RootsChat.Com

Scotland (Counties as in 1851-1901) => Scotland => Lanarkshire => Topic started by: Baird on Sunday 13 March 22 10:57 GMT (UK)

Title: Re-Registration of Birth 14 Years Later
Post by: Baird on Sunday 13 March 22 10:57 GMT (UK)

Can anyone advise me as to why a child born in Anderston district of Glasgow in 1921 should have an annotation on the certificate stating " Re-Registered in the district of Kelvingrove 5th April 1935".
Personally I haven't come across this before.
many thanks,

Baird

Title: Re: Re-Registration of Birth 14 Years Later
Post by: Milliepede on Sunday 13 March 22 10:59 GMT (UK)

I have one in England that was reregistered years later with the fathers name acknowledged.

Were the parents married when the child was born?

Title: Re: Re-Registration of Birth 14 Years Later
Post by: CaroleW on Sunday 13 March 22 11:02 GMT (UK)

Does the 1935 cert have the same parents as the 1921?  If so - as Millie has suggested

Title: Re: Re-Registration of Birth 14 Years Later
Post by: Baird on Sunday 13 March 22 11:08 GMT (UK)

Many thanks for the swift replies. You are spot on. I have just discovered that it was a legal requirement to acknowledge previous offspring following a subsequent marriage.
Thanks again,
baird

Title: Re: Re-Registration of Birth 14 Years Later
Post by: carolineasb on Saturday 19 March 22 09:07 GMT (UK)

Is there an RCE attached to the birth entry?

Title: Re: Re-Registration of Birth 14 Years Later
Post by: Baird on Saturday 19 March 22 14:54 GMT (UK)

Hello Caroline, there is no RCE attached just the statement in the left hand side stating that the birth was re registered in Kelvingrove district in 1935. As previously informed , apparantly if the parents of a child later married there was a legal obligation to re register the birth of any previous children that couple had had.

Baird

Title: Re: Re-Registration of Birth 14 Years Later
Post by: GR2 on Saturday 19 March 22 16:30 GMT (UK)

It is not unusual, although most people did not bother to reregister. A  great uncle and aunt of mine had a daughter born in 1917 before they married, and as my uncle was with the army in France at the time, the child was registered by my aunt under her own surname and with no mention of the father. The father of an illegitimate child had to be present before his name could appear on the certificate.

Twenty five years later, just before the daughter married, my uncle reregistered the birth with his own name and the date and place of the marriage. It probably took an event like a marriage or perhaps a child enrolling in a school to make folk look at their birth certificate and then think about reregistering.

Title: Re: Re-Registration of Birth 14 Years Later
Post by: Forfarian on Saturday 19 March 22 17:01 GMT (UK)

I can think of several reasons why it would be expedient or desirable to re-register a birth, but I'd be interested to know where Baird found a suggestion that it was legally required, because I've seen many certificates of illegitimate births but very few that have been re-registered.

Title: Re: Re-Registration of Birth 14 Years Later
Post by: Baird on Saturday 19 March 22 18:42 GMT (UK)

https://www.renfrewshire.gov.uk/article/2231/Re-register-a-birth

Title: Re: Re-Registration of Birth 14 Years Later
Post by: Forfarian on Saturday 19 March 22 19:10 GMT (UK)

Thanks, Baird.

Title: Re: Re-Registration of Birth 14 Years Later
Post by: dowdstree on Saturday 19 March 22 21:20 GMT (UK)

My dad's cousin was born in 1905 and although both parents attended the registration of her birth she was marked as "illigitimate" according to the law in those days. They eventually married in 1908. There was no legal reason for the parents not to gave married before her birth as both were single although very young.

Her birth was re-registered in 1947 - 42 years later. Never found out why.

Dorrie