BRISTOL_AND_DISTRICT-L Archives

Archiver > BRISTOL_AND_DISTRICT > 2010-08 > 1281545470


From: "Liz" <>
Subject: Re: [B&D] [Fwd: FFHS-NEWS National Probate Calendar (Index of Wills& Admons), 1861-1941]
Date: Wed, 11 Aug 2010 17:51:10 +0100
References: <4C626C59.4040803@family-hunter.co.uk> <4C629722.4050002@tiscali.co.uk><5E56D3FF6AC44375B0B601E913988E24@UserPC><4C62B374.4000602@family-hunter.co.uk>
In-Reply-To: <4C62B374.4000602@family-hunter.co.uk>


Hi Charani

With this one, the GRO are correct and the Probate Office have the wrong
year for her death - of course, it's quite easy even for them to make
errors. It's one of my PETVINs so an unusual name and can't be wrong!
Liz
www.btinternet.com/~e.newbery
OPC for Street, Somerset


----- Original Message -----
From: "Charani" <>
To: <>
Sent: Wednesday, August 11, 2010 3:28 PM
Subject: Re: [B&D] [Fwd: FFHS-NEWS National Probate Calendar (Index of Wills
& Admons), 1861-1941]


> Liz wrote:
>> Yes, brilliant. They closed the Probate Office in Bodmin last year. We
>> used to have some lovely picnics there! This certainly saves a
>> considerable
>> amount of time and, of course, you get the date and place of death.
>> Unfortunately I have found a Somerset Probate dated 1939 when in fact it
>> should be 1929. Correct day and month of death but the year is 10 years
>> out. Very strange. Checked the GRO for her death. It has to be her.
>
> Ancestry are notorious for errors like that. They've done it with the
> London Parish Registers as well. Not so bad where they are indexed
> but a nightmare where they aren't and it's the 18th century ones that
> aren't. Sometimes it's just a typo, sometimes a misread figure,
> sometimes another reason.
>
> The good thing is that the entries CAN be checked against the GRO Indices.
>


This thread: