Strangeness on online GRO birth index - Genealogists' Forum

kiterunner · #1 16-04-18, 16:47

I could never find the birth registration for James Alma ANNIS in 1860 until the new online GRO birth index was made available, and then I found him listed in Apr-Jun 1860, MMN Vincent, Docking district, vol 4b, p 308. The index for that quarter on FreeBMD was one of those which had been typed up from an original handwritten page, and it turned out that he was listed on there (FreeBMD) as Amies, although his surname was Annis on the GRO site. I hadn't expected him to be in that quarter as he was age 8 months on the 1861 census.

Now I see that there are two entries for him on the online GRO birth index, the second one being James Alma Annis, Oct-Dec 1860, MMN Vincent, Docking district, vol 06c, page 308. Volume 6c is a completely different part of the country, and page 308 was out of range for Docking in that quarter. I don't remember seeing this second entry when I originally found him on the GRO site.

Not related (as far as I know), but I noticed while trying to puzzle out the above, that there is also a Josiah Annis on FreeBMD - birth registration Apr-Jun 1860 Erpingham, vol 4b, page 66, who comes up twice on the online GRO index - once in Apr-Jun with those references, and then again in Oct-Dec 1860 with volume number changed to 06c. MMN is Pitcher in both entries.

Any idea what's going on here? Do you think the GRO's database is corrupted? If you're ordering any certs from them I would definitely recommend checking against FreeBMD or similar first.

I've reported it to the GRO.

kiterunner · #2 30-04-18, 16:55

They are supposed to answer queries within 10 working days, but mine is still "awaiting investigation".

ElizabethHerts · #3 30-04-18, 17:02

Very weird, Kate. I'd be interested to know how they answer this.
Let's hope it won't be long until you get a reply.

Merry · #4 30-04-18, 20:20

It seems that any birth reg from Q2 1860 in a 4b district will appear again in Q4 with the same page number and district name but with volume number 6c. I've tried various surnames from different parts of the alphabet and got a result (Q2 4b, Q4 6c) every time.

kiterunner · #5 30-04-18, 21:52

Interesting.

kiterunner · #6 02-05-18, 17:14

Current Status: Investigated – No amendment required
GRO Comments: Indexed data is correct.

So they are saying that the Oct-Dec entry with a volume number which doesn't match the district is correct! (And yes, it was that one which I reported, not the Apr-Jun one.) Ridiculous.

kiterunner · #7 02-05-18, 17:33

Hmm, from the samples I've tried so far, any birth which FreeBMD lists as volume 6c Oct-Dec 1860 doesn't come up at all on the GRO site! I will have another try later. I wonder if there is any way to appeal against their reply to my query or to point out the larger problem to them?

Merry · #8 02-05-18, 17:37

Quote:

GRO Comments: Indexed data is correct.

That's ridiculous.

Maybe just keep repeating the query, but using a different Q4 1860 6c entry each time?

kiterunner · #9 02-05-18, 22:37

I might try reporting one of the missing births and explain that it looks as though all the real vol 6c births for that quarter are missing, but will leave it till tomorrow to pick one and do the wording.

kiterunner · #10 20-05-18, 16:09

"Tomorrow" took a bit longer than I planned, as I got caught up in looking at the 1939 Register on ancestry! I have got round to reporting a missing birth from Oct-Dec 1860 now, and put in what we think has happened. Hope they actually look into it properly this time.