In message <[email protected]>, Tim Powys-Lybbe <[email protected]> writes: >On 7 Feb at 0:08, Iain Archer <[email protected]> wrote: [] >> currently going before the House of Lords that allows for the >> publication of information from Birth, Marriage and Death Certificates >> in England and Wales to be issued otherwise than in the form of a >> certified copy ..." >> ><http://www.sog.org.uk/news/article/gro-information-on-births-marriages- >and-death-doesnt-have-to-on-expensive-c/> > > >What excellent news and many thanks for passing it on. > >I wonder how long it will be before the Minister will have made the [As another has said, it seems all too likely it'll get lost in the election kerfuffle. )-:] >necessaery regulations and obtained the needed funds to provide this >income-producing resource? > According to what I've read in the LostCousins newsletter (and possibly elsewhere), not producing the official certified paper copy will only shave twentysomething pence off the tenner or so cost of doing the necessary work, so I doubt it would actually be an income-producing resource. > There is always the question of quite _why_ it costs so much in the first place; it is highly tempting to think that, being a monopoly supplier, they have no incentive to improve the efficiency of their processes. While certainly feeling that that _is_ the case, I keep an open (well, ajar) mind as to whether there might be genuine reasons it costs so much. If it _can_ be done a _lot_ cheaper, it might still not be an income-producing resource: it depends whether the reduction in cost would produce an increase in volume. (Certainly LostCousins have pointed out that the reverse is not the case: recent _rises_ in the costs of certificates have not resulted in an increase in revenue, because the _numbers_ fell off by a higher percentage. Though whether this is due purely to the price rises, or the recession in general, is probably not knowable.) One thing that _has_ always struck me as requiring some input is the frustration between the marriage _indexes_ and the actual certificates - that is improving due to the sterling work done by FreeBMD and even, to a lesser extent, FMP and I think now even Ancestry - but it still frustrates (me at least) not knowing who married who without the certificate. (You'd have thought they could have been at least entering that information into something when someone does buy a certificate; I don't know what percentage of the whole that would represent, but it can't be zero - but I've seen no indication it is even occurring.) -- J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)[email protected]+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf "Where's Piglet?" asked Pooh, as he munched a pork pie.

On Sat, 7 Feb 2015 12:42:36 +0000, "J. P. Gilliver (John)" <[email protected]> wrote: >In message <[email protected]>, Tim Powys-Lybbe ><[email protected]> writes: >>On 7 Feb at 0:08, Iain Archer <[email protected]> wrote: >[] >>> currently going before the House of Lords that allows for the >>> publication of information from Birth, Marriage and Death Certificates >>> in England and Wales to be issued otherwise than in the form of a >>> certified copy ..." >>> >><http://www.sog.org.uk/news/article/gro-information-on-births-marriages- >>and-death-doesnt-have-to-on-expensive-c/> >> >> >>What excellent news and many thanks for passing it on. >> >>I wonder how long it will be before the Minister will have made the > >[As another has said, it seems all too likely it'll get lost in the >election kerfuffle. )-:] > >>necessaery regulations and obtained the needed funds to provide this >>income-producing resource? >> >According to what I've read in the LostCousins newsletter (and possibly >elsewhere), not producing the official certified paper copy will only >shave twentysomething pence off the tenner or so cost of doing the >necessary work, so I doubt it would actually be an income-producing >resource. >> Ireland manages it for 4 EUR so the supposed GRO cost probably doesn't bear much resemblance to reality. >There is always the question of quite _why_ it costs so much in the >first place; it is highly tempting to think that, being a monopoly >supplier, they have no incentive to improve the efficiency of their >processes. While certainly feeling that that _is_ the case, I keep an >open (well, ajar) mind as to whether there might be genuine reasons it >costs so much. > All the current stuff probably unnecessarily (for older records) undergoes the same degree of physical and other checking once you get past the ordering process on the GRO website so if nothing else there ought to be a saving in time by producing a simple photocopy. >If it _can_ be done a _lot_ cheaper, it might still not be an >income-producing resource: it depends whether the reduction in cost >would produce an increase in volume. (Certainly LostCousins have pointed >out that the reverse is not the case: recent _rises_ in the costs of >certificates have not resulted in an increase in revenue, because the >_numbers_ fell off by a higher percentage. Though whether this is due >purely to the price rises, or the recession in general, is probably not >knowable.) > >One thing that _has_ always struck me as requiring some input is the >frustration between the marriage _indexes_ and the actual certificates - >that is improving due to the sterling work done by FreeBMD and even, to >a lesser extent, FMP and I think now even Ancestry - but it still >frustrates (me at least) not knowing who married who without the >certificate. > For pre-1912 marriages there is an increasing amount of further indexing by Familysearch/LDS and <county>BMD groups which will give you that information and sometimes more. Pairing of spouses can often be done by looking for the possible combinations of names in following censuses which in most cases works as long as all the brides have different names. >(You'd have thought they could have been at least entering >that information into something when someone does buy a certificate; I >don't know what percentage of the whole that would represent, but it >can't be zero - but I've seen no indication it is even occurring.)

In message <[email protected]>, Charles Ellson <[email protected]> writes: >On Sat, 7 Feb 2015 12:42:36 +0000, "J. P. Gilliver (John)" ><[email protected]> wrote: [] >>One thing that _has_ always struck me as requiring some input is the >>frustration between the marriage _indexes_ and the actual certificates - >>that is improving due to the sterling work done by FreeBMD and even, to >>a lesser extent, FMP and I think now even Ancestry - but it still >>frustrates (me at least) not knowing who married who without the >>certificate. >> >For pre-1912 marriages there is an increasing amount of further >indexing by Familysearch/LDS and <county>BMD groups which will give >you that information and sometimes more. Pairing of spouses can often >be done by looking for the possible combinations of names in following >censuses which in most cases works as long as all the brides have >different names. I did acknowledge the work being done by others ... > >>(You'd have thought they could have been at least entering >>that information into something when someone does buy a certificate; I >>don't know what percentage of the whole that would represent, but it >>can't be zero - but I've seen no indication it is even occurring.) ... but I still think the GRO themselves should be improving the situation. -- J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)[email protected]+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf After I'm dead I'd rather have people ask why I have no monument than why I have one. -Cato the Elder, statesman, soldier, and writer (234-149 BCE)