Unreadable birth

Genealogy Chat

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.

Profile	Posted by	Options	Post Date
Member Since: December 2004 Posts: 10 522 Send Message	Potty	Report	19 Feb 2008 15:16
	Definitely 318 ( viewed at 200%) and I have submitted a correction to freebmd.
Member Since: April 2006 Posts: 47 Send Message	Sally	Report	19 Feb 2008 14:52
Member Since: April 2006 Posts: 47 Send Message	many thanks to all who replied, i am extremely grateful for your time, regards, Sally
Member Since: December 2003 Posts: 2 586 Send Message	Richard in Perth	Report	19 Feb 2008 14:20
	I thought 326, when magnified to the maximum. It's definitely not 818 as that's outside the page range for that district (hence why Kingston is in italics on FreeBMD). When you order the cert, put a note in the reference checking section to the effect that the page number is illegible. You could even order it by entering the page number as 3?? - I've done that before and they've always been able to come up with the cert. Richard
Member Since: April 2006 Posts: 47 Send Message	Sally	Report	19 Feb 2008 14:03
Member Since: April 2006 Posts: 47 Send Message	hI all, would be very grateful if anyone could look at a birth for me as i cant seem to make out what the index number is, it is very blurry, maybe someone can recognise the numbers?.It is for Arthur Henry Taylor, jan/feb/mar 1893 Kingston, 2a 3??. Many thanks, Sally