Hi Shirley ----- Original Message ----- From: "podnsod" <podnsod@comcast.net> > SNIP< > I just hate those typed written certificates - I think given how much money > we pay for them they should at the very least be an authentic copy. > > I have a hand written copy of a marriage certiicate that I obtain many years > ago from the Bow Registry Office. When I purchased it I didn't really look > at the details too closely, I was just excited to get the cert. That was > when I was young and dumb! I just assumed it to be correct. It wasn't until > I got home (USA) and started calculating the details I noticed an error. I > called the Registry Office and they confirmed their error and sent me a new > certificate - a copy of the original, with appologies. > SNIP< > > Good hunting, > Shirley Just a reminder that all General Register Office certificates,whether handwritten, typewritten or incorporating a facsimile of the entry in the quarterly return are certified copies of the certified copy which is the quarterly return. If they are the facsimile type, the historic looking handwriting is that of the Registrar or church cleric or clerk who made the quarterly copies to send to the Registrar General at the end of the quarter in which the event took place.. The only exceptions are sometimes found in a GRO marriage certificates, where the clergyman, at the time of the wedding, got the couple and the witnesses [contrary to the official Advice to Clergy] to sign the quarterly copies as well as the register entries. Certificates from a local Register Office (and from churches) , on the other hand, are certified copies of the actual entries in the register, which means that if the office is one of the very few that issue certificates by a similar facsimile process to the GRO, then one *does* see the actual signatures on the actual register entry. Just as mistakes can be made in producing a transcription type certificate from a local Register Office, so did mistakes occasionally occur in producing the quarterly copies sent to the G.R.O., and in producing the GRO Indexes. Which is why genealogists and family historians were keen that any new index produced by the GRO should be made from the original register entries held locally, and not the quarterly copies held by the GRO. The plea was not heard, and the current digitization process, which has now ground to a halt, was of the GRO returns. Cheers John Henley researching (and not finding much time for - but always very glad to hear of any) HENLEY, PARKER, RAPER, [London/Middlesex] DURDEN, PRENTICE [Essex/London/ Woolwich] , SECKER, [Suffolk, London/Middlesex] ROLFE, (O)RAFFERTY, EVANS, PARSONS, SYMONDS [ Berks/Hants/Wilts] HILL [IN Staffs/Cambs/Berks]

Very interesting post, John. Do you know which offices do the same as GRO, so you do get to see the actual signatures ? Francis Auckland, NZ > > Just a reminder that all General Register Office certificates,whether > handwritten, typewritten or > incorporating a facsimile of the entry in the quarterly return are > certified copies of the certified > copy which is the quarterly return. > If they are the facsimile type, the historic looking handwriting is that > of the Registrar or church > cleric or clerk who made the quarterly copies to send to the Registrar > General at the end of the > quarter in which the event took place.. > The only exceptions are sometimes found in a GRO marriage certificates, > where the clergyman, at the > time of the wedding, got the couple and the witnesses [contrary to the > official Advice to Clergy] to > sign the quarterly copies as well as the register entries. > > Certificates from a local Register Office (and from churches) , on the > other hand, are certified > copies of the actual entries in the register, which means that if the > office is one of the very few > that issue certificates by a similar facsimile process to the GRO, then > one *does* see the actual > signatures on the actual register entry. > Just as mistakes can be made in producing a transcription type certificate > from a local Register > Office, so did mistakes occasionally occur in producing the quarterly > copies sent to the G.R.O., > and in producing the GRO Indexes. > > Which is why genealogists and family historians were keen that any new > index produced by the GRO > should be made from the original register entries held locally, and not > the quarterly copies held by > the GRO. > The plea was not heard, and the current digitization process, which has > now ground to a halt, was of > the GRO returns. > > Cheers > > John Henley > researching (and not finding much time for - but always very glad to hear > of any) > HENLEY, PARKER, RAPER, [London/Middlesex] > DURDEN, PRENTICE [Essex/London/ Woolwich] , > SECKER, [Suffolk, London/Middlesex] > ROLFE, (O)RAFFERTY, EVANS, PARSONS, SYMONDS [ Berks/Hants/Wilts] > HILL [IN Staffs/Cambs/Berks] > > > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > Any problems, please contact the List Admin: Essex-UK-admin@rootsweb.com > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > ESSEX-UK-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the > quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Francis Payne wrote: > Do you know which offices do the same as GRO, > so you do get to see the actual signatures ? All the register offices can produce copies of the marriage certs with the actual signatures, although there are some register offices now which are refusing to issue "historical" certificates, ie those before 1900. You can also get copies of the marriage entries from the church registers which would be (or should be) held at the record office but that would cost considerably more usually than getting a copy from the GRO. (Note: a register office is not the same thing as a record office.) If you are near an LDS FHC, then you can hire the parish films through them and see the signatures for yourself that way. That would be cheaper (transport costs excluded) than getting a GRO cert :)) You can usually make a photocopy, digital copy or download the image from the film.