Position:Home>Genealogy> Part 2, marriage certificate, confused? uploaded pic?

I've never seen a certificate with quite so many mistakes, but that is all they are!. If a registrar made a mistake while writing the certificate there was obviously no such thing as tippex so they were obliged to strike through the mistake, place a number next to it and initial the correction in the margin of the page!. Usually there are only a few corrections on a page, so to find one with the numbers 12-18 indicates that there were several mistakes on other certificates in the register as well!. To put it bluntly, the transcriber made a monster **** up and had to correct it as best they could!.

The correct names will be those that aren't crossed out!. Jacob Dando (dec) and Evan Thomas Presser (dec), occupations coal miner and coker (thats shovelling coal into a large furnace I guess probably at a steel works or something) respectively!. It just means someone wasn't paying attention when the record was originally sent to the GRO and several marriages would have got mixed up, hence the corrections!.

The most I've ever had on a certificate is one!. To get seven is most unusual and almost a record!. Its still quite legal if somewhat confusing!.Www@QuestionHome@Com

---

---

Ok, I think that the fathers’ names are Jacob James Dando (or James Jacob Dando) and Evan Thomas Prescott!. For some unknown reason, some incorrect info was first written on the certificate, and then crossed out and corrected!. When the clerk made the corrections, he had to initial each correction to make it official!. Instead of initialing right next to the correction, he numbered each correction and then initialed it off to the side!. But why was the incorrect info written there in the first place!? Hmmm… maybe the clerk was copying the info from some type of record book onto the official form, and he looked at record above or below it by mistake… the record of someone named Williams who was a coal miner!?Www@QuestionHome@Com

---

---

The line of enquiry I would pursue is that the Registrar got confused, and made a mistake, initialling his incorrect entries to show that the crossing out was of an error, and was superseded by the amendment, in the same way that we amend a cheque that we have made out incorrectly!.
I have looked at Free BMD for that quarter for Bedwelty, and there were 14 people called Williams married in that quarter!. Some of the pages have more than one Williams, although with multiple entries you can't tell who married who without certificates!. There could be two cases of a Williams marrying a Williams!. David Williams and Margaret Williams are on the same page, as are Herbert Williams and Jennie Williams!.Www@QuestionHome@Com

---

---

Could it be whoever wrote it got confused with the names and had to cross them out!?Www@QuestionHome@Com

---

---

It certainly looks as though there was some sort of a mix up with the names, and the registrar numbered each possibility and then cross referenced them, perhaps with a second register, until he arrived at the correct names, so you should basicly ignore the crossed out details, go with the unmarked names for the certificates of the fathers!.
I've not seen anything like it before !

I found this marriage, it might be Thomas' father!.
Marriages Mar!. qtr!. 1872
Dando!. Jacob Bedwelty 11a 147
Married
Beynon!. Martha Bedwelty 11a 147 **
Or
Good!. Mary Bedwelty 11a 147

** Looks like this is Thomas' mother

1881 Census
47 Iron Row, Bedwellty, Monmouth, Wales
MARTHA DANDO Wife (Head) M Female 29 Tredegar, Monmouth, Wife
Henrey DANDO Son U Male 10 Tredegar, Monmouth, Scholar
Sarah Jane DANDO Daur U Female 9 Tredegar, Monmouth, Scholar
THOMAS DANDO Son U Male 2 Tredegar, Monmouth, Infant

Thomas' age was given as 31 when he married,
born abt!. 1878 so he'd be about 2-3 in 1881

Jacob was not at home, Martha is described as 'head', although 'M' (married)!. Was Jacob dead, or alive !?
No apparent death registration for a Jacob that fits the period!.Www@QuestionHome@Com

---

---