Guild Blog Challenge Post 10: What's in a Name? Pluvius Cambria PARRY

Considering the topic of the previous few posts, perhaps I should subtitle this one, "and now for something completely different." 🙂

As one-namers, we are all used to the idea that names have meanings.  For surnames, that's usually related to the origin of the name - for example, there are surnames derived from occupations, from nicknames, from geographical or topographical features, and from a parent's name, as in patronymic or matronymic naming systems. PARRY is an example of a patronymic surname, since it comes from the Welsh use of 'ap', or 'son of', before a father's name of 'Harry'.

First names often have some form of meaning attached to them, as well.  There are meanings based on the origin of the word, eg for 'Harry', this is described as a Medieval English form of Henry, as well as being used in modern times as a shortened version of both Henry and Harold. Henry was itself derived from a German name, meaning 'home ruler'

But first names are also called 'given names' - a clue to another type of meaning, the meaning placed on it by the parents (or whoever named the child) in choosing that name and giving it to the child.

Sometimes names are chosen because the family are following a tradition:

First son was named after the father’s father.
Second son was named after the mother’s father.
Third son was named after the father.
The fourth son was named after the father's eldest brother
The first daughter after the mother's mother
The second daughter after the father's mother
The third daughter after the mother
The fourth daughter after the mother's eldest sister*

Other times, the name might have some personal relevance to the family - maybe a special relative, or someone who had assisted and supported them in some way, or someone they admired. It might mark an event of personal or national importance, or be a virtue the parents hope for the child (or experienced themselves).

Whatever the reason, 'given names' are chosen names - and, for some names, this just begs the question:

Why?

Why would parents inflict such a name on their child?!

I came up with my own scenario for the strangest name I have so far come across, in the PARRY One-name Study.  Imagine the scene, in a house in Wales, where new mother, Eliza, is talking to her husband, Powell, following their recent house move from England:

"It's raining"

"Yes dear, I know it's raining, but I need to go out to register the baby's birth"

"But, really, look at the weather!  It is *still* raining.  Does it never stop raining here?"

 "Well, it does,...er... sometimes.  But I still need to go out and register the baby's birth now.  What are we going to call him?"

"Rain in the morning, rain during the day, rain in the evening.  That's all I've seen since we arrived here.  RAIN! "

"Yes, dear.  I'm going out the door now - what shall we call him?"

"RAINY WALES!"

……

[a little while later, in an office in town]

"Yes, Registrar, I know it's a strange name.  But that's definitely what my wife said.  You think it might sound better in Latin?   Yes, I think you're right - please register his name as "Pluvius Cambria Parry"

……

[the End]

I may never discover the real reason why Powell and Eliza PARRY gave their son the names "Pluvius Cambria" but that story came to mind when I first discovered them in the censuses.  Powell came from Mold, Flintshire, but Eliza was from Berkhamstead, Hertfordshire.  Pluvius was born in Tewkesbury, Gloucestershire so, when the family appear in Mold, Flintshire, in the 1841 census, I could just imagine the name as a new mother's response to being uprooted to live in a wet and soggy North Wales.

It was a nice story but I now know that it couldn't be true - since the birth of Pluvius was not actually registered, and he was also christened while they were still in Tewkesbury, on the 18 Dec 1839. 

In 1841, Powell (30), Eliza (20) and their one year old son, Pluvius, are in Mold, Flintshire, in the same household as a Cain PARRY, aged 25, and Ann PARRY, aged 60.  Cain and Ann, potentially, are Powell's brother and mother, although I haven't yet tried researching Powell's parentage.

Powell's occupation in 1841 is recorded as "Poor rate collector" - which seems a bit of a change from "Railway Contractor", which was his occupation when Pluvius was christened.

In 1851, the family are still living in Mold.  Powell (43) is now an "Auctioneer" and it is this census which tells us that Powell was born in Mold, while his wife, Eliza aged 34, was born in Berkhamstead, Hertfordshire.   As well as Pluvius, aged eleven, two further children have been born, Llewelyn Horne, aged seven, and Amanda Ann, aged five.

