NORFOLK-L Archives

Archiver > NORFOLK > 2007-09 > 1188728562


From: "Pam Downes" <>
Subject: Re: [NFK] ARMIGER
Date: Sun, 2 Sep 2007 11:22:42 +0100
References: <46DA4EE2.000016.00152@SN2596677065><004201c7ed3f$aa396840$0300a8c0@pamspc><46DA883B.000003.04004@SN2596677065>


Forgiven. Just don't do it again. <g>
Pam

----- Original Message -----
From: "J Armiger" <>
To: <>
Sent: Sunday, September 02, 2007 10:54 AM
Subject: Re: [NFK] ARMIGER


> Ok Pam,thanks.
> I wasn't trying to be insulting to the people who put in all that hard
> work
> !!! I was just making a point about it without any malice
> aforethought.Hope
> you accept my apologies for any misunderstandings.I feel suitably
> chastised
> so no more lectures from anyone,ok?
>
> Mike
>
> -------Original Message-------
>
> From: Pam Downes
> Date: 2/09/2007 6:31:33 PM
> To:
> Subject: Re: [NFK] ARMIGER
>
> On behalf of all the people who have transcribed literally hundreds of
> millions of records for FreeBMD, plus all the 'behind the scenes' people,
> I
> do take exception to Mike's statement of "I contacted freeBMD about this
> matter but they were particularly unhelpful".
> What did you expect them to do Mike? Send an email round to all their
> transcribers saying 'can you check any pages for a marriage in Thetford RD
> Dec Q 1909?'
> There are three possible scenarios:
> 1. The relevant page listing the bride has still to be transcribed.
> 2. When the entry was originally entered into the GRO Index some part of
> the
> reference was entered incorrectly, and therefore when it gets transferred
> to a typewritten sheet and/or transcribed by FreeBMD the error will
> continue.
> 3. When the GRO transferred the entry from a handwritten ledger to a
> typewritten one, *they* mistranscribed the reference or part thereof.
> Again
> the error will continue when transcribed by FreeBMD because they can only
> transcribe what they see.
>
> With (1) you just have to be patient, or else send off for the marriage
> certificate. (And if when everyone has been transcribed you have 4 people
> on
> the page, you still won't know the name of the bride for certain.)
> With (2) and (3) it is sometimes possible to find a likely candidate but
> it
> involves checking all the pages for that district for that quarter to see
> if
> any page has 5 people listed on it, instead of the maximum of 4. A
> knowledge
> of which other districts can be 'confused' with Thetford can also be
> useful.
> I've found for instance that Boston/Bolton/Barton and Preston are
> frequently
> mistranscribed in the early handwritten entries, and I've also found an
> entry where the GRO said Boston but I'm almost certain that it should be
> Melton Mowbray. (2) and (3) only work when you know that the
> transcriptions
> for that quarter are 99%+ complete.
> Pam
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "J Armiger" <>
> To: <>
> Sent: Sunday, September 02, 2007 6:49 AM
> Subject: [NFK] ARMIGER
>
>
>> Hi Listers,
>>
>> Can any of you lovely people find the wife of Frank Ernest ARMIGER?
>> He married in DEC 1909 in the Thetford registration district.I found this
>> on
>> freeBMD but it only showed him and no possible partners!
>> I contacted freeBMD about this matter but they were particularly
>> unhelpful.
>> Thank you,
>> Mike.
>
>

This thread: