RootsChat.Com
General => The Common Room => Topic started by: MaxD on Saturday 30 May 15 14:05 BST (UK)
-
The births of the last 3 of 9 children were all registered against the name of the father and with the correct mother's surname in 1920, 1921 and 1923. So far so normal. However, all three are also to be found with a different father's name but the same mother's surname, registered in the same districts and in the same quarters/years as the other registrations. It is known that the children were brought up by and known by father's name number two. The third child died as an infant, the death was registered in name number two. Given that this was before the legal process of adoption started, could this have been a way to give legitimacy to an informal arrangement?
maxD
-
Purchasing just one of the birth certificates could well give you clues!
It could be as simple as father's name: Smith, also known as Jones?! ::)
-
Hi
Is the father of the 3 youngest is a different person to the father of the others? When a birth is indexed under two surnames it usually indicates that the parents were not married. You would probably need to look at a certificate to confirm but I suspect that for the births the father named was not the husband. The GRO have indexed the birth under the surname of the father number two and the married surname of the mother. You will probably find that the father of the other children is not mentioned on the registration.
Andy
-
Thanks both. You are right of course, a cert will clarify although there were in fact two men involved (other family info). Thought it most likely to have been a case of man number two "taking ownership" as Andy suggests.
-
Agree with Andy...I have this situation in my tree too and it has caused problems with online trees...I have had to persuade some people that they are the same children, although entered on Yorkshirebmd under two different surnames as they were registered first in the Mother's name then the Father's name after she married ::)
Carol
-
Thanks both. You are right of course, a cert will clarify although there were in fact two men involved (other family info). Thought it most likely to have been a case of man number two "taking ownership" as Andy suggests.
The first man would not be named on the certificate though. He was not 'involved' with these children presumably. Number 2 must have been named as the parent.
-
Hi
I don't think it is a case of "taking ownership", it looks like a normal registration for an unmarried couple.
Andy
-
Hi
I don't think it is a case of "taking ownership", it looks like a normal registration for an unmarried couple.
Andy
That's what I meant too :)
-
Hang on everyone - apologies due to all. New fact (rush of blood). Man one and wife divorced in 1919 - not known to present day family!!! Lady took up with man two, no marriage found. Three children born and registered with first man's name and lady and also with new man's name and same lady. Why do this? Can registrations be done in retrospect to confer some element of legitimacy (I know I can buy the certs but those won't explain why register the children in the first married names up to four years after the divorce and then register them in the unmarried names).
maxD
-
In my case they were living together when the Children were born and they were registered in her married name whilst waiting for a divorce......she later married the Children's Father and re-registered them in their Father's name.
Carol
-
Children of an unmarried couple are registered in both the father's name and that of the mother at the time, in this instance it was her married name.
If you buy a certificate you should find that the ex husband is not actually named.
Added
I should have said provided the father attended the registration.
-
Seems clear (as if I didn't know) that only a look at both certificates from one of the children as an example will help clarify this. On reflection also I should get the divorce papers and check it all actually happened.
Thanks for everyone's thoughts, I'll have to wait till after my hols!
maxD
-
Just because it is indexed under both names it doesn't mean there will be two certificate, there will only be one whichever name you order it under.
-
Hi maxD,
Not sure if I have the correct handle on what you have described, however if the children where registered when the parents were not married they may have been re-registered under the Legitimacy Act of 1926.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legitimacy_Act_1926
If they were it should be marked on the b/c
Kind regards
CD
-
Hi maxD,
Not sure if I have the correct handle on what you have described, however if the children where registered when the parents were not married they may have been re-registered under the Legitimacy Act of 1926
CD
If that were the case it would be after a marriage and not have occurred in the same year and quarter, as stated in the first post, particularly as three children were involved ;)
-
Hi jebber
max did say this: Lady took up with man two, no marriage found. Three children born and registered with first man's name and lady and also with new man's name and same lady. Why do this? Can registrations be done in retrospect to confer some element of legitimacy (I know I can buy the certs but those won't explain why register the children in the first married names up to four years after the divorce and then register them in the unmarried names).