In 1855, Powell dies and, by the 1861 census, Eliza, Llwellyn and Amanda have moved to Eliza's birthplace, Berkhampstead, in Hertfordshire.  I did think I'd found Pluvius in all of the relevant censuses but, if I did, for some reason I didn't keep a record of where he was in 1861.  [So that's a 'mission', should anyone choose to accept it! ]

By 1871, Pluvius is living in Charles Street, St. Marylebone, London, working as a drapers assistant.

On the 4 Dec 1873, Pluvius married Anne Eliza OWEN at St George Hanover Square.  The details for this from the church records were obtained for me some years ago, as a result of one of the marriage challenges.  But, thanks to the newspaper collection on the National Library of Wales, I now know that the marriage was announced in the "Wrexham and Denbighshire Advertiser and Cheshire Shropshire and North Wales Register":

PARRY-OWEN - On the 4th inst., at St. George's Church, Hanover Square, London, by the Rev. J. H. Murray, Pluvius C. Parry, formerly of Mold, to Anne Eliza, daughter of the late Mr William Owen, Tre'r Dryw Farm, Llanidan, Anglesea.

It appears that Pluvius might have ventured into a change of occupation - on the 14th January 1875,  Pluvius and his wife were in Llanwrwst, as the "North Wales Chronicle and Advertiser for the Principality" published the following on the 23rd January 1875:

LLANRWST. THE ROYAL HOTEL.—A supper took place at the Royal Hotel in this town, on Thursday, the 14th instant, on the occasion of Mr Pluvius Cambria Parry, from London, having taken the hotel, when a numerous and respectable party attended and enjoyed a capital spread. After the cloth was removed the usual loyal and patriotic toasts were proposed and drunk. The healths of the worthy proprietor and proprietress coupled with kind wishes for the future happiness and prosperity, the healths of the president and vice-president and other toasts were also drunk. Much credit is due to Mr and Mrs Parry for the way in which they catered for the enjoyment of their friends, who one and all expressed themselves much satisfied with the entertainment which had been provided for them. 

At first, knowing that Pluvius and Eliza are in Marylebone in 1881, I thought this report might just have meant that Pluvius and his wife were staying at the hotel, and put on a meal for their friends there.  However, they clearly did spend some time as the proprietors of the Royal Hotel, as another newspaper report, in "Llais Y Wlad" on the 2nd July 1875, has an account of a court case relating to charges of drunkenness and negligence against a Mr Roberts, which mentions Pluvius.

Llais Y Wlad is a Welsh language newspaper but, thanks to the wonders of modern technology in the form of Google Translate, we learn that it reads:

Pluvius Parry, proprietor of the Royal Hotel, Llanrwst, testified that Mr Roberts had been in the coffee-room at his hotel on the evening of the 6th of May. He remained in conversation with him for about an hour, and the witness, to whom he was essentially an individual, had not the slightest hesitation in saying that he was perfectly sober. Mr Roberts left between five and six o'clock, and both had a glass of beer each.  

I don't know how long Pluvius and Anne were at the Royal Hotel but, by the 1881 census, they are again living in St Marylebone - if I hadn't been searching for probate entries for his father, Powell, in the National Library of Wales, and then carried out a 'random search' for Pluvius amongst the newspaper records, I would not have even realised that the couple had spent time back in Wales.

They have no children with them in 1881, so it seems likely that they never had any (surviving) children.  They are living in 248 Great Portland Street, as are two other families and we know, from the electoral rolls, that they were renting a large unfurnished room on the second floor at 4 shillings a week.  Pluvius is working as a "clerk clothworkers". 

By 1883, they have moved to 43 Museum Street, Finsbury, and are renting one front room, on the second floor, at 6 shillings a week.  The Electoral Rolls on Ancestry.com for 1884, 1885, 1888, 1889, 1890, and 1891 continue to place them there.

Pluvius dies on the 2 Nov 1890 and the administration of his estate is granted to his wife, Anne Eliza, on the 17 Nov 1890.

