Tweet
I have received from TNA divorce docs for my family. The papers are from 1927 and both parties are now deceased.
The parties were Alice Wood (nee Reardon) and James Frederick Wood. In her petition dated the 18 May 1928 Alice claims that her husband has committed adultery with X. (I imagine she is deceased but connot prove it so have not named her).
Now for the interesting part, there are two versions of a birth certificate for a female born June 1927. I cannot post them in case she is living.
The first one is dated the 20 Oct 1927 and is a certified copy of a birth registered July 1927. All looks normal. The name of the father is given (not anyone I am familiar with I'll refer to him as Y), the mother is given as X previously mentioned in the divorce above. Her surname is given as the same as the father's and her maiden name also provided. An address is provided for the father and occupation. Informant was the superintendent of the hospital where baby was born.
Next another certified copy of the same cert dated 6 Mar 1929 but with amendments written in the margin.
Col 4 omit Y (I.e. father's name)
Col 5 omit "formerley .........." (I.e. mother's maiden name)
Col 6 omit profession and address of father
"Corrected on 15 Dec 1927 by Supt registrar on production of a statutory declaration made by X plus one other of her family)
In the divorce petition X was referred to as a spinster. The address the informant gave on the first birth cert for the father was in fact an address that the couple getting divorced had lived at.
So, it seems that the mother fabricated the father's details and pretended she was married on the first birth certificate. Does the fact that these certificates are included but not referred to in the divorce papers mean that I should consider James Frederick Wood to be the father?
Please let me know what you think?
The parties were Alice Wood (nee Reardon) and James Frederick Wood. In her petition dated the 18 May 1928 Alice claims that her husband has committed adultery with X. (I imagine she is deceased but connot prove it so have not named her).
Now for the interesting part, there are two versions of a birth certificate for a female born June 1927. I cannot post them in case she is living.
The first one is dated the 20 Oct 1927 and is a certified copy of a birth registered July 1927. All looks normal. The name of the father is given (not anyone I am familiar with I'll refer to him as Y), the mother is given as X previously mentioned in the divorce above. Her surname is given as the same as the father's and her maiden name also provided. An address is provided for the father and occupation. Informant was the superintendent of the hospital where baby was born.
Next another certified copy of the same cert dated 6 Mar 1929 but with amendments written in the margin.
Col 4 omit Y (I.e. father's name)
Col 5 omit "formerley .........." (I.e. mother's maiden name)
Col 6 omit profession and address of father
"Corrected on 15 Dec 1927 by Supt registrar on production of a statutory declaration made by X plus one other of her family)
In the divorce petition X was referred to as a spinster. The address the informant gave on the first birth cert for the father was in fact an address that the couple getting divorced had lived at.
So, it seems that the mother fabricated the father's details and pretended she was married on the first birth certificate. Does the fact that these certificates are included but not referred to in the divorce papers mean that I should consider James Frederick Wood to be the father?
Please let me know what you think?
Comment