place
GEORGE PIDGLEY HEAD MARRIED Male 38 1873 LICENSED HAWKER HANTS LYNDHURST Image Transcription
FANNY PIDGLEY WIFE MARRIED Female 24 1887 - HANTS BOURNEMOUTH Image Transcription
JOHN PIDGLEY SON - Male 2 1909 - HANTS CHRISTCHURCH Image Transcription
AMELIA PIDGLEY DAUGHTER - Female 0 1911 - HANTS CHRISTCHURCH Image Transcription

And had already said she had the 1911 census.

I know that Kathleen told us that George married Fanny, but I was also trying to see what the images showed for all concerned on the reference.

We all work in different ways. I would still suggest that the 0/9 are ambiguous but am entitled to an opinion whether it be right or wrong.

Thank you Reggie and greyghost for your input,I shall ponder further before making a suggesting a correction !!

Of course you are entitled to your opinion, greyghost......as, indeed, am I

Having looked at the image for Fanny Gritt and expanded it, I woiuld say it is definitely 9, especially when you compare it with the 9 immediately above and the two zeros to the left.

It does of course look like a zero on the unexpanded image so the transcriber should not be blamed.

Thank you KenSE

That it is a 9 and not an 0 would seem to be the general opinion

I am glad I asked some else to have a look !

I will add a postem as well

My grandfather's entry was very clear, but my grandmother's had a blot on the page number.

I put a postem by my grandfather with the details of his wife, and the next time I looked at it (several months later) my grandmother's entry had been corrected and they were shown together.

It's 1009 - I would give the source as ANC-05/1909M1-G-0089.jpg
It's a clearer image than the default.

Incidentally, very occasionally you do find that the transcriber is correct and it's the indexer(and so the index) that's in error. In these cases, you should add a postem (to both bride and groom).

Thanks mgnv

I have submitted a correction and received the automated response.

I am often unsure about what to put as the "source" -in the past I have been able to put the P/R info in the postem box but this time I have not got the actual certificate

I usually just give the source as the freebmd image.

Now I have another odd one :-S

4th Q 1861 Alresford RD
John Sherwood Vol 2c Page 367

He married
Mary Hannah Potter Vol 2c Page 367

Why are they not together in the usual block ?

Not quite sure what you mean by block. Do you mean that they do not come up together when you click the page No? Are you using freebmd? They both come up for me, but the District is Andover, not Alresford.

Marriages Dec 1861 (>99%)

Potter Mary Hannah Andover 2c 367 Scan available - click to view
Sherwood John Andover 2c 367

Hi Potty

Yes-I did mean Andover but when I clicked (FreeBMD) I just got John and no other entries with him, I knew who he had married and entered Mary seperately and she came up alone too-not had that happen before !!

What did you put in the search boxes? If I put in just John Sherwood with the year 1861, he does come up on his own - must have been the only one of that name to marry in 1861. If I click on the page number, Mary Hannah comes up with him. She also seems to be the only one with that name to have married in 1861.