Every time we visit Wales, and it rains, I think about poor Pluvius and wonder why his parents gave him that name.  From my newspaper searches, I was interested to find numerous references to "Jupiter Pluvius", in particular regarding events that were disrupted by rain.  This was derived from the Ancient Roman mythological concept of Jupiter as the god of the sky and thunder, and therefore as the bringer of rain.

So perhaps naming their child "Pluvius Cambria" really was a response to the idea of moving to Wales!



*
Relationship naming pattern - https://www.genealogy.com/articles/research/35_donna.html

Census Entries
1841: Class: HO107; Piece: 1410; Book: 12; Civil Parish: Mold; County: Flintshire; Enumeration District: 1; Folio: 12; Page: 15; Line: 5;
1851: Class: HO107; Piece: 2501; Folio: 566; Page: 20;
1861:
1871: Class: RG10; Piece: 148; Folio: 51; Page: 32;
1881: Class: RG11; Piece: 137; Folio: 89; Page: 24;

"Jupiter Pluvius" meaning - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jupiter_(mythology)

Guild Blog Challenge Post 9: 1918, PARRYs in the CWGC

One of the things I wondered about, when I started to consider the PARRY deaths in 1918, was whether I should make any adjustments for deaths relating to the First World War.

This was because I remembered we have a death certificate for Thomas PARRY, my great grandfather's brother, who died out in South Africa, during the Boer War, and I suddenly realised that I wasn't sure of the answer to the question of how these deaths were recorded.  Do they appear in the online civil registration death indexes in some way, despite many of them taking place abroad?  If so, then what impact are they having on the 'normal' figures.

Having checked the copy of the certificate for Thomas, I see that it is actually headed up "Registration of Births, Deaths and Marriages (Special Provisions) Act 1957", as opposed to most of the normal copy certificates, which state "Pursuant to the Births and Deaths Registration Act 1953".    Typed in one corner is "An entry in an Army Register Book of Deaths in the South African War 1899-1902" and other text states that it is a "true copy of the certified copy of an entry made in a Service Departments Register".

So there were separate registers for the war deaths.  However, it appears that those injured in the war and repatriated to the UK, who subsequently died, as well as the personnel from the Royal Navy, or merchant seaman, killed by enemy action and whose bodies were brought ashore, were registered by the local registrars.*

It would take too long to go through all the PARRY deaths I've previously extracted from the Commonwealth War Graves Commission site, to try to identify which ones might also be included in the normal indexes and so relate the statistics to those in the Challenge Post 7.  But this does seem an opportunity to write something about the CWGC figures during the same time period.

My first extraction of the PARRY entries from the CWGC site was probably back about 2006, as part of normal data collection towards the one-name study.  But I'd repeated the process in 2013, when it had been my intention to do a project on them during the centenary period (28 July 2014 - 11 November 2018).  Unfortunately, I didn't manage that project, as the centenary began in the months following the death of a close relative and my time was spent dealing with other issues.

So this time I began by checking the current index back to my earlier extractions, as it is often useful to check for updates to such sites.  I didn't keep a record of how I searched last time, but I imagine I just used a straightforward search for the surname.  If so, then it seems there have been some changes to the search process and results found.   Previously, double barrelled surnames that began with PARRY were included, as was the surname "PARRYMAN".  This time, however, double barrelled surnames where PARRY is the second part were also included in the results, and the "PARRYMAN" entry was no longer included.  There were some changes to names - some mispellings were corrected and a couple of entries that were just initials now contain the casualty's full name.  There were also changes to some service numbers.

This graph shows the total numbers of PARRY deaths on the CWGC site for the period 1914 - 1921:

[Note: This is just PARRYs - I haven't included any of the double barrelled surnames etc, as the  previous Blog posts in this series only related to registrations for the one surname, PARRY, not any of the combination names]

Graphs can be used to show the data in a variety of ways, which can then lead into other types of investigations.  Here, for example, they are broken down by Service type:

As one might expect, in World War 1, the army bore the brunt of the casualties.  But viewing the figures like this might prompt the question of how many PARRYs were in each of the Services, and whether the casualty rates were proportional to that, or not.

