Hi Moni - and those following this problem Guess what!! I think I have just read the explanation in a letter in this month's copy of Family Tree magazine which arrived this morning. It seems my theory re an error correction could be right and the reason or the Seven is that according to the law under the registrations' Acts if an error was made before the entry had been completed by the registrar's signature then the mistake was crossed through and the correction numbered by the error and written and initialled e.g. seven ED in this case by the side. The numbering started at one or each register - so in this case this must have been the seventh error in this register. Looking again at the certificate I think it is possible that the "mark" I mentioned next to the two lines in error could possibly be 7. The rules also say the error must be underlined but as the two names are on the ruled lines on the certificate then that presumably suffices. My guess is the two wrong names were entered in the position o groom and bride and then the correct groom and bride have been entered one of top and the other below. Then the correction marks added. I've passed this on to the register office and asked their opinion. Will let you know the result . Would you like me to send you a scan of the letter in the Family History Magazine? I can do that offlist. Cheers Pat -- pat

Dear Pat It does sound like an error is the most likely explanation. If that's the case, the current confusion is a result of the fact that the registrar has not scored through the mistakes and underlined them in the way that he should have done. I think he must have been in a complete daydream to have made a mistake of this order! There's no need to send a scan of the article in the Family History mag - you've summarised it very well. Thank you very much for your detective work. Please let me know what the register office say. With thanks and best wishes Moni 2009/11/27 pat <pat@pcubed.demon.co.uk>: > Hi Moni - and those following this problem > > Guess what!! I think I have just read the explanation in a letter in > this month's copy of Family Tree magazine which arrived this morning. > > It seems my theory re an error correction could be right and the reason > or the Seven is that according to the law under the registrations' Acts > if an error   was made before the entry had been completed by the > registrar's signature then the mistake was crossed through and the > correction numbered by the error  and written and initialled e.g. seven > ED in this case by the side. > The numbering started at one or each register - so in this case this > must have been the seventh error in this register. > > Looking again at the certificate I think it is possible that the "mark" > I mentioned next to the two lines in error could possibly be 7. > > The rules also say the error must be underlined but as the two names are > on the ruled lines on the certificate then that presumably suffices. > > My guess is the two wrong names were entered in the position o groom and > bride and then the correct groom and bride have been entered one of top > and the other below. > Then the correction marks added. > > I've passed this on to the register office and asked their opinion. > > Will let you know the result . > > > Would you like me to send you a scan of the letter in the Family History > Magazine? I can do that offlist. > > Cheers > > Pat > > > -- > pat >