PDA

View Full Version : Trying to understand late birth registration. Help please!



Bertie
11-01-16, 10:18
I wonder if someone could help me with the following entry (per FreeBMD): NB. the person concerned is not dead so name removed.

Q3 1947 Chelmsford XXX mother XXX, but per FreeBMD: "The above transcription represents what is in the GRO index but it is referred to by the following entry Births 1944 Dec: XXX ,Chelmsford,?,See S'47 which implies that this is a late entry, that is an entry that has been registered in a quarter later than the event"

Does this mean that the birth was registered in Chelmsford in Q3 1947 but the birth itself was actually in Dec 1944?

Does the additional information also mean that the birth actually happened in Chelmsford itself in Dec 1944?

Thanks for any help!

JBee
11-01-16, 10:44
It could be a re-registration where the second one replaces the first. Were the parents married, the husband the actual father of the child. Parents not married then subsequently married - there's numerous scenario's.

Chrissie Smiff
11-01-16, 10:46
I have just looked JBee but I can't find a marriage between the two names.

Olde Crone Holden
11-01-16, 10:58
Was the child subsequently adopted? Sometimes these altered registrations are to remove the name of a "father" from a BC before a legal adoption goes ahead.

My friend was born to a married woman in 1944 and she put her husband's name on as father.(Smith mmn Brown) When her husband came back from th war he insisted she take his name off the BC. Thus the birth INDEX shows what appears to be a re-registration in 1946 because the names are the same in the INDEX (Smith mmn Brown). Only a copy of the actual birth certificate reveals that there is no father's name on the 1946 certificate.

OC

Bertie
11-01-16, 11:16
The surname of the child is of the man the mother married in Scotland in 1947 and I would say it was highly likely the birth was registered just after that, albeit in Chelmsford. The mother was already married at the real date of birth, Dec 1944, (in Scotland) and the husband was at war returning there in 1945. This couple divorced in 1946 and she re-married (in Scotland in 1947) to the guy (as I've said) who was the likely father of the child.

I don't know why Chelmsford at this stage but does the registration of a late birth technically mean the child could have been born anywhere else (including Scotland): if so, why add Chelmsford after "1944 Dec"?

Thanks

Olde Crone Holden
11-01-16, 11:28
Bertie

It isn't a late registration of birth as we would understad it. I think the wording is poor on Freebmd because in fact very few births were actually registered late in the 20th century.

It sounds as if it were exactly the same scenario as my friend's, except my friend was put up for adoption.

Chelmsford just means that was the office which handled the re-registration. Maybe the father was in Chelmsford. (He would have had to attend this re-registration). You can register a birth anywhere in England and Wales if you are not able to attend the office in the birth location. the office (Chelmsford) would inform.

The fact that you have two different countries involved (Scotland and England) makes it look more complicated than it actually is. I'm not clear though - was the child born in Scotland or in England?

OC

Bertie
11-01-16, 11:39
I'm not clear though - was the child born in Scotland or in England?

OC

Thanks OC: that is what I do not know! I cannot find any likely birth in Scotland for the child under the mother's maiden name, married name (at the time), or likely father's name. I assumed the birth was not actually registered at the time so was not actually a re-registration.

If it helps:

Another child was reigstered in Scotland in 1946 under the father's name (i.e. second marriage - surname the same as the Chelsmford birth) before their parents' marriage in 1947

The mother obtained a passport in Aug 1947 (presumably under her new married name) in Glasgow and the family (she and the 2 children) went to the USA to be with her (new) husband leaving Scotland in Feb 1948. So the, Chelsmford connection seems a bit odd.

Olde Crone Holden
11-01-16, 11:43
Well, in that case it may have been the first husband who made the reregistration in 1947 as he knew the child was not his. I'm assuming a divorce and it may be that the court ordered his name be removed from the birth cert. That might bring Chelmsford into the picture!

OC

Bertie
11-01-16, 11:47
Interesting! Divorce is correct (see #5) but the divorce was actually in another country (well away from the UK).

So, if I understand it, Mr A SMITH can rre-egister the birth of girl B BROWN who is not his child?