The deaths could be displayed in terms of the country they served with, perhaps linking in to emigration of PARRYs and, again, the question of proportionality - were the death rates for the countries the same, and the higher figures for the UK PARRYs merely the product of the UK being the location for the origin of the surname:

With regard to where battles were, the deaths could be displayed in terms of the country the memorial is in:

It is possible to plot these memorial figures the other way round, ie places within each year.  But, since the numbers vary considerably, the story such a graph could tell would seem limited.

And, sometimes, only a table of data can bring home the more human cost of individual events:

*
War death registers and local registrations -
https://history.blog.gov.uk/2017/11/10/the-general-register-office-and-the-first-world-war/

Guild Blog Challenge Post 8: 1918, John Parry and his father, Thomas

Continuing on from my previous post, about the numbers of PARRYs who died in the period covering the 1918 Influenza Pandemic, this post relates to the impact of 1918 on my own ancestral line.  Two of my direct PARRY ancestors died that year, my great grandfather, John PARRY , and his father, Thomas.

John PARRY is featured in a post on my personal family history blog, which you can find here.  There will be more to add to his story, once I finish investigating the reasons for his nine months in prison, in 1911. He died on the 21st November 1918, of "morbus cordis" and syncope.  As someone explained the causes to my Dad (who began our family history research), "they just died!  It would be the most likely thing to put if someone died as a result of general weakness after 'flu".

John's father, Thomas PARRY, was 79 years old when he died in February 1918.  According to the death certificate, he died of cancer, asthenia and syncope so, potentially, the pandemic had no direct connection to his death.  It was just a matter of timing.

Thomas was born in 1838, in Llanwenarth, Monmouthshire.  He'd married in 1863, to Sarah JONES and they'd had four children before Sarah died in 1869, aged just 26, from meningitis.  Their youngest son, Lewis, born four days before Sarah passed away, then died from bronchitis at the age of 8 months. But the other three children survived to adulthood.

By 1891, Thomas was living in Walterstone, Herefordshire, at "Coed Gravel", a widower aged 53, working as a roadman.  With him were his daughter, Elizabeth, aged 24, and his mother, Hannah, aged 81.  It seems likely his mother died in the years soon after that census, although I haven't been able to identify her death yet.  But Thomas remarried in 1893 to Ann JONES, formerly MEREDITH, a 53 year old widow.  Thomas and Ann remained in Walterstone and, in 1901, were living at "Lower House".  Thomas was aged 62, and still working as a roadman for the Rural District Council.  By 1908, when Ann died, Thomas and Ann were living at "Quarries Green", Walterstone, and Thomas appears to still be living at the same property in 1911 (although, in the census, the property is described as "Quarrels Green").  He is now aged 72, and again it is recorded that he is working as a roadman for the RDC.

On the 9th December 1911, Thomas PARRY, of "Quarry's Green, Walterstone", wrote his Will.

He died on the 22nd February 1918, at Plum Tree Cottage, Graigamy, Clydach, Llanelly, Breconshire, which was the home of his step-daughter, Margaret Francis.

This is the relevant entry in the probate calendar:

The discovery of this record is something I always find amazing, whenever I think about it - one of those "chance finds" in genealogy, which help several pieces fall into place.   No other evidence has been found, so far, for this address of 18 Newmarket Street, Hereford, being connected to Thomas PARRY, so this is the find that I believe helped my Dad to confirm the link between my great grandfather, John, and my 2xgreat grandfather, Thomas.

Dad had begun to research our family history in the early 1980s, just after his father, Donald PARRY, died, so it was too late to ask any further questions. (How many of us have found ourselves in that situation!)

Donald had been orphaned in 1918, when his father, John, died, and there was very little information available about our PARRY line. When Dad started, many of the records and search facilities, which we almost take for granted these days, were not available - even the 1881 census was not yet indexed, and the civil registration indexes were only available in a limited number of places.

So, identifying entries relating to the correct father and grandfather for Donald had been a bit of a 'brickwall' for Dad.