This is why I suggested re-registered under the Legitimacy Act :-X If he buys one of the certs (or all) they would be stamped then he would know for certain.
-
If a birth is re-registered you can find it in the birth index 3 times, - when it is originally registered, then after re-registration it will appear in the same year/quarter of original registration under new name and it will also appear again in the year/quarter birth was re-registered under new name, notes in the margin indicate this. Only the re-registered birth certificate will be available.
Jan
-
Jan
That doesn't seem to be the case with these three. I have checked FreeBMD for 40 years past the dates of the two registrations in all three cases and only get two returns in the actual quarter of birth as described earlier.
Clearly, the more we discuss this, the more it becomes necessary to see the certificates!
maxD
-
Clearly, the more we discuss this, the more it becomes necessary to see the certificates!
maxD
Which is what I advised in reply #2?!?! ;D ;D
-
Hi max
Glad you were back and picked up the messages! But do remember that FreeBMD is a voluntary transcription project and therefore not every year for B,M or D's is complete.
FreeBMD say:The database is updated approximately monthly with additional records and the number of records transcribed since the previous update is shown in a lighter colour. Please note that the percentage completions are based on estimates and, in particular, a value of 100% does not guarantee that all entries have been transcribed
http://www.freebmd.org.uk/progressB.shtml
But I agree, if you can manage to get one or all it may explain the situation. Do keep us posted!
-
KGarrad
I did acknowledge the sense of sending for the certificates in my post yesterday about 8 minutes after your first reply so my most recent post was in no way to be interpreted as ignoring helpful advice given by you and others in this thread. If my wording was clumsy then I apologise, I am saddened that it should have had you reaching for the exclams! I do though note the grinning emoticons – or are they bared teeth?
As I have yet to see a birth certificate with a column saying “reasons for dual registering”, my original post was meant to elicit RCs’ views/thoughts on what sort of scenarios might have given rise to the 2 certificates situation. I was, dare I say it and in the hope of not being misinterpreted, less interested in the mechanics of the certificate process but more the social interactions that may have caused them to be produced. What seems to have happened, as many of you will have seen before, is that the thread wandered off a bit, although all very useful and I learn something from each reply. Of course the certs will perhaps give additional clues. Those of you with a military background may recognise the radio phrase “Roger, wait, out”
maxD
-
Apologies! ;D
That was my attempt at humour! (Hence the 2 smilies!)
What I have been trying to say is that there can be a number of reasons for the dual registration.
Purchasing a birth certificate can help to eliminate some of those reasons?
It's probably the simplest solution! ;D
Perhaps the father was known by 2 names?
Perhaps the birth was re-registered? In which case I would expect to see something; a note perhaps?
Don't forget that, when a married woman (or one who purported to be married!) registered a birth, the child was assumed to be of the husband.
-
After all the speculation, I hope you will let us know your findings when you have obtained one or more of the certificates?
Jebber
-
KGarrad - delighted to hear all is well and of course you are absolutely right! There were in fact two fathers, the events are near enough for the older family members to have clear knowledge of that but not the background reasons!
Jebber et al - will do, wouldn't like to suggest which one I should send for would you, name one (ie that of the earlier children) or name two!
maxD
-
I have reread this thread again and it does seem as though it is being made more complicated by the various views.
There can't be two fathers. ;)
I am reading that Mr A was married to Mrs A and they had 6 children - registered once.
Then there was a divorce but Mrs A retained her name. Hence any children would be registered in that name but not with Mr A as a father because he wasn't.
Mr B and Mrs A then had three children who were registered with the surname A from her but also in Mr B's name because he and Mrs A were the parents.
I have relatives who were registered in single mother's surname and also in father's surname.
