Coroners Records.....

[DavidWW]

By the way, is the declining number of "double s" mis-transcriptions through the years possibly due to declining use of "double s" in handwriting?

I wondered about this too, John. In fact, I read David's sentence over several times trying to puzzle out what he meant

For reasons not fully clear to me, the later the date of the production of the census index, the fewer such "Double SS" errors. In other words this type of error is most frequent in the earlier censues. This may be as simple as the order of the indexes, 1881 apart, being 1891, 1901, 1871, 1861, 1851 and 1841 ...

The first sentence sounds as if he means there are fewer double ss errors in the earlier censuses, which were indexed later Is this what you meant, David? The second sentence seems to be saying the opposite
Or have I lost my mind? Help! David, could you clarify please?
Sarah

By all means , - it's quite clearly the case that there are significantly higher numbers of "double ss" errors in the 1841, 1851, 1861, and 1871 indexes compared to 1891 and 1901 ............

David

[DavidWW]

Thanks for that Andrew.

Any idea what the schedule is likely to be for that?

The digitised images of the RCEs have been available for some time now on the DIGROS system at NRH, and should "shortly" be available online at SP, - the minutes of the UserGroup meeting of 14th September, due to be released shortly on SP, may clarify the situation - unfortunately I wasn't able to attend.

David

[SarahND]

By all means , - it's quite clearly the case that there are significantly higher numbers of "double ss" errors in the 1841, 1851, 1861, and 1871 indexes compared to 1891 and 1901 ............

Thanks! That makes more sense, since the old way of writing the double ss was used more and more rarely as the 19th century progressed. In the U.S., you almost never get it later than the very beginning of the 19th century, but I suppose in Scotland it held on longer?
Sarah

[DavidWW]

By all means , - it's quite clearly the case that there are significantly higher numbers of "double ss" errors in the 1841, 1851, 1861, and 1871 indexes compared to 1891 and 1901 ............

Thanks! That makes more sense, since the old way of writing the double ss was used more and more rarely as the 19th century progressed. In the U.S., you almost never get it later than the very beginning of the 19th century, but I suppose in Scotland it held on longer?
Sarah

I guess that, as the 19th century progressed it was the case that progressively fewer enumerators used the old "ƒs" form for "ss", that can run the risk of being interpreted as a "p" ......

While exactly the same consideration would apply to the 1855 and later statutory BMD records, the indexes to these were created on an annual contemporary basis by Scots fully familiar with such older style Scottish handwriting !!, therefore few if any "ROP" style index entries for "ROƒS" !!

On the other hand, GROS indexing of the censuses didn't start until no more than 6 years ago.

David

[karenmcc]

Hi all,

going back to the RCE thing. In Kathy's reply from SP they say that an original entry could not be altered. On one of my lots DC, the first entry on the page has no name (he is a "supposed labourer") and no cause of death.
There is an RCE. So if they discoved his name after this DC was signed am I correct in thinking that this could not then be put on the DC but would only appear on the RCE, and if this happened would SP have indexed this death under the name that appears on the RCE? Hope everyone can understand what I'm on about.

Karen

[DavidWW]

Hi all,

going back to the RCE thing. In Kathy's reply from SP they say that an original entry could not be altered. On one of my lots DC, the first entry on the page has no name (he is a "supposed labourer") and no cause of death.
There is an RCE. So if they discoved his name after this DC was signed am I correct in thinking that this could not then be put on the DC but would only appear on the RCE, and if this happened would SP have indexed this death under the name that appears on the RCE? Hope everyone can understand what I'm on about.

Karen

Yes! Understood !

While it sounds logical that the entry would then be indexed under the name shown in the RCE, I'd need to check this out.

David

[Alison Plenderleith]

Hi Karen,

My ggrandmother's birth certificate has the wrong first name. She was registered as Janet (her mother's name) and should have been Martha. I looked at the RCE in Edinburgh but she is indexed under the correct name.

Fortunately her parents were able to read. I wonder how many times that happened but went unnoticed. No wonder some seem impossible to find

Kind regards,

Alison[/b]

[karenmcc]

Hi David,

glad you could understand, cause even i had trouble when I read back through it.

Hi Allison,

Am I understanding you correctly in thinking that your ggrandmothers BC has the name Janet written on it but it is indexed on SP under Martha?

Karen Mc Cubbin

[Alison Plenderleith]

Hi Karen,

Yes, that's right!

Kind regards,

Alison