GallowayLass
11-01-16, 12:17
So, if I understand it, Mr A SMITH can rre-egister the birth of girl B BROWN who is not his child?

As I understand it, no. The father could not have done this by himself. He was divorced from the mother. There would have had to have been a court order involved.

Bertie
11-01-16, 12:45
Thanks GallowayLass. In that case who would have been necessary to re-register the birth?

The non-father and ex-husband was out of the country, the mother was in Scotland (and as far as I know had no reason to be in Chelmsford), the real father / husband to be or husband just married was don't know where at the time. Could the real father have been ordered by the court to re-register the birth and would that be with / without the mother?

Olde Crone Holden
11-01-16, 12:56
Sorry to disagree Galloway Lass, but if Mr Smith was not the father of the child and could prove it (he was out of the country for more than ten months prior to the child's birth) or the mother admitted he was not the father of the child, then Mr Smith could insist his name was taken off the birth cert.

The natural father had no rights and could not have any influence on the original birth registration UNLESS he lied to the registrar by saying he was the woman's husband.

I'm talking England and Wales. I don't know what happened in Scotland. In E & W, a married man is legally the father of his wife's children unless it can be proved to the contrary.

There is I suppose the remote possibility that it truly WAS a late registration, although that is very rare in England as it attracts a fine. However, if the mother was trying to get passports for her and the children, she would definitely need a birth certificate and might have coughed up the fine in order to get one.

OC

Bertie
11-01-16, 13:10
There is I suppose the remote possibility that it truly WAS a late registration, although that is very rare in England as it attracts a fine. However, if the mother was trying to get passports for her and the children, she would definitely need a birth certificate and might have coughed up the fine in order to get one.

OC

Based on not finding any earlier birth record, I am inclined to think this is the case but I do not understand why Chelmsford is involved as I no know reason (at present) why either parent should be there at the time.

The only answer for sure would be to buy the cert. but the person is a little too far removed from my direct line for it to be worth it - at least for now unles my curiosity gets the better of me!

Thanks all for your input

Bertie
11-01-16, 13:30
Actually, I've had another look for the birth - this time in E&W on FreeBMD - and the birth WAS registered before in Q4 1944 Chelmsford under the same mother's maiden name as the 1947 re-registration and with the child taking on the first husband's surname. Sorry for any duff steers on this!

Does a re-registration have to take place in the same RD as the original registration? (i.e. the mother was living there in 1944 and, of not living there in 1947, had to return there to re-register the birth)?

Olde Crone Holden
11-01-16, 13:39
Bertie

No, you can go into any Register Office, if it is inconvenient to go to the original, but the RO you go into merely acts as a sort of post office - it sends the details of the amendments etc to the original office and the alterations are made and kept there.

My sister in law gave birth while on holiday down here in Cornwall and in all the excitement, forgot, or didn't have time, to register the birth. They did it back home in Manchester - but the birth appears in the indexes as it properly should, in Cornwall.

OC

AntonyM
11-01-16, 13:55
A re-registration (either to add an unmarried father not originally on the entry, or to legitimise a birth after the parents marry) always takes place in the area in which the original event (the birth) occurred.

But the information can be given and a legal form completed at another registration office and sent on to the original area - this would be indicated with the words "by declaration dated ..... " being in the informant space on the entry.

The other scenario discussed , i.e. an incorrect father being removed from a registration would be a correction "of fact or substance" and would not generate a second registration. It would require the authority of the Registrar General and appear as a correction on the original entry.

Bertie
11-01-16, 14:18
Thanks all for your help.

I think the likely scenario was that the mother was in Chelmsford in 1944 and registered the birth there at the time under her married name although her husband was not the father and then re-registered the birth close to where she was living in 1947 (likely Scotland) under her new married name and with the correct father and the new information was passed on to Chelmsford RD.

AntonyM
11-01-16, 14:24
There is only so much you can assume from the indexes and would need copies of the certificates to be certain about the circumstances.

The registration systems in Scotland and in England/Wales are completely different and not connected so wherever she made the declaration (if that is what happened) then it wouldn't have been in Scotland.

