Re: Register corrected by LDS?

The IGI has M116461

it also has other subtle differences. The IGI says Govan, the Scotlandpeople record (which I believed to be the register record) says District of Partick (which I know was in Govan Parish at the time and for some time after). This suggested to me that the extraction was from another document.

Charles Ellson...

You might have something similar to e.g. the District of Duthil and
Rothiemurchus in Inverness-shire (previously partly in Morayshire)
where the "new" registration districts re-split the twinned
ecclesiastical parishes; each district had its own register (and in my
example still does, re-arranged as Aviemore and Carrbridge) but the
IGI lists GRO references from both without distinction as "Duthil with
Rothiemurchus" (or just "Duthil"?). I haven't got any Govan and
Partick register pages for comparison but IIRC the former district was
already anomolous in straddling the Renfrewshire/Lanarkshire boundary.

Charles Ellson...

The film will be of the same register page (and the rest of the
register, and those for any adjoining districts, up to the available
room on the film) that you can see on Scotlands People. If you use SP
it won't cost much more than ordering the film (which will not include
the RCE information; the RCE pages should be available in the near
future on SP) and you'll have enough credits left over for two or
three more register page views and some index searching.

We do believe that his name was Kearney but he was an illiterate Irish immigrant and the registrar wrote it the way he thought it should be written and has been for six generations...

Charles Ellson...

Having just given the ScotlandsPeople index a poke, 1 result is
offered in Partick (but not Govan) for the marriage whether John's
name is given as Kearney or Cairney; my virtual fiver is on only one
register entry being involved, with spelling variation somewhere on
that page or in a subsequent amendment. The IGI does not use the
register index page but takes the names of the register entries with
IME surnames given on a register as "xxxxx or yyyyy" (or where a
person is illegitimate or has a different surname from that inferred
by the parents names) both being indexed; where they are not but the
GRO index gives two surnames then there has often been an amendment
made in the Register of Corrected Entries (which will NOT appear in
the IGI) which will cause any later official extract (but not the
register page offered by ScotlandsPeople, although a referring note
might appear on it) to show the amended information. There are also a
few occasions where a surname has been spelled two different ways on a
register page and the IGI has missed this but the GRO indexer has not
missed the anomoly and has indexed both spellings.

Philip Maddocks