GRO pdf Certificates

kernowmaid

kernowmaid

Our very own Cornish Maid
Mmm ... I ordered 2 Birth Certs via the new service - arrived yesterday.
What the heck do I do with them?
I'm not sufficiently savvy to understand how computers work - I just hit buttons! (The accompanying blurb says "open File & save to your Folder" ... but I can't find File anywhere on the page!)

Anyway, I've downloaded them (they've gone into the list that always appears) and am now trying to move them ... but they're something to do with Adobe, and I can't get them to appear with my Family Records.

HELP!

Also - I'll try to show them below - one is very difficult to read. Has a shaded background. Do you think this is "normal", or should I ask GRO to send again?

(This may be saving me £3 a go, but it's giving me lots of hassle! Think I may stick to the paper version that I can scan.)

Jane

See?? I can upload them easily to here ... just can't change their position in my own records! :confused::confused::confused:
 

Attachments

PDF's wont show in my family history software either, so I have to convert them to jpg files. If you google 'convert pdf to jpg' up will come websites that will do it for free there and then. Also with a jpg file you can play around with the image. If you have any trouble I'm more than happy to do it for you.:)
 
Hi Jane

I'll have a go at this, but I might not be successful....
kernowmaid said:
I'm not sufficiently savvy to understand how computers work - I just hit buttons! (The accompanying blurb says "open File & save to your Folder" ... but I can't find File anywhere on the page!)
Click to expand...
I don't still have the email that told me my pdfs were ready, but I think where it says File it might just be referring to the document (pdf) rather than an item in a menu.
Anyway, I've downloaded them (they've gone into the list that always appears) and am now trying to move them ... but they're something to do with Adobe, and I can't get them to appear with my Family Records.
Click to expand...
So they're in your Downloads folder (either the default one or another one that you've specified - some people use their Desktop), and you'd like to get them into another folder? That shouldn't be a problem, though they won't move if they're still open in Adobe. It might be a good idea to close Adobe as well - I think I've occasionally found files reported as "in use" even though I've apparently closed them.

(And as Sis says, some software won't show pdfs as images.)
Also - I'll try to show them below - one is very difficult to read. Has a shaded background. Do you think this is "normal", or should I ask GRO to send again?
Click to expand...
I've found they have quite variable quality too, and as with yours, very variable file sizes. For whatever reason, the one for John (1901) seems very clear in simple black and white, but the writing on the other one seems a lot more broken up, and was probably from a paler or faded original. When there's good contrast between the writing and the paper you can get a good black and white copy, but if there isn't you have to tweak the scan settings to bring out as much as possible of the writing, and you'll quite likely get a bit of colour/tone from the background as well - sort of more shades of grey.

You can get the same thing with census returns: I've sometimes noticed that one site's images are just black and white, but not very readable if the writing is faint. On another site they have more shades of grey (and a grey background), but you can then make out all of the writing. If you lose the grey backround, you'll probably lose some of the writing as well.
 
Well I've got rid of some of the greyness but I'm not sure it's made it any easier to read.
Untitled 1.jpg
 
OH WOW! You are all STARS!
THANK YOU SO MUCH .......................

Interesting that reversing the black/white seems to make the fuzzy one easier to read ... that's my 1900 mystery cert - WHO IS "JINNY"?
She must be one of my great aunt's daughters - TERESA, age 20, a CLOTH WEAVER in 1901 ... or JANE, age 19, a KITCHEN MAID in 1901.

Both married in 1902, both had a child die by 1911 - but I've accounted for those deaths. Poor little Ernest seems to have been forgotten about (he died Q3 1900)

I'm off to play with patten-walsh's jpegs (thank you again!) .... in the words of Captain Oates ... "I may be some time" :rolleyes:

Jane
 
kernowmaid said:
WHO IS "JINNY"?
She must be one of my great aunt's daughters - TERESA, age 20, a CLOTH WEAVER in 1901 ... or JANE, age 19, a KITCHEN MAID in 1901.
Click to expand...
My money would be on Jane. ;)

One of my Grandmothers was Martha Jane, known as Jane but my Grandad always called her Jinny. :)
 
Sis said:
I agree.:) Then again could be Teresa as she was a cloth weaver and Jinny is a woollen weaver, if I'm reading the certificate right.
Click to expand...

And THAT is my dilemma! (Back already, filing those jpegs was easy! Thanks again patten-walsh!)

My gut feeling is that she was Jane.
The "Jane's" in my family always seem to be the rebels, the ones who get into trouble. I should know - that's my name.
(Of course, I'm the exception that proves the rule :angel: )
The funny thing is ... it's my SECOND name - I'm actually TERESA JANE. What a coincidence!

Ain't life strange? ;)

Jane
 
Sis said:
I agree.:) Then again could be Teresa as she was a cloth weaver and Jinny is a woollen weaver, if I'm reading the certificate right.
Click to expand...
Pure speculation but...

If Jane was working as a Kitchen Maid and became pregnant, that job probably would not last long. She would need to earn money somewhere so maybe her sister secured her a job in the woollen mill for the interim.

Or maybe she just fibbed! :D
 
There could be any number of possibilities...

Perhaps she worked in the mill first for as long as she could, but they took what seemed to them a moral stand and wouldn't take her back again afterwards, so she went to work as a kitchenmaid instead.

Or perhaps the mill-owner was genuinely sympathetic and thought weaving was too physically demanding for a young mother so offered her a job in his own kitchen?

The 1901 census doesn't immediately give any clues as to why she had the baby at 7 Monkton Road - if it is listed, it must be one of the unnumbered houses. Maybe further research would show that someone in Monkton Road is related to the McLean family?

It's literally just round the corner from Derby Street, where the whole family were in 1901, but there was quite a houseful, so it may be that Jane just went to a friendly neighbour who'd offered to help out.
 
Arthur's post has got me thinking ... who was at 7 Monkton Road, Hunslet? Could it have been a "midwife"? Have I missed a relative?

The McLEANs having babies at 7 Monkton Rd are:
- ANN (my gt gran's sister, baby John Vincent b 22 July 1901);
- JINNY/JANE (Ann's daughter, baby Ernest Clancy b 28 April 1900).

And in between, 31 March 1901 - the Census, showing the family living in a 6-room house - 15 Derby Place.

I'd just assumed that Monkton Rd was where they lived, but now ...

(I'm 99% persuaded that "Jinny" = "Jane".
Perhaps she, like her sister Teresa, worked as a Weaver, fell pregnant, left/got sacked, had the baby, lost the baby, found work as a Kitchen Maid?
That middle name "Clancy" bothers me - it's her mother Ann's maiden name. I do so hope that the father was not one of Jane's cousins.)

Thanks for all your help folks - technical & genealogical.
I'm going to play with those pdf's in preparation for next time I need to change them to jpeg. (That sentence still sounds like gobbledygook to me!)

Jane
 
In case it helps, occupants of 7 Monkton Road in surrounding censuses:
1891 - STEELE family - RG12/3665 fo50A p45
1911 - PARISH family, incl ?stepson RHODES - RG14/27143 sch238

Needless to say, none of those names appear in Monkton Road in 1901 :headbang:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top