identity theft

[KGarrad]

You don't need a deed poll to change your name! Honest!

The only stipulation under English/Welsh Law is that there is no attempt to defraud.

This topic has been discussed before. See:
http://www.rootschat.com/forum/index.php?topic=625779.0

Is that the correct link?

Yes - Proof of identity.

[Mike in Cumbria]

Thanks. Got it now!

[rogerlewis]

I think "changing your name" would be a term applied to a legal event. A bride does this at marriage.

Using/giving a false name (not the one on your birth certificate) is fraudulent or at least a falsehood
and really would not be used other than to deceive.Also known as an alias.

We are simply using words/phrases here. What does UK Law actually state on the matter??
I just don't know.Again...what does the fine print say on a birth/marriage certificate in the UK?
Roger

[andycand]

Hi Roger

I think that the wording on birth certificates has changed over the years but one that I'm looking at says

Caution: There are offences relating to falsifying and altering a certificate, or using or possessing a false certificate.

The certificate also says Warning: a certificate is not evidence of identity.

Possession of somebody elses birth certificate is not an offence, in England & Wales anybody can purchase anyones birth certificate from the GRO or Local Register Office, but if you tried to use that certificate, or altered it, then you would be commiting an offence. You did not have to produce a birth certificate when marrying, in fact, anyone born in Ireland before 1864 or Scotland before 1855, wouldn't have a birth certificate. Annecdotal evidence suggests that many births were not registered at all. There was no formal adoption until the 1920s so there are many cases of children simply changing there name when their mothers married or re-married.

In your case changing a name and marrying in that new name would not be an offence unless there was a legal reason why he couldn't marry such as being already married. If however he tried to access property or he tried to use documents of the original person to obtain a benifit such as a pension then he would be committing an offence.

Andy

[rogerlewis]

Thanks Andy....yes I do remember the caution that the birth cert is not proof of identity.

If my theory of the boy being AWOL from the Army (not proved) is correct then he would have been using the false name to elude the Army Police authorities.If his dob is also false then he may have been underage at marriage as well. I don't know if there were any Banns beforehand.

And....too, we must not forget that we are not dealing with things as they are today down at the pub where now in 2013 anybody can do or say anything they want to and get away with it.....(Ooo you lookin at then??!!)
We are dealing with a time when they actually had "The Rule of Law" and heaven forbid.....I believe they actually had something they called "Punishment" for breaking the Law!!
Good ere init!!!!
Thanks again.....Cousin Roger
(Sunny Penang)

[rogerlewis]

Oh dear....Andy you didn't go far enough to the right on the 1881 ......James Harris age 6 is an imbecile!!!
Of course that may have been part of the lad's problems.
Back to the drawing board perhaps??
Roger

[andycand]

Oh dear....Andy you didn't go far enough to the right on the 1881 ......James Harris age 6 is an imbecile!!!
Of course that may have been part of the lad's problems.
Back to the drawing board perhaps??
Roger

I haven't looked at James Harris specifically, I was only commenting on the following statement from your original post  Obviously if a man married under an assumed name the marriage was technically null and void making all 10 of his children illegitimate

Andy

[rogerlewis]

 from: rogerlewis on Today at 06:19
Oh dear....Ray you didn't go far enough to the right on the 1881 ......James Harris age 6 is an imbecile!!!
Of course that may have been part of the lad's problems.
Back to the drawing board perhaps??
Roger
Sorry sent this to Andy.It should have gone to RayD. My error.

[KGarrad]

What you think may be illegal, or immoral, isn't necessarily enshrined in law?

If you marry today at at Register Office, you must provide proof of identity, address, and age.
A passport suffices. A birth certificate is also good, but not actually required!

If you marry at a church, the incumbent just has to be satisfied as to your identity.
He/she may require proof such as certificates; he/she may not.

As I keep saying: under English Law you have the right to call yourself anything you like, just as long as there is no attempt to defraud or deceive.

Getting married under an assumed name does not fall into either category!

In years past, there was even less need to provide proof of identity.
E.G. very few people had a passport, or driving licence, or even knew where there birth certificate was!!