Dawn I really doubt the Registration Number would change in your particular scenario as you are amending an existing single Record. Duplicated entries usually only occurred at the time the transcription from Church Doctors or municipal records to the Government records took place because as I said earlier the details on the handwritten originals were in dispute. I guess the philosophy was better 2 entries one of which is probably correct than one incorrect entry. Given the number of Births Deaths and Marriages transcribed I would suggest that the number of duplicated entries is really quite small so please take my comment on the Government conspiracy as just a teensy bit tongue in cheek. All things considered I reckon the transcribers did a fabulous job under very trying circumstances and I also suggest the duplication was an absolute last resort when simply no other source could be found of sufficient reliability to confirm one or the other. Cheers Ron Phillips Melbourne Vic Researching PHILLIPS and COMERFORD ----- Original Message ----- From: "Dawn Webb" <dawnwebb@optusnet.com.au> To: <AUS-VIC-GOLDFIELDS-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Thursday, December 01, 2005 12:08 AM Subject: RE: Thompson > On this topic - my mother died recently and had provided all the info for > her death cert some years before. She was born in Kent, England - and so > stated. When we get to "Years in Australia" she must have said "All my > life": and so her death cert said - with my name listed as informant. I > went in last week to amend it - she came here aged 4. No problems, very > efficient, and I got the amended cert today. I don't have a copy of the > old > version - would the number have changed? The one with me now has 5 > numerals, slash 2005, and the letter C after a space. Does anyone on the > list know? > > Thanks > > Dawn > > PS for the cynics - I did not have to pay for the extra numbered marriage > cert from 1852, my gg grandparents. > > -----Original Message----- > From: Ron Phillips [mailto:ronphillips@netspace.net.au] > Sent: Wednesday, 30 November 2005 9:05 PM > To: Dawn Webb; AUS-VIC-GOLDFIELDS-L@rootsweb.com > Subject: Re: Thompson > > Its also a matter of reading the old records as well. The handwriting in > many instances was simply atrocious and very hard to decipher. So often > two > people charged with the responsibility of transferring the Church Records > could not determine the hand written entries the same way so 2 entries > were > registered. If you look carefully at the Index entry you will often find > minor differences in the spelling of one name and the other but also its > often a difference in some other detail like place of BDorM or even a date > of BDorM that is not disclosed in the Indexes and until you actually get > both it doesn't make sense. > > The more cynical would suggest a Government conspiracy in getting more > from > us in Fees having to purchase 2 Certificates but perhaps we judge a bit > harshly in this instance. > > I recently had occasion to help a friend with details of the demise of an > Aunt from as recent at 50 years ago and the same happened to me - 2 > entries. > > I sent for both Death Certificates and it was the exact same person in > every > > detail - parents children husband etc except one showed the death as 1st > and > > the other as the 7th as it turned out we managed to verify the date as the > 1st from other sources but if you looked at the original hand written > Certificate you could clearly mistake the 1 for a 7. > > If it was like that only 50 years ago I can imagine the handwriting from > 150 > > years ago. Today's city Drs are bad enough - anyone ever tried to read a > prescription?? > > Cheers > Ron Phillips > Melbourne > Researching PHILLIPS and COMERFORD > > > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Dawn Webb" <dawnwebb@optusnet.com.au> > To: <AUS-VIC-GOLDFIELDS-L@rootsweb.com> > Sent: Wednesday, November 30, 2005 8:27 AM > Subject: RE: Thompson > > >> Hi Joan >> >> I think I can explain the two registration numbers for these entries. I >> have the same thing for an 1852 marriage. >> >> These records are early, and as such, are church records rather than >> official registration records which did not exist then. (Started 1855? >> in >> Victoria.) The official BDM folk gathered up all the early church >> records >> and numbered them. That is one number. The other one is the entire >> batch >> from that particular church - a sort of cover folder that just says >> something like "Early marriage records from St Francis' Melbourne >> 1840-1855". >> >> I was concerned about the same thing and asked for a photocopy of both >> certificates. They did do that, and explained why there were two >> numbers. >> >> Hope this helps >> >> Dawn >> >> >> >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Joan Canning [mailto:ja.perl@bigpond.net.au] >> Sent: Tuesday, 29 November 2005 11:28 PM >> To: AUS-VIC-GOLDFIELDS-L@rootsweb.com >> Subject: Thompson >> >> Hi Chris >> >> Sorry, no luck locating death. >> >> On checking deaths for Thompson in 1852 (when he was widowed) located a >> Sarah, age 23. (Age fits but no parents recorded). On checking >> marriages - >> a William Thompson married Sarah McKenna in 1848 - 2 entries - >> Registration >> Nos. 40608 and 584. >> >> Son (William) born to William & Sarah McKenna in 1849 and a daughter >> (Catherine) in 1851. >> >> Each of these entries had denomination as Rom.Catholic and the Parish as >> St.Francis, Melbourne. Strangely, every entry was duplicated with >> different >> registration numbers. >> >> Could be a long shot that this may be your William.. Only way to confirm >> would be to purchase the marriage certificate, but this could turn out to >> be >> a waste of money. Not sure whether parents were recorded on certificates >> back then. >> >> Good luck >> Joan >> >> >> ==== AUS-VIC-GOLDFIELDS Mailing List ==== >> Practice safe genealogy - don't include the personal details of the >> living. >> >> >> >> -- >> No virus found in this incoming message. >> Checked by AVG Free Edition. >> Version: 7.1.362 / Virus Database: 267.13.9/185 - Release Date: >> 28/11/2005 >> >> >> >> ==== AUS-VIC-GOLDFIELDS Mailing List ==== >> Threaded archives at >> http://archiver.rootsweb.com/th/index/aus-vic-goldfields >> > > > > -- > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG Free Edition. > Version: 7.1.362 / Virus Database: 267.13.10/188 - Release Date: > 29/11/2005 > > > > ==== AUS-VIC-GOLDFIELDS Mailing List ==== > Practice safe genealogy - don't include the personal details of the > living. >