A wee tip

ninatoo · Post by **ninatoo** » Thu Dec 27, 2007 8:14 am

Hi all,

This has happened to me twice now, so I thought I would share it.

Forgive me if I am pointing out the obvious, but...it wasn't to me!

I had found a marriage on the IGI for they year 1862, and when I searched for it at SP it wasn't there. My year search was 1860-1863. Nothing. So I took out the years and got a match.

The reason? Although the marriage DID appear to have taken place in 1862, via the registration details, it did not get officially registered until 1873. And the indexes at SP are ordered by registration date, NOT date of the marriage, whereas the IGI lists the date of the actual marriage.

Just thought I would share, in case it might help someone.

Nina

Post by **SarahND** » Thu Dec 27, 2007 11:09 am

Thanks, Nina!
I didn't realize that either. So, I assume that both dates were given on the certificate you got from SP, but IGI indexes the one and SP the other?

There is no place in the IGI index for date of registration, that must be why. And I would suppose that this only applies to the marriages (and births?) after 1855 that still make in onto the IGI.
Thanks for the tip,
Sarah

ninatoo · Post by **ninatoo** » Thu Dec 27, 2007 11:35 am

Well I the other registration was for a marriage too, but I suppose it is very possible to happen for births.

Yes both certificates had the correct date of the marriage in the first column, but in the registration dates it said the actual date that it was registered, as evidenced by the other marriages on the pages which took place in the same year as the registrations.

The couples must have brought in their certificate from the church to be able to do this, as the witnesses details are there, but also the priest's (both were Catholic marriages).

Anyway I just thought I would mention it after the second time it happened to me as I recall being really frustrated when I couldn't find the first one, and luckily remembered it, which enabled me to find this one!

That was a bit of a tongue twister!

Nina

Post by **SarahND** » Thu Dec 27, 2007 11:39 am

Great sentence

My husband will love it

The odd things retired linguistics professors do for fun

Sarah

ninatoo · Post by **ninatoo** » Thu Dec 27, 2007 11:42 am

I am a teacher you know....I am on holidays right now so couldn't be bothered correcting it!!!

Post by **SarahND** » Thu Dec 27, 2007 11:58 am

"Correct" sentences are no fun

I'm glad you left it as-is

And it was perfectly comprehensible

Cheers,
Sarah

StewL · Post by **StewL** » Fri Dec 28, 2007 12:55 am

HI all
Just thought I would add something that I have been doing for a while now when searching for my lang deid yins (marriages/births). I have found that for marriages and births I almost never put in a date span unless I have a very good idea, and even then not initially. In fact I usually only put in the barest of information, often no shire either and that has proved quite successful.
What! No correct sentences, where were Ninatoo and Sarah when I was doing my uni studies

ninatoo · Post by **ninatoo** » Fri Dec 28, 2007 1:01 am

Sometimes I think that I am lazy with my own grammar because I have to correct it in the children all day long.

A mechanic never fixes his own car, right?

Nina

StewL · Post by **StewL** » Fri Dec 28, 2007 1:29 am

Nina

You are so right

An amendment to my other post

I should have said my searches for marriages/births using my way was mainly on IGI and using BVRI

I also do it that way on OPR's for an initial search, then put in dates to see if some also come up, of course sometimes yes but sometimes no.

StewL · Post by **StewL** » Fri Dec 28, 2007 4:03 am

Nina
Your post inspired me to have another search for the elusive DC for Robert Philips. Success

I finally found his DC in 1859

Why he never showed up in my previous searches, who knows. I must have done something different this time, but I now have him. He was registered by his son in law, no wife only married, and a different spelling of his mothers maiden name. Although around some time it did change from Balks to Banks. Anyway one happy little vegemite today, now to have a look for him in 1841 census.