Genealogy Chat

hi thanks for the suggestion jim.
mmm kath it is possible, if i enlarge the image there is something written after the age, i thought it said months but it could say widow. there was no birth place entered.
bk

on the 1901 census my gt grandmother sarah wright appears with my grandmother, her sister and brother. (they were all griffiths but she had called them wright) and a step sister Hannah Wright. orn 1900.
looking at the 1911 there are another 2 more children named wright born 1902 and 1905. the original griffiths children now gone and married. clara wouldnt seem to fit in anywhere but she has me puzzled.
probably got you the same way now.sorry
brenda

Sorry for the delay in replying - GR crashed on me.

If great grandma's name was Griffiths before she remarried then I would expect the age for Clara in 1911 to be more likely to be 14 (i.e. before the 1898 marriage).

Was Clara on the 1901 census or not?

UPDATE - Just had a look at transcriptions for Clara Griffiths in Cheshire (is that where they were living in 1911?) - and there isn't one for a 4 year old or 14 month old but there is one in Chester for a 44 year old. Could that be the one? Could it be a sister in law to your great grandma?

Kath. x

type your name in the main search box with the year,if no results:-
first three letters of surname plus *
eg
Roland Henry Renacre 1909 Jan-Feb-Mar Epsom
Violet James Renaud 1909 Apr-May-Jun
John Henry Rendall 1909 Jul-Aug-Sep
Charles Thomas Rendell 1909 Oct-Nov-Dec
Now click on the image and you can scroll through all the images.

hi Kath, bit of a strange one really. looked at an original on 1911 today and found a name crossed out in my gt grandmothers family. it cleary says Clara Griffiths but the age is unreadable due to the crossing out. might be 14 months or 14 or 1.4. my gt grandmother remarried so the children were called wright but she was married to a griffiths before. i just wondered who this other person could have been.
did find a cheshire birth for 1910 but dont know if its her. my gt grandmother remarried in 1898.
they were all born in cheshire
thanks

well blow me down, thanks for the replies. it doesnt exist anymore!!?? I am not happy, thought i'd gone mad.
bk

It isn't there anymore. The FreeBMD is fully transcribed now, so you will still be able to find the birth.

What is the name you are looking for and do you have an idea of the area?

Kath. x

I don't understand Seaham Lass. You can still find all the births that you could on the complete index. It's just that they have all been transcribed - just like the earlier births had. It is actually quicker now, especially if you know the year of birth.

Kath. x

hi Kath thanks for replying- still having trouble. i am looking for a birth between 1909 and 1911. I want to access the complete indexes not the free bmd but for the life of me i cant find it any more.!
thanks

I think Ancestry have difficulty explaining.
All the images are still there but you have to search them in a different way.

I think Ancestry have stopped it and I agree it is really annoying.
I read a posting somewhere on here the other day that more or less said that Ancestry thought that Freebmd records were sufficient.
It is really disappointing and I think that a lot of people will be complaining to Ancestry in the hope that they restore the records

It no longer exists because all the births have been transcribed.
From the main search page you can access all births
England & Wales, FreeBMD Birth Index, 1837-1915
England & Wales, Birth Index: 1916-2005
If you cannot find what you are looking for the images are still searchable.

If you click onto the partial freeBMD index you will find a link at the bottom of the search box to births after 1915. They are all now transcribed.

Kath. x

Hi, am I going mad? i want to access the complete birth index (1837) on ancestry but all i can get is the partial free bmd index . i could access it last week so why not now? it is driving me up the wall. any one else having this problem?
thanks
bk