Genealogy Chat

Which would you say was the site that could be depended on more for reliable information? For instance. I've been looking up information for a John Brandon...he's on the 1881, 1891 and 1901 censuses with having a son in the latter two. Bertie (the son) is 2 and 12 respectively. When I go to check 1837online I come across a Bertie Brandon born Mar qtr of 1888 b. Watford 3a 574, great I think, fits the bill. So next I double check on Ancestry, don't ask me why...just did. Cannot find a Bertie at first so search under vol.3a ,.....found a Bertie born Mar qtr of 1888 but in Amersham 3a 624!!!!!!!!!! What's happening?? Is there two Berties?? If so, how come the others aren't on either site?? HELP! My heart is saying go with the Amersham one because all the rest of the family have been registered there but then that makes the 1837online site wrong. arrrrrggggggghhhhhhhhh!!! time for coffee!!

1837online is complete (or as complete as records will ever be!) and as far as I know Ancestry is not. 1837online are the records that the GRO has, so if the Ancestry Bertie isn't on there you probably won't be able to get the Ancestry Bertie's certificate from the GRO (does that make sense?). In a way Ancestry is like FreeBMD in that the information has been transcribed more than 1837online, so there's more room for human error. My instinct is to place my trust in 1837online.

Don't use Ancestry but isn't their database the same as free bmd ? The point is that for 1888 only about 2% have been transcribed but 80% for 1889. So the 1888 one is unlikely to be on freebmd/ancestry. But Ruth's 1889 one should be on 1837. Does that make sense. Bob

Just a thought : In my family tree I found the same. There was a son George b 1855 - Colne Engaine, on the 1861 census then on 1881 census he was 2yrs younger! it turns out that the eldest George had died at 10 months, another son was born and given then same name. If you see what I mean!! totally confusing! HAPPY NEW YEAR EVERYONE Viv

OMG...What have I got myself into?? LOL I was trying to verify things by looking in all the places I could and just got totally bamboozled. Thanks everyone for your replies.

I had the same as Vivienne - Jennie aged 2 months on 1891 census and Jennie aged 5 on 1901 census. Took me a while to spot the discrepancy too. Turned out the first Jennie died in 1893 aged 2, then they had another girl in 1895 and named her Jennie too. Found all records on Free BMD luckily. Have since found the first Jennie's grave - they couldn't afford to purchase it, so there is no stone for her, someone else bought it after, and their stone is there instead. However, mum and dad are buried in next grave, so she must have stayed in their hearts. Maz. XX

Oh now you have me thinking!!! Bertie's father, John, is on the 1881 census aged 18, the 1891 aged 28 but on the 1901 aged aged 36, two years younger. I looked at the actual image of the census and it was definately 36 so I assumed (probably wrongly) that because he was living with his brother in law (who was head of household) that they'd put his age down wrong on the form. Please don't tell me I've got to go find another John with Bertie as his son!