AntonyM
11-01-16, 14:27
The other scenario discussed , i.e. an incorrect father being removed from a registration would be a correction "of fact or substance" and would not generate a second registration. It would require the authority of the Registrar General and appear as a correction on the original entry.

Should clarify that removing an incorrect father wouldn't create a re-registration .... but then subsequently adding a different father may well do.

GallowayLass
11-01-16, 15:09
Sorry to disagree Galloway Lass, but if Mr Smith was not the father of the child and could prove it (he was out of the country for more than ten months prior to the child's birth) or the mother admitted he was not the father of the child, then Mr Smith could insist his name was taken off the birth cert.

The natural father had no rights and could not have any influence on the original birth registration UNLESS he lied to the registrar by saying he was the woman's husband.

I'm talking England and Wales. I don't know what happened in Scotland. In E & W, a married man is legally the father of his wife's children unless it can be proved to the contrary.

There is I suppose the remote possibility that it truly WAS a late registration, although that is very rare in England as it attracts a fine. However, if the mother was trying to get passports for her and the children, she would definitely need a birth certificate and might have coughed up the fine in order to get one.

OC

Didn't know that. Had assumed mother had to be present as well or a court order had been made and that it would o ly result in a correction to the original cert and not a new registration.
In Scotland we have the Register of Corrected Entries or RCE for short. This details any authorised corrections to an entry but the original is left untouched save for the reference number for the RCE being added in the left margin. Any copy certificate later produced will show the information as it now should be.

GallowayLass
11-01-16, 15:21
As to the location issue, all I can think of is that Chelmsford is the registration district for where 1st husband's regiment was located and/or where he called home.

I must admit, I'm a bit puzzled by the divorce not being in the UK. 1st child is born end of 1944 while mother still married to 1st husband and could well have been in Scotland. He returns 1945. 2nd child is born 1946 in Scotland and couple divorce the same year. She marries again soon after. Where and how did divorce take place in what seems a shortish timescale?

Bertie
11-01-16, 15:35
The divorce records are (of course) confidential for 100 years so no details apart from the fact that the divorce took place is currently available (and details won't be available for another 30 years). The divorce in 1946 was, seemingly, initiated by the first husband in his native country (as that is where the record reference has been found: perhaps too there are corresponding / counterpart details held in the UK somewhere?). He arrived in his native country by 1946 having first returned to Scotland in 1945 when the war ended (and where he was initially sent in 1939/40 from his native country).

I agree Chelmsford seems a likely army location.

The second husband was American and he, too, may have come to the UK in the US Army possibly even to Chelmsford [although I've not found any enlistment papers for him].

JBee
11-01-16, 18:49
In Scotland the changes would have come under the Register of Corrected Entries (RCE).

I have one where the parents weren't married - the child was registered in Scotland under mother's name alone, about a year or two later the father (who was married and serving abroad at time of baby's birth) made a statutory declaration (in England) that he was the father and his name added, then upon the subsequent marriage of the parents the birth certificate was again changed. When applying for the birth certificate you only get the latest version.

Olde Crone Holden
11-01-16, 18:56
Bertie

As Antony says, there is only so much you can assume from the indexes. She registered the birth in her married name because that WAS her name. She also correctly gave her maiden name. You can't assume she said her husband was the father unless you look at the cert - it may have a blank space for father's name.

Antony - thankyou for the clarification. I am surprised however to know that an incorrect father does not result in an entirely new certificate making no mention of the original incorrect father. How embarrassing for the child concerned in later life!

In view of what Antony says, then the explanation is that there was NO father on the original BC and that the child was legitimised by the 1947 registration.

Galloway Lass - mother does not have to be present in E & W because the husband has to prove to the satisfaction of the Registrar General that he could not be the father of the child. Of course, if the mother admits he isn't, then the whole thing is a lot easier, but they still have to convince the Registrar General. It is not an easy matter to change a birth certificate (nor should it be, of course)

OC

Bertie
11-01-16, 19:31
Thanks again all for your input