Birth registered twice

[tessie31082]

Hello,

On a tree I am researching, I have a person whose birth is registered twice - once using the surname from his Mum's 1st marriage and the 2nd registration (same year etc) using the name of the man his Mum married 4 years later - does this mean the 2nd husband adopted him and was therefore re-registered?

Thank you

[Lin Fisher]

My cousin is registered twice in the same qtr. Once in her mothers maiden name as they weren't married and again in her fathers name. I looked on Freebmd and it takes you (on mine) to M 60. It there says she was registered again in 1960with her fathers name. She married about that time as well.

If you weren't married and the father didn't go to register with you it was against the law to register in the fathers name. I think I am correct on that. Her parents married a year later.

[tessie31082]

Hmmm, no notes on either entry looking at the actual images! I'm hoping the person whose tree this is might have some info. but not sure if this will be a shock or not (it's her Dad's birth I'm looking at). Maybe she had him with the man she goes onto marry 4 years later whilst married to the 1st husband?

Thanks

[teasie]

Are the Volume & page numbers the same? If so, it isn't a double-registration. If the man you mention was the named father of the child (and if so he would need to be present at the registration) then because children weren't given their own surname on a birth certificate until 1969 then on FreeBMD the entry is recorded under both the mothers AND the fathers surname.

The GRO treat it differently and index only the fathers surname.

[tessie31082]

Teasie - MMN Jennings - this is shown on both records on Ancestry and FreeBMD, same vol & page numbers - registered under Beresford (surname of 1st husband) and then Griffin (surname of 2nd husband).
Family story is Miss Jennings fell pregnant by a Canadian soldier and had a daughter, her parents threw her out and she moved in with the family of whom she went on to marry into and had another baby with him - master Griffin, however, records I've found show Miss Jennings married a Mr Beresford and seems to have daughter and son but son is then registered under second husbands name too!

[teasie]

You don't say what year so I can't look it up, but as I said, if its the same page, volume & year then it is the SAME registration, just indexed under both parents surnames as a child did not have its own surname until 1969.

Ancestry uses the FreeBMD data, so it will be exactly the same. If its a year that you can search on GRO then it will almost certainly be under father's name only, and quite likely with no mmn.

[tessie31082]

Teasie, one of them might still be living so didn't want to put details. Beresford isn't her maiden name - are you saying because she was married it was registered under that name and also the father's namewho she married 4 years later? I can't find anything on her 1st husband so not sure where he is from/where he went - I assume they divorced. Unfortunately it's too late for the GRO :(

[teasie]

No, what I'm saying is that if the parents weren't married to each other but the father was present at the registration then the CERTIFICATE would say something like
Childs name : Fred
Father: John Smith
Mother: Mary Brown formerly Jones.

The INDEX on FreeBMD would show the child twice, under the same year, volume & page - as Fred Smith and also Fred Brown.

The GRO INDEX would probably only show Fred Smith, no mmn

[tessie31082]

OK I think I understand! Shame I can't look on the GRO. I guess the Ancestry indexes are the same as the FreeBMD indexes so that's no help either! I will assume that what you're saying is correct and for some reason they didn't /couldn't marry for those 4 years after he was born - maybe the 1st husband disappeared and so she couldn't get a divorce for so many years (I'm not sure on the legalities in the late 40's on divorce)!? Thanks for explaining Teasie!

[teasie]

Depending on where it was registered there may be a local BMD index that provides more information. Some are a great help, others not so much!

Divorce was still out of reach for many - even in the 40's - but there was a presumption of death after 7-years so she may have been able to re-marry as a widow after that period. I'm not sure of the hoops that had to be jumped through in that period, but I have it in my head that there was some kind of written declaration in more 'modern' times (ie 20th century), although I'm not certain on that.

[cbcarolyn]

don't know if this helps
https://www.gov.uk/government/public...20partnerships.

We re-registered my son after we were married, we were both there at the initial registration.

[kylejustin]

My great grandma's sister was married in 1916 to a soldier who went off to war. When he came home in 1918, she had a babe in arms. He promptly divorced her (finalised 1921) and she married the babe's father (1922)...baby was originally registered under the soldier's name, and was re registered with the second husband's after marriage....

maybe your case is similar? A married woman have an extra marital child?

[tessie31082]

My great grandma's sister was married in 1916 to a soldier who went off to war. When he came home in 1918, she had a babe in arms. He promptly divorced her (finalised 1921) and she married the babe's father (1922)...baby was originally registered under the soldier's name, and was re registered with the second husband's after marriage....

maybe your case is similar? A married woman have an extra marital child?

Yes I'm wondering if this is the case!

[teasie]

But if that happened then logic dictates that as the re-registration happened X number of years after the original registration, then this second entry couldn't possibly be in an index that was created in the quarter of the original registration.

Have you looked at the actual index images under both surnames? Have either of them been amended/added after the original index was created? If not, then how could both surnames be present unless both parents were on the original certificate?

The parents could re-register the birth after they married, and any certificate ordered/issued after that would contain the re-registered details, but the original INDEX would still show the original details, ie a birth registered under two different surnames because the birth is pre-1969 and the parents were not married to each other (although both will have been present at the registration).

[tessie31082]

But if that happened then logic dictates that as the re-registration happened X number of years after the original registration, then this second entry couldn't possibly be in an index that was created in the quarter of the original registration.

Have you looked at the actual index images under both surnames? Have either of them been amended/added after the original index was created? If not, then how could both surnames be present unless both parents were on the original certificate?

The parents could re-register the birth after they married, and any certificate ordered/issued after that would contain the re-registered details, but the original INDEX would still show the original details, ie a birth registered under two different surnames because the birth is pre-1969 and the parents were not married to each other (although both will have been present at the registration).

Teasie, there are no amendments. So, Mrs Beresford (nee Jennings) is I'm assuming still married but not neccessarily with her 1st husband at the point of birth of Master Griffin so Mr Griffin must be present at the registration of their son and because it's before 1969 Master Griffin is registered under mothers/fathers different surnames because they weren't married.

Thanks

[AntonyM]

so Mr Griffin must be present at the registration of their son and because it's before 1969 Master Griffin is registered under mothers/fathers different surnames because they weren't married.

I'm assuming you are just looking at birth index entries ?

You can't (with 100% certainty) tell whether a father is named on a birth entry, or even whether the parents are married just from an index entry alone - the way indexes work means there are always a number of possibilities. e.g the mother could be named as "xxx Griffin otherwise xxx Beresford formerly Jennings" , and no father named at all and it would appear in the indexes twice, under both Griifin and Beresford and both with the maiden name of Jennings shown.

You have to see a certificate to know what the entry says.