The scenario you describe maxD does seem to be more complicated because it seems as though Mr A was still around- you mention older family members not knowing the reasons but you also say that the 3 children were known by Mr B's surname so they must have known something was different :-\
-
There will only be one registration for each child, and one b/c. It is indexed twice.
I think that if you get a birth certificate for one of the last three children you will find that it gives the mother as eg Mary Smith formerly Jones, and then the father is eg. John Brown. Hence the child's forename appears in the index with the mother's current surname (Smith), and also with the father's surname (Brown). Obviously, in both entries the mother's maiden name is the same.
On birth certificates up until 1969 the child does not have its surname entered at all, so it is not a question of the children being registered with a particular surname.
-
I agree with Galium, if it was me would order the certificate of the youngest of the thee.
-
I agree with previous comments. Clearly here as the parents weren't married both of them went to register the births. There would only be one registration but it would be indexed in the surnames of both parents - the mother was still legally known by her previous married name and so an entry would appear in the index under that name and also under the surname of the father of the child.
If the father hadn't gone with her to register the births they would simply have been registered under her surname (this being her previous married name) and when indexed would have read as if children of her first marriage when we know they weren't and only by seeing the certificates would you know this. All came down to the law - a child would be registered under the surname of the mother at the time and if this was a previous married name (even though this man wasn't the father) then unless the actual father also went to register the birth too then the birth would only be under her name at the time. Luckily, in this case, the real father was involved in the registration and thus the children are indexed under both parents names.
Annette
-
Youngest one it is then, thanks both (and Annette just seen).
Heywood - forgive me if I don't respond to your post (except to say thanks) just yet. I would now much prefer (and perhaps so would others) to wait until the GRO does its thing. As promised before, I shall return with the news when armed with an example certificate.
Thanks to all for your interest, hope you can bear the wait!
maxD
-
I don't expect a response. I just agree with everyone else ;)
Good luck and hope all is explained.
Heywood
-
I have today received the birth certificate for the third of the three children that are relevant to this thread. As some of them are living I shall disguise the names as follows:
Mother’s maiden name Delta
Mother’s married name from marriage in 1905 Romeo
Father’s name from birth certificate (and name the children were brought up with) Lima
Important fact – Mr Delta sued Mrs Delta (nee Romeo) for divorce in 1919 naming a co-respondent who was not Mr Lima. At that time Mr and Mrs Delta had had 5 children, all of whom are in the GRO index under the name of Delta with mother’s name Romeo (those after 1911). I have not yet been able to check whether the divorce became final. There is no sign of a subsequent Delta/Lima marriage.
There are then three children after the date of the divorce petition who are listed in the index in 1920, 1921 and 1923 as:
Child Surname Delta mother’s maiden name Romeo and also as
Child Surname Lima mother’s maiden name Romeo.
The GRO Reference in each year is the same for each of the entries. I ordered the birth certificate for the 1923 child using the surname Delta (the original name from the 1905 marriage). The certificate received has the father given as Mr Lima and the mother as Delta formerly Romeo.
I don’t intend to send for the certificates for the two older children. I think it is probably fair to assume that the pattern would be similar.
All of the above would go to confirm, as the family today have always believed, that the three later children were fathered by Lima. The birth certificate is a straightforward reflection of the facts.
While waiting for the certificate, I emailed the GRO outlining my query. The essential part of their reply is:
If the parents' surnames recorded at the time of registration are not the same, the birth will be recorded in the indexes under both the mother's and the father's surname, which is what we call a dual registration.
None of this will be news to many of you, particularly those who had already given me the answer in a different form of words. I must reassure everyone that continuing with the thread does not indicate disbelief or that I was ignoring your answer! The certificate, as has been said, helped to clear it all in my (becoming) addled mind and I promised to post the result so here it is! I am content that I now understand what was going on so thank you to all who showed interest and gave me the benefit of their superior knowledge of these matters. I am off to seek a darkened room.
maxD