Who did she marry-four names for same entry!

[joette]

I am puzzled with this one checking all female McKimmie marriages 1930-1931 came across an interesting one.
There are four entries-all Service & War Returns & therefore no image.
All same female Bella Mckimmie & same record no 056/AF/0179 BUT
there are four different names for the groom
Robert Davies,
Bernard Denver,
Ronald Stevenson Dickie,
Charles William Haydon.
I am stumped was this polandry?Was she extremely unfortunate to lose three husbands & marry a fourth all in the same year!!
I am almost tempted to order it just to see what the heck it says.Anybody with any ideas????????????

[AndrewP]

Hi Joette,

As you say it seems unlikely that the bride married four grooms. I would wonder if it is a quirk of the indexing system, but the record would have to be seen to make more of it.

Maybe someone going into New Register House or Park Circus could have a look and report back.

One possibility is that the record holds four separate marriages. The bride's name you have entered calls up the record, then the record number is used to seek the groom's name, and there are four of them. As they are all on one record, the index cannot tell which one is the groom to the bride you have inquired about. All supposition, but it sounds good to me.

All the best,

AndrewP

[Cathy]

Could be the groom had several aliases.
Check out same initials on some.

[emanday]

Curiousity got the better of me

Bella McKimmie married Charles William Haydon in Lucknow in 1930. It is in the Army Returns of Marriages on findmypast.com (used to be 1837online).

I think the other chaps are a bit of a indexing error - mibbee?

[sporran]

Hello joette,


this is a problem that is known to SP, and they will fix it in due course. It affects only minor records, and all couples on the same page are shown as marrying one another.


Regards,

John

[DavidWW]

Who was it said a picture is worth a thousand words

See http://talkingscot.com/gallery/displayi ... p?pos=-971 for the type of return made by the army and sent to GRO in London, who then forwarded a copy of any page including anyone defined as Scotch to GROS.......

Sooo..... indeed, yes, 4 records on the same page ...........

David

[AndrewP]

Thanks David,

Four on the page - that bears out my theory above - presumably the problem known to GROS.

All the best,

AndrewP

[DavidWW]

Thanks David,

Four on the page - that bears out my theory above - presumably the problem known to GROS.

All the best,

AndrewP

Indeed, - although that's the first I'd heard that there was a problem with the indexing, - hopefully something that can be sorted via the software without any need to redo the index

Can't recall how many records per Army page there are for births, - but hopefully there isn't the same problem.

David

PS Andrew, when I tried to upload the image as a TIF, the Gallery wanted to treat it as a film clip. What was I doing wrong ?
dww

[AndrewP]

Hi David,

The problem probably only occurs with marriages as these are the only ones where the index has to go back and pick up a partner's name. There should be no equivalent situation with births or deaths.

For your example, all four will be indexed as record (page) 105. If you select by any single name from the page, then four partners would show up, according to my logic. The only way around that, that I can see is a re-indexing exercise, creating individual record numbers (for example as 105a, 105b, 105c and 105d for that page). Thus giving four unique records in the index (or four pairs if you consider an index entry each for bride and groom).

Regarding your other question, I cannot think why the gallery software wanted you to enter a single image tif file as a film clip.

All the best,

Andrew

[sporran]

Hello all,


my previous post was done from memory, since this has been a problem since the Scots Origin days, over 4 years ago. One of my wife's ancestors appeared to marry 4 women on the same day. The problem was fixed at one stage but appears to have sneaked back in. However, I have checked my e-mails, and I hope that Richard of TS does not find my quoting him, as he wrote recently:
"Minor record marriages are indexed to the nearest page so that is why all combos appear, but I think we can get round this - it's not top priority at the moment.".
It appears that GROS index such records to a page and not to an individual entry, and SP have to work around the GROS indexes.


Regards,

John