I now have the numerous letters from the research company Dad used, showing what research had been carried out when, and giving their reasons why the investigations into John and his father's parentage hadn't progressed far since they had last written to Dad.  Over the years, bits and pieces of information had been collected, including, amazingly, details of the correct birth certificate for John.  But it is difficult to say now exactly what was "known" about the family at any particular time (without analysing all the research and putting it on a timeline) since details we now know to be correct are interspersed with various facts which turned out to be irrelevant (including incorrect birth details from other entries.)

Dad knew, from Donald's birth and marriage certificates, that his father was called John Parry and was a cattle dealer.  John's marriage certificate revealed that John was 37 when he married the 21 year old Rosina Louisa PREECE, in 1903, which made his birth about 1866.  The marriage certificate also indicated that John's father was called Thomas, a farmer.

Since Dad knew when his father, Donald, had been orphaned, it was possible to obtain John's death certificate.  This gave John's address as 18 Newmarket Street, Hereford.  An M.A Francis, "step-niece" was the informant, and her residence was the same address.

Although it seemed likely that the birth certificate identified by the research company in 1986 was going to be the correct one, as the father was recorded as Thomas PARRY, a farmer, the gap in information between that date and John's marriage hampered progress further back.

Despite the money spent on professional research, it was actually the 'chance find' by Dad, in 1993, that identified the correct Thomas. After years in the RAF and then being made redundant from an electronics company, Dad had found his 'dream job', working in a local Archives Office.  Unfortunately, the job didn't last more than about six months, due to ill health. But during that time, a researcher had come in and requested the National Probate Index.  Dad hadn't come across that then and so, once he was free, he decided to look up 1918 in the index, the year he knew John PARRY had died.

There was no entry in the index for John Parry, but, glancing down the page at the rest of the PARRYs, he suddenly spotted the address "18 Newmarkert Street" in the entry for a Thomas PARRY

Dad obtained a copy of the Will and death certificate and, finally, had sufficient information to enable him to be sure he was connecting John PARRY back to the right Thomas.

This is a transcript of the Will:

This is the last Will and Testament of me Thomas PARRY of Quarry's Green Walterstone in the County of Hereford made this ninth day of December in the year of our Lord one thousand nine hundred and eleven. I hereby revoke all Wills made by me at any time heretofore. I appoint Alfred James Gilbert PHILLIPS, Trelandon, Walterstone and John PARRY, Carpenters Arms, Walterstone to be my Executors and direct that all my Debts and Funeral Expenses shall be paid as soon as conveniently may be after my decease - I give and bequeath unto my son John PARRY all my farming stock both live and dead also one Clock "Dresser bench" Three corner cupboard" one Iron bedstead" two Wooden Clothes boxes one silver watch and all my personal effects - The residue to be equally divided between my stepdaughters 

Margaret FRANCIS, the wife of Henry FRANCIS Clydach
Mary Ann WILLIAMS the wife of Arthur WILLIAMS, Bredwardine
Bidget LEWIS the wife of William LEWIS, Leominster
Elizabeth POWELL the wife of Henry POWELL Ebbw Vale
Emma PORTMAN the wife of James PORTMAN, Bridge Sollars -
It is my wish that my stepdaughter, Margaret FRANCIS for the kindness and attention shewn to me shall be recompensed at the discretion of my Executors -
Signed by the said Testator - The mark of x Thomas PARRY - in the presence of us present at the same time who at his request, in his presence, and in the presence of each other have subscribed our names as witnesses
Alfred James Gilbert PHILLIPS - Mary Sophia PHILLIPS

Affidavit of due execution and reading filed
On the 27th day of May 1918 Probate of this Will was granted at Hereford to Alfred James Gilbert PHILLIPS, one of the Executors 

Since neither the Will, nor Thomas's death certificate, show the Newmarket Street address that appears in the National Probate Index, my assumption is that it must have been the address that was entered for Thomas somewhere on the probate paperwork.

The Will at least answers the potential issue of John's birth and marriage certificates describing his father as a farmer, when this Thomas always seemed to be employed as a roadman.   The statement about his "farming stock both live and dead" indicates he must have been engaged in some, probably small scale, farming, whilst also employed as a road labourer.

