Archiver > ABERDEEN > 2008-03 > 1204629455

From: "Janet" <>
Subject: Re: [ABERDEEN] Scotland's People.
Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2008 11:17:35 -0000
References: <02e301c87bbd$392d13b0$0300a8c0@NOTEBOOK> <bc1c2f170803020957i7f52b6a9ie04167373eb5a4a6@mail.gmail.com> <019c01c87c9c$fb467420$0200a8c0@dell8400> <47CB1565.1010704@which.net> <47CB280C.8030204@blueyonder.co.uk><47CB3689.7090008@which.net> <47CBCA4E.6040801@blueyonder.co.uk><006101c87d25$f9345ec0$0200a8c0@dell8400> <47CBEC3A.2030401@blueyonder.co.uk><009101c87d2f$01340360$0200a8c0@dell8400><47CC3461.4010903@blueyonder.co.uk><00da01c87d6c$ea1b3250$0200a8c0@dell8400><47CD2BB6.D697.0091.0@aberdeen-harbour.co.uk>

----- Original Message -----
From: "Alexander Bisset" <>

> When recording a birth it was often the father giving the information to the clerk. Then as now fathers were not always 100% accurate when recalling the date of their anniversary!! Is it possible he got the year wrong?

///////No please see earlier posts.
> However as you have indicated you did a search on names I assume you "loosened" the search to not be restrictive on year? The golden rule is always start with the least info you can in a search and then and only then narrow the search until you get a manageable number of results. For Scotlands People searching once you get your results below 25 its worth looking at the results as that is only a single credit (ie: 20p).

///////Please see the steps I took. In bringing the matter to this List I was sure of the date of birth and marriage from the birth record.

/////I have received 2 communications this morning from GRO and Scotland's People, conceding that there is a problem with this record at Scotland's People no matter what search maths one applies. The matter is being investigated. This is as I suspected when I brought the matter to the List in the hope that others may benefit from knowing about it.

>>>> "Janet" <> 03/03/2008 20:26 >>>
> Hello, Louise, and Gavin,
> You both asked reasonable questions, but I was sure that the marriage was in Scotland because I had the date and place of marriage on the birth certificate. Birth 1873, marriage 1866; I did not mention the place earlier because this couple married other than in Aberdeenshire.
> I did run a search just in the name of VIGROW without a male name and got a list of them, only about 10 in total, the majority in Aberdeenshire, but my record wasnt listed on that occasion.
> Here's the reply I have received earlier, but only picked it up just now. The names of the parties are John SAMPLE, Inland Revenue Officer and Margaret Weston VIGROW.
> You will see what GRO found, and got a nil return and what they did to find it. I hope that the remedy in this case may help others where you know the record should be there.

This thread: