Genealogy Chat

Top tip - using the Genes Reunited community

Welcome to the Genes Reunited community boards!

  • The Genes Reunited community is made up of millions of people with similar interests. Discover your family history and make life long friends along the way.
  • You will find a close knit but welcoming group of keen genealogists all prepared to offer advice and help to new members.
  • And it's not all serious business. The boards are often a place to relax and be entertained by all kinds of subjects.
  • The Genes community will go out of their way to help you, so don’t be shy about asking for help.

Quick Search

Single word search

Electoral Rolls

Looking for living relatives?

Search our UK Electoral Rolls (2002-2013) and find your living relatives today.

Search Electoral Rolls

New electoral roll records


  • New posts
  • No new posts
  • Thread closed
  • Stickied, new posts
  • Stickied, no new posts

I am so confused

Page 1 + 1 of 4

  1. «
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. »
ProfilePosted byOptionsPost Date


Billy Report 5 Dec 2007 15:23

Wheres the best place to get certs from !


Margaret Report 5 Dec 2007 15:38


The GRO - you can do it on-line if you want.

Don't send off for a lot at once, just in case.

M. Steer


Pam Report 5 Dec 2007 16:09

Costs £7 with the reference


mgnv Report 6 Dec 2007 01:24

Billy -

If there's a mistranscription, it could be that the original register (or the GROs) entry is not very clear - why not phone up the local register @ Bury (or wherever) and ask them if they could check his age at marriage - it would have been copied from their records for the GRO, then again at the GRO for the certificate you hold.


Madmeg Report 7 Dec 2007 02:39


Local Register offices can be great, they will often check things out for you for free. As Malcolm says, try ringing them or writing to them - pretend you are a bit unsure, they might be sympathetic - they might tell you if you have the right marriage or whatever else. If you want to order the certificate it is £7, don't pay any more, but you might have to pay postage.

The GRO reference will be of no use to the local register office, just give them names and dates.

If you have the wrong person, it will cost you nothing.




Billy Report 7 Dec 2007 17:56

Rang the GRO today and they confirmed that the ages on the Marraige cert was correct so that does mean that they lied about there ages and infact they were 10 years older than what they said. I am still not convinced, how can i put my mind at rest and move on, its playing on my mind, i think i have done all the other bits like the 1881 census and the 1891 census, any more ideas as how i can put this behind me and move on.


mgnv Report 8 Dec 2007 06:51


That eliminates two sources of possible mistranscription, but I still suggest the LOCAL RO,
as they copy it to the GRO in the first place. If it was a church wedding, it might also be entered in the parish register - this would be the original record sent to the LRO, but there might also be a duplicate register kept in the church - one copy might be more readable than the other (or even different). You'ld have to google a contact for the church, and contact them to find out if there are any records and how to access them - even if the actual building no longer exists, its congregation will have been transferred to some other church - not uncommon with urban churches.


Victoria Report 8 Dec 2007 12:29

Hi Billy, I also found that Edith BUT if she was born in 1870 and married in 1918 it isn't terribly likely that she went on to have children since she would be getting perilously close to 50.

I have found a marriage for an Edith Mercer in Blackburn in the July quarter of 1894. She married either Arthur Crook or Peter Smith. It is possible she had children and they took the Ingham name when she remarried.

More confusion. Sorry. I will see what I can see on the 1901 census.



Victoria Report 8 Dec 2007 12:41

Hmmm... there IS an Edith and Arthur Crook but given that they are living in Pucklechurch, Glos. in 1901 with one 4 year old this is most likely not your Edith.

More like is Edith and Peter Smith who are living in Blackburn with Alice 11, Cecil 2 and Richard 5. This Edith was born in Padiham about 1872.



Victoria Report 8 Dec 2007 12:50

Billy, you DO have your mother/father's birth certificate naming the mother and father?

More solid facts eliminates the need for speculation!



Billy Report 8 Dec 2007 17:23

Yes, My Fathers birth cert dated 17 April 1921 Oldham .reads Father daniel. Mother Edith Ingham formerly Mercer. Fathers occupation Marine store hawker of grimshaw st. Signature, description and residence of informant E Ingham 449 Rochdale rd.
I hope this helps


Stan Report 8 Dec 2007 20:25

Hi Billy

The Edith Ann Mercer that Keith in Fujairah found was born Edith Anne Mercer Apr-Jun 1869, Prescot 8b 550. That would make her 52 at the date of birth. I have come across few mothers over 44 in my research. However there doesn't seem to be a younger Edith Mercer. The one born in Chorlton in 1879 died there in 1880. I suppose at a pinch the child could have been their grandchild if one of them had an unmarried daughter and they didn't want the shame of an illegitimate child, but it doesn't seem as though either of them was married before. Maybe the 1911 Census will help you to find these people?




Victoria Report 9 Dec 2007 02:51

Okay!! Facts:-

Your mother/father was born …………………..

S/He had siblings?

Daniel Ingham and Edith Mercer were married 21 August 1918

Daniel’s father was probably called William
Edith’s father was probably called John William

If Daniel’s father was described as a cotton card room jobber on the marriage certificate but Edith’s father was described as deceased, then it infers that Daniel’s father was still alive and maybe, even still working. Remember people did change their jobs and I have found examples of older people who seem to have been given easier/simpler jobs when they got older.

Perhaps now you should look for their deaths. If you remember your grandparents, you will have an idea of when to start looking for their deaths in the index [you will need to trawl quarter by quarter]. John Henry Mercer may come up on the search. If you still can't find him that will need a trawl too.

Have you tried looking at the Mormon’s website? Put Familysearch into Google and it will bring it up for you. I have found a couple of marriages on there of William Inghams in the rightish area.

One married Elizabeth Ann Holmes 16 September 1860, both parties being 23.
The other married Mary Ann Law 17 November 1862, both parties being 22.

And there are others....

You could also try putting Daniel and an approximate date of birth [1874 +- 5 years] leave the surname blank in the census form and father’s name William, and see what it brings up. Look for names that have the same basic SHAPE as Ingham [think outside the box!!]. It could have been mistranscribed.

Good luck Billy. You WILL find them eventually, just plod through ‘em all and make sure you look at the original version and NOT the transcribed version. With the best will in the world, people make mistakes.



Stan Report 11 Dec 2007 11:46

Hi Billy

I've had a further think about this. I believe Edith Mercer may have been a lot younger than her husband, so they decided to even up their ages in the Register. The Edith Anne Mercer born in 1869 will probably have been the Edith Anne who married in the Prescot Registration District in 1894 (John Davison or Alfred Wilshaw). She would probably be the Edith A Davison found aged 30 in 1901, listed as born in Gateacre, which is next to Childwall, so I think we can forget about her.

My guess is that your Edith Ann could even have been born after 1901. The John William Mercer, her father, would therefore not have been the one who died in the Prescot R. D. in 1905, aged 65, but a much younger man, getting married in the 1890's or early 1900's. You really need to find the death records for your grandfather and grandmother.




Billy Report 12 Dec 2007 12:51

How do i do that when the ages on the Marraige cert are not correct !!


Ivy Report 12 Dec 2007 15:15

Just adding another tuppence:

- Daniel was said to be 34;
- and Edith was said to be 39
at marriage in Bury in 1918 .

There are problems finding people to match these ages.

Looking for Edith Ann* Mercer birth anywhere from 1865 to 1905

[Ed 13 Dec - many apologies, Billy, nowhere have you said that she is Edith Anne - I had absorbed this from the census posting earlier, without taking in that this was just one possible Edith Mercer]

(as Stan says, she may have been much younger, but presumably older than 13 at marriage)
on Free BMD-warning not fully transcribed-

gives just 5 birth registrations.

Looking at location alone, given that the marriage was in Bury suggests the following are least likely, in order:
Eastbourne in 1903
Dewsbury in 1884
Prescot in 1894
Prescot in 1869 (as discussed above)

so the most likely is Burnley in Mar 1885 (still some distance from Bury, but closer than Prescot)
Burnley is not too far from the Blackburn/Oldham Inghams Keith found

If so, then this Edith would be 33 in 1918, which is a better fit, and an easily mistranscribed number.

No, no, no - this one died in Dec 1885


Ivy Report 12 Dec 2007 15:37

- and the Dewsbury one stil living with her parents William and Annie in Ossett (near Dewsbury in Yks) in 1901


Ivy Report 12 Dec 2007 16:42

The one born in 1894 is likely to be this one - she has a brother John William (13 years older), but her father is shown as Edward on the 1901 census:

Name: Edith Ann Mercer
Age: 7
Estimated Birth Year: abt 1894
Relation: Daughter
Father's Name: Edward
Mother's Name: Ann
Gender: Female
Where born: St Helens, Lancashire, England

Civil Parish: St Helen
Ecclesiastical parish: Parr Mount Holy Trinity
Town: St Helen
County/Island: Lancashire
Country: England

Street address:


Condition as to marriage:


Employment status:

View Image

Registration district: Prescot
Sub-registration district: St Helens
ED, institution, or vessel: 34
Neighbors: View others on page
Household schedule number: 234
Household Members:
Name Age
James Crompton 8
John Crompton 10
Ann Mercer 36
Edith Ann Mercer 7
Edward Mercer 41
Emily Maude Mercer 10
Emma Crompton Mercer 9 months
John William Mercer 20
Joseph Edward Mercer 13
Maggie Frances Mercer 15
Sarah Elizth Mercer 18


Billy Report 12 Dec 2007 20:00

i am still so confused, its so strange that of all the 30 something replies i am still no closer to solving this mystery. i think i will have to pay to get it resolved as it is giving me headaches


Victoria Report 12 Dec 2007 21:20

What on earth would make you think that giving someone money will make them able to find your rels? They can't do anything more than you can.

I refer you back to my previous email about finding their deaths since this will provide you with their [probably more accurate] ages!

Think back. Do you have any memory of these people? Do you know where they lived when they were older? What photos are there - did they look about the same age?

You will need to trawl through the death records quarter by quarter. Make a list of all the people of the same name with their ages - and then go back to the census records and the births and see if you can 'marry them up'.

30 responses later you have narrowed the field and there have been several suggestions that you start with looking for their deaths which you don't seem to have followed through with yet.