Sorry Dawn I neglected to reply to your other Question - The reference to 'C' means the Registered Entry has been Corrected and the 2005 says when. As far as I know the only alteration made to the Registration Number was the addition of the letter 'C' to denote a correction so I have no idea why they have changed the number to a five digit. It is a brand new number or did they simply add a number to the already existing 4 digit number? if the latter I suggest this might also have some reference to the alteration but if its a totally new number then that has me stumped. As I said above the only alteration I have ever known of was the addition of the 'C' to denote a corrected entry. If its the former IE a brand new number then I can only suggest you contact the Registry and ask because that would appear to be a new regulation. Cheers Ron ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ron Phillips" <ronphillips@netspace.net.au> To: <AUS-VIC-GOLDFIELDS-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Thursday, December 01, 2005 8:16 PM Subject: Re: Thompson > 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. >> > > > ==== AUS-VIC-GOLDFIELDS Mailing List ==== > Threaded archives at > http://archiver.rootsweb.com/th/index/aus-vic-goldfields >