Unconfigured Ad Widget

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Trying to understand late birth registration. Help please!

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Trying to understand late birth registration. Help please!

    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!
    Last edited by Bertie; 11-01-16, 09:21.

  • #2
    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.



    Researching Irish families: FARMER, McBRIDE McQUADE, McQUAID, KIRK, SANDS/SANAHAN (Cork), BARR,

    Comment


    • #3
      I have just looked JBee but I can't find a marriage between the two names.
      Chrissie passed away in January 2020.

      Comment


      • #4
        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

        Comment


        • #5
          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

          Comment


          • #6
            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

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Olde Crone Holden View Post
              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.

              Comment


              • #8
                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

                Comment


                • #9
                  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?

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Bertie View Post
                    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.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      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?

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        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

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Olde Crone Holden View Post
                          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

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            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)?

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              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

                              Comment


                              • #16
                                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.
                                Last edited by AntonyM; 11-01-16, 12:57.
                                Retired professional researcher, and ex- deputy registrar, now based in Worcestershire. Happy to give any help or advice I can ( especially on matters of civil registration) - contact via PM or my website www.chalfontresearch.co.uk
                                Follow me on Twittter @ChalfontR

                                Comment


                                • #17
                                  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.

                                  Comment


                                  • #18
                                    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.
                                    Retired professional researcher, and ex- deputy registrar, now based in Worcestershire. Happy to give any help or advice I can ( especially on matters of civil registration) - contact via PM or my website www.chalfontresearch.co.uk
                                    Follow me on Twittter @ChalfontR

                                    Comment


                                    • #19
                                      Originally posted by AntonyM View Post
                                      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.
                                      Retired professional researcher, and ex- deputy registrar, now based in Worcestershire. Happy to give any help or advice I can ( especially on matters of civil registration) - contact via PM or my website www.chalfontresearch.co.uk
                                      Follow me on Twittter @ChalfontR

                                      Comment


                                      • #20
                                        Originally posted by Olde Crone Holden View Post
                                        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.

                                        Comment

                                        Working...
                                        X