Birth registration query...bit odd

[tglyn]

Hi all.
Found this in my research for one of my family menbers...never heard of it before and just seems odd.
Birth 25 Aug 1922 but also a registration for the same birth in 1924....confirmed in records
Can this be correct ? ? ?
If so, how and why.
Tony

[Olde Crone Holden]

The most common explanation (there are others) is that the child was born before marriage, then legitimised after the marriage of the parents.

OC

[Mike Fisher]

did you get the certificates from the local registrar or the GRO ?

[Elderflower]

A close friend is researching her family and has found the same thing with her Brother's registration, but he was registered three times. She obtained two certificates and is awaiting the third. The outcome was just as OC suggested, he was born before his parents were married and was re-registered after the marriage. Sadly, she has been out of touch with her Brother for many years and his birth was always a bit of a mystery, which she has now been able to clear up.

She carefully ordered the different certificates from the local RO and from the GRO and was still awaiting one from the GRO last time I spoke to her.

[tglyn]

Thanks for getting back with your thoughts...very interesting
I have only at this time relied on family infomation so will go a little deeper into the reason why.
One of the family I understand has the birth certificate so hopefully I can see it.
Having also checked FreeBmd it cross references the two dates so something must of happened.
Were there any laws governing registration delays then and is it the same now?
Tony

[Olde Crone Holden]

Yes, registration delays attracted a fine then as they do now, but that is not likely to be the explanation here, as a delayed registration of birth would still only appear once in the records not twice.

As you have two actual entries, then two "things" happened, not one (late registration) and the two happenings are most likely to be an illegitimate birth, followed by the marriage of the parents.

Other reasons could be the alteration of a material fact on the cert, for example, a change of name, a correction of a fact (mother's maiden name, father's name etc) and so on.

OC

[Uncle John]

Am I right in thinking that the certificate from the first registration will (should) be suppressed, or does that only apply to people who are adopted?

[Olde Crone Holden]

UJ

Yes, you are right, IN THEORY, lol - whichever certificate is ordered, only the corrected one will be issued. The first one is not exactly suppressed, more superceded.

OC

[Elderflower]

Am I right in thinking that the certificate from the first registration will (should) be suppressed, or does that only apply to people who are adopted?

That's what I thought too, but my friend, as noted above, got two of the certs for sure, the first one showing that he was illegitimate and the second with his Father's name -this was registered after the marriage. Must speak to my friend tomorrow to find out what the third cert shows.

[Olde Crone Holden]

Pat

I did say in THEORY, lol! I have heard of many instances where the GRO have slipped up and issued either both, or the first, superceded cert.

OC

[Guy]

I would disagree no entry in "normal" a birth, marriage or death register (i.e. excluding still birth register or adoption register) may be suppressed.
That is illegal.

When a person applies for a certificate (and they provide a reference number) they are applying for a certified copy of a specific entry in a register. The registrar etc. are legally bound to provide a copy of that specific entry.

The only exception is when a register has been marked that the person has been adopted. If the adoption order has been quashed it is then legal for the registrar etc. to supply a certificate on which the adoption mark has been removed.

Note if a person simply requests a certificate for Joe Bloggs born 1901 in Metroville then as OC states the current or latest entry would be supplied not the earlier(est) entry.

As with the IGI entries cannot be deleted. as that would be re-writing history.
Cheers
Guy

[Olde Crone Holden]

Guy

You do surprise me, I thought that the Registrar was bound to provide a copy of a certificate showing the true facts. Where an alteration of a certificate has taken place, let's say a supposed father has been removed from the cert, then surely only the corrected certificate should be issued, as the first one was incorrect.

Also, it is my understanding that bigamous marriage certificates are suppressed and should I order one from information given in the indexes, my request will be refused with a "no such event took place"....as it legally did not.

I am interested in your comments on this.

OC

[Guy]

The problem is there is no such beast as a certificate.
A certificate is simply a certified copy (i.e. certified that it is a true copy) of an entry in a register.

It is illegal to erase or deface any entries in a register therefore every entry that has ever been made still exists.
Any alterations or amendments must be made in such a way that the original entry can still be seen.
This should be done by means of a line “drawn thereunder” though many registrars make a single strikethrough of the amended word or words.
The correct words should then be added.
E.G. on my youngest sons birth certificate the registrar wrote the seventeenth of November instead of the sixteenth of November. I later had to go and witness the Registrar amend the entry after he gained permission to do so from the Registrar General.

As to a bigamous marriage the event took place and will have been registered in the register. The fact that the marriage did not comply with the requirements of law does not mean the registration of the event did not take place simply the marriage was not legal.
In the Registrar General’s guidance for the clergy under correction of errors in completed marriage entries it states –
“ 3. The Original Entry must not be altered in any way but the Correction must be made by means of a Marginal Note in which the nature of Error or Errors and the truth of the matter must be specified : …”

The relevant Acts may be seen on my website at

The Births and Deaths Registration Act, 1953.
http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~framland/acts/1953Act.htm

Relevant section 29

The Marriage Act, 1949

http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~framland/acts/1949bAct.htm

Relevant section 61

Cheers
Guy

[the meercat]

i have a relation thats was registered three times in her mums name and three times in her dads.
does that mean she can send for six certificates for her birth.

[Uncle John]

i have a relation thats was registered three times in her mums name and three times in her dads.
does that mean she can send for six certificates for her birth.

There will only be 3 register entries. Each entry has been indexed twice, one for each surname.

[the meercat]

well thats me confused!!!
why didnt they give them the same page numbers only the last one as the same number.
why have i got the mums name ones in july,oct and oct.
dads name ones july,july and oct.
so does that mean although the middle one is done in different months its the same one.

[Uncle John]

Don't know, sorry. How about ringing up or emailing the local Register Office to ask them to see what's recorded in the local registers? That might be easier (and cheaper) than sending for certificates from the GRO and finding you've got duplicates. Of course the GRO reference numbers are no use to the local registrar.