But there are some intriguing features of the Will - the John PARRY of the Carpenter's Arms, one of the executors, is not my great grandfather, John.  Was there any blood relationship between the two PARRY families - not that I have found so far. 

It is interesting that there is more mention made of Thomas's step daughters than of his own children and grandchildren. His daughter Elizabeth had died in 1906, but she had, had two children who were aged 4 and 5 in 1911.  However, they were living in Buckinghamshire, so potentially had little contact with Thomas.

Thomas's first child, another Thomas, who had died in the Boer War, had three children.  These were aged 23, 16, and 12.  Although the oldest was in London in 1911, the mother and youngest child were still living in Herefordshire.

Finally, Thomas's son, John, also had two children, my grandfather, Donald, aged 7, and his sister, Rosina, aged 5, in 1911.

It is my assumption that Thomas PARRY didn't make his son the executor because, when he planned his Will, John was in Hereford Gaol (John was discharged the same day that the Will was signed, the 9th December 1911).  Perhaps Thomas even made his Will because John was in gaol, and he wanted to ensure his wishes were adequately known, should anything happen to him before his son was released?

We know that Thomas must have been in communication with his son, if he later moved from Walterstone to live in Newmarket Street with John, before going to stay with his step-daughter in Monmouthshire prior to his death in 1918.  Years later, John's daughter would also tell relatives that she could remember visiting her grandfather in Walterstone. I do get the impression that the family members looked out for each other - as well as the above, in 1901, John had his sister-in-law and her children living with him, while his brother was away at war. From John's death certificate, his step-niece had been living with him at the time of his death, possibly helping to keep house and look after the children. And I have been told that, after John's death, it was relatives who took in John's two children, although they were separated.

What an impact the year of 1918 must have had on my grandfather, Donald - to have lost his grandfather, then his father, and then to be separated from his sister, as he was sent to live with relatives outside of Hereford.

In September 1923, aged 19, Donald PARRY obtained the administration of his father's estate:

And, on the 5th April 1924, Donald set sail for Canada, with a view to emigrating there permanently.

Fortunately, for me, sometime before February 1927, he returned to the UK - otherwise I wouldn't be here. 🙂


References:
1891 census: Class: RG12; Piece: 2066; Folio: 19; Page: 4;
1901 census: Class: RG13; Piece: 2485; Folio: 19; Page: 1
1911 census: Class: RG14; Piece: 15738; Schedule Number: 28

National Probate Index - https://probatesearch.service.gov.uk/#wills

Guild Blog Challenge Post 7: Human errors (mine!), source data accuracy - and some PARRY deaths in 1918

I've fallen behind on the Blogging Challenge, having not posted anything for a few weeks.  That doesn't mean nothing has been happening on the study - I do have several posts half written.  These were often prompted by sources other researchers have mentioned, either in their blogs or on the mailing lists and Facebook groups.  But doing the research necessary to move from some roughly drafted notes, to a completed post, always seems to develop into a much more involved task than I initially expect.

Like most people at the moment, I imagine, I have been following the developing situation regarding the coronavirus pandemic.  Various events I would have attended have already been cancelled, and I wouldn't be surprised if more were to follow. Daily life is changing.  Even what used to be a simple decision, like how we manage our shopping, has become more complicated.  Do we pop down to the shops regularly for a few bits - potentially contravening the advice about social distancing which emphasises 'stay at home' as much as possible?  Or do we wait to do a larger weekly shop, knowing that the time lapsed since the previous one should allow for any potential contagion to have shown itself - but risking difficulties in obtaining specific items, as well as the ire of the "daily shoppers", who might think we're stockpiling?  With daily 'essentials', such as milk, still disappearing rapidly from the shelves, and limits in place for how much can be purchased at any one time, we are all having to balance our actions, and be considerate of others. 

I wonder to what extent this will permanently change our ways of life?

I suppose it is only natural for comparisons to be made to similar situations in the past, in particular the influenza pandemic of 1918 (which, I only recently learnt, ran from January 1918 to December 1920, rather than just during 1918*).  So I thought I'd take a look at the PARRY deaths for that year, to see how much more than 'usual' they were.  This was particularly prompted by the fact that two of my own ancestral line died that year - John PARRY, my great grandfather, and Thomas PARRY, John's father.

Initially I was going to look at the range of years from 1910 - 1925, to provide an indication of how many 'more' deaths there were that year.  But, using FreeBMD for the figures, I was surprised to find that the number of registered deaths for the surname in 1918 (455) was actually less than the number registered in 1911 (468) .  So I expanded the range to 25 years, to see if that gave me a better impression of the 'usual' numbers.

One of my first considerations was how to ensure the figures were as accurate as possible. I had carried out some extractions of the death index from FreeBMD back in 2007, but those extractions didn't cover all the date range I was currently interested in.  Several of the years extracted had also been incomplete at the time and had transcription errors in them, which I have sometimes noticed leads to duplicated entries, and so would inflate the totals.  I therefore began by extracting those years I knew were missing, and checking the totals for those years previously collected, in case of changes.

I was going to compare the details to the same indexes on other genealogy sites, but then I realised some sites, such as Ancestry, actually cite FreeBMD as their source, at least for the index up to 1915, so I'd clearly be comparing the same data there.  The only obvious comparison to make would be with the UK Government's own General Register Office site, which covers the birth and death registrations. Many one-namers probably checked this site when it first went online, and did comparisons to the data they already held, but I hadn't yet done so.

The GRO transcriptions, I believe, have been carried out by going back to the original copy certificates that were submitted by Registrars each quarter, whereas the FreeBMD index is from the indexes which were produced from those certificates at the time of submission.  So I expected there might be some differences between the two indexes and was prepared for small variations in numbers.

But I was initially surprised to find a couple of years which seemed considerably out (over 20 entries out of 500).

But that experience will (hopefully!) teach me to read the small print in future!

The GRO site returns a maximum of 250 entries per search and three of my searches exceeded that number and were therefore incomplete.  I only realised this after deciding to extract all of the entries for those years, to compare them to the FreeBMD listing and then discovering it was the names at the end of the alphabet that were missing.  🙄

Having collected the correct figures from the GRO site (by checking the totals per quarter within the relevant years), I then looked at the totals across the two sites, which I plotted on the following graph:

By now I was more interested in the differences between the two sites, rather than focusing on the level of deaths caused by the 1918 Influenza pandemic.

So I plotted a separate graph of just the differences between the two sites, to make that easier to see:

As you can see,  the totals are identical for only three years.  So I returned to looking at the specific event data for several years, to try to account for the differences.

One would think a comparison of the two indexes shouldn't be difficult.  After all, the details relate to the same information, so entries that are in both indexes should be easy to match up and I'm sure the more technologically minded would be able to write formula to attempt this.  However, I only know how to do fairly basic comparisons using formula, so find it easier to paste the two indexes into one spreadsheet alongside each other and then use simple comparison formula to help me align matching entries.

I did some preliminary work, to get the two indexes into a comparable order to start with.  For example, the GRO site is gender specific, so the two extractions per gender need combining and sorting alphabetically to match FreeBMD.  I also added a column for the quarter numbers, rather than using the text versions for sorting, so that I could sort both indexes by quarter within the year.  I also used the two excel formulas, "PROPER" and "TRIM", to remove additional spaces in the first names and districts, and to ensure the format coincided.

I did cause myself one problem, having extracted the data into Word initially and then using "Find and Replace" to bring each entry onto just one row with tabbed data - since the surname “Parry” was the term I used to identify the start of each row, someone called “Parry PARRY” caused an additional split!

Having got the data into an order I was happy with, I used the "IF" formula to check whether particular columns from the two indexes were identical, and then set about checking all the mismatching items - of which there were quite a few, to start with!

Most of these are probably the sorts of issues that would make automation of such a comparison more difficult as well, since they relate to inconsistencies in the way the data is recorded:

• Unnamed deaths - these appear as ‘male’ or ‘female’ on FreeBMD but, since the search is by gender on the GRO, appear with a dash for the name on that site.
• Not all of the unnamed deaths seem to be in the online GRO
• The online GRO index includes people's full names, rather than using initials for extended middle names. This didn't just make direct comparison more difficult but messed up the “equivalent“ sorting I’d done.  Entries that were in a particular order when only a middle initial was present, were sometimes in a different order once the middle name was written in full (eg 2x Mary A, that then turned out to be Mary Ann and Mary Alice.)
• Some districts on the GRO occasionally have "Of" before them (Ruthin, Cardiff, and Haverfordwest, were ones I found)
• Mis-spellings in the online GRO, eg Haverfordwest occurred as "Hamfordwest" on several occasions, Prestwick instead of Prestwich
• Registration District name variations.  
• I imagine space restrictions necessitated the shortened forms used in the original GRO indexes, which were then transcribed "as is" by FreeBMD, but the RDs in the new index are (mainly) transcribed in full.  There still seemed to be anomalies though, eg on my FreeBMD 2007 extraction, an entry was listed as "St Olave Bermondsey”.  That's now become just "St Olave" on FreeBMD, but the GRO has "Saint Olave Southwark".  That entry was in 1900, but another entry, in 1921, shows the RD as  "St. Olave (Bermondsey)" (use of full stops seems to be a bit variable as well!) 
• Bedwelty/Bedwellty, Aberystwith/Aberystwyth, Festiniog/Ffestiniog, Shiffnal/Shifnal
• There are two Newport RDs - "Newport Salop & Stafford" or "Newport Mon/(Mon.)" but I did find one entry as just "Newport"
• Portsea (or Portsea Island) on old index – entry now as Portsmouth
• West Derby on old index – entry now as Bootle.
• Some entries in the online GRO index are missing their Registration Districts

All of the above added to my opinion that I should probably be creating a "standardised version" column for items such as names and Registration Districts, in all my spreadsheets, just to make things easier when I want to compare across datasets.

In the columns I checked (which was not all of them), I only found a couple of mistranscriptions on FreeBMD (ie where, on checking their image of the old GRO Index, their transcription was incorrect), eg  Ames instead of Amos, Catherine instead of Catharine, and a Volume 7b which should have been 8b.  Which, I think, indicates how effective the transcription process on FreeBMD is.

But there were some entries with name differences where I have no way of knowing which index is correct, as the FreeBMD transcription matched to their image, but not to the new index, eg Anne/Annie, Harriett/ Harriet, Iorwerth/Jorwerth, and May/Mary.  Perhaps evidence from other sources might eventually help to resolve those.

And then, finally, there were the "missing" entries, which accounted for the differences between the two indexes:

• Net difference in 1900 - 4, made up of:
• 5 on FreeBMD but not on GRO
• 1 on GRO but not on FreeBMD

• Net difference in 1901 - 9, made up of:
• 10 (7 named, 3 unnamed) on FreeBMD but not on GRO. 
• 1 on GRO but not on FreeBMD

• Net difference in 1921 - 11, made up of:
• 13 (11 named, 2 unnamed) on FreeBMD but not on GRO
• 2 on GRO but not on FreeBMD 

It is difficult to identify whether some of the 'missing' entries could have been due to errors in the original index.  For example, two Elizabeths, aged 44 and 84 on consecutive pages within a district, where only one of them is in the online GRO index.  Again, two Joseph Walters, aged 58 and 2, on consecutive pages for same district on the old index but only one of them appears in the newer index. Hopefully, as with the name variation entries, information from other sources, eg burial records, might eventually resolve these issues.

As you can probably imagine, by now, what had begun as a simple question about the PARRY deaths potentially caused by the 1918 influenza epidemic had taken up rather a lot of my time, with very little of it specifically related to the original question!

The original plan for this post also included adding some details about the two PARRYs from my own ancestral line who died in 1918.  But it has taken so long to deal with obtaining statistics that I am happy with, that I'm going to leave that for another post. (I guess that's one way to get my Blog Challenge completed! 🙂 )


*
The 1918 influenza pandemic - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_flu
FreeBMD site - https://www.freebmd.org.uk
UK General Register Office Site - https://www.gro.gov.uk/gro/content/certificates/indexes_search.asp (registration is necessary but searching is free)