Interesting / unusual BMD Certificates ?

[Rick]

Having done a lot of parish register "sweeps" for specific surnames, I have come to the conclusion that some vicars probably filled the marriage registers out in advance, ready for the bride, groom and witnesses to sign on the day. This opinion is based on examples of the entered data having been crossed through with the addition of an explanatory note such as "groom cleared off to sea," groom changed his mind," "parental consent not obtained" and a crossed through entry with marginal note "wrong father's name entered in error," followed by correct version. (The vicar had named the bride's father as Abraham C in the first entry and John C in the second one. There were two families with the surname C living in the parish at the time - one headed by Abraham, the other by John.)
When I began researching years ago, never assume, "check the registers" and "get documentation" were the orders of the day. I have since discovered that written documentation CAN be wrong - how many of us have made a mistake when copying out data for ourselves or to pass on to a fellow researcher? Vicars and registrars were humans and therefore, prone to the odd error. It all adds to the thrill of the chase!

Jay

I agree with everything you've said, but I think there's something else going on here too. Abraham and Ann do not seem to have had any children of their own and I suspect they may have adopted Elizabeth. I have another couple of examples in my tree where a woman has "donated" a child to a childless sister. It's just speculation in this case, but it would explain why she lived with her aunt and how her uncle's name almost made it onto the marriage register in place of her father's.

[AntonyM]

Under GRO rules the "father's" details on a marriage certificate can quite properly be the natural father, step-father or adoptive father (it's one of the questions the registrar has to ask just before the wedding). How long that guidance has been in place, I honestly don't know.

However we all know of many certificates with names that just don't fit with other evidence (for all sorts of reasons).

Elizabeth's marriage at Uley in 1842 is recorded in the register with the father's name entered as "Abraham Aus", which is then crossed out.........http://interactive.ancestry.co.uk/51...32710719/facts

That has to be the worst handwriting I've ever seen on any register entry !

[James18]

That has to be the worst handwriting I've ever seen on any register entry !

Haha, it's pretty poor, yes. I do think this is up there, though.

[AntonyM]

Just to thank everyone who has sent me their certificates with notes, corrections and mistakes - there are some excellent examples amongst them I hope I have managed to explain to each sender what their particular certificate means.

To summarise the main issues and misunderstandings I have seen:

1- If a birth is re-registered to add a father, or after a marriage of the parents, it creates another seperate birth entry. There should be a note on the indexes to cross reference them. The second registration can be years later - 47 years in once case I have been sent. To get the full picture you really need certificates from both entries (they will be different).

2- If a correction is made to a register, it doesn't ever create another entry. Corrections made at the time of registration will be shown with a number, and initialled by the registrar. Corrections made later will have a note in the margin.

If anyone has any similar queries - let me know and I'll try and explain them for you (or you can come to my talk on the subject at the Society of Genealogists on the 12th May)

[Bo the Bodger]

Hi Anthony

My own birth certificate is fairly interesting as my name was entered 4 months after registration - according to my mother they were still discussing (read arguing) about my name even on route to the church where my father announced I was going to be named after the two most attractive women he knew at the time. I don't have either of my mother's names nor my grandmothers. But that is not the interesting point. When I started this family history jaunt I found my registration in the records as girl surname mmn and no other information on the page at all. When I looked again a couple of years later information had been added & the old * had appeared and the details of my name entered in hand at the bottom of the page but spelt incorrectly - nothing of my doing and I feel slightly indignant that a third party took it upon themselves to supply information which has been entered with spelling mistakes.

How does that type of information i.e. name given after registration get supplied to the GRO?

[AntonyM]

Bo

That's an interesting one - I'd need to see the certificate and the index entry to see exactly what happened and when. The adding of a "name given after registration" is the one type of certificate I haven't got an example of at the moment, because they happen so rarely these days. Registrars supply GRO with information about registrations, corrections and any other changes in a process known as "quarterly returns" , if a name is spelt incorrectly then it could be wrong on the regsiter entry, or had been copied out incorrectly at some point in that process , which does happen quite often.

On the one occasion I had a couple arguing about the name of a baby they were registering, I just sent them away and told them to come back in a week when they had come to some agreement (which they did).

If you want to email me the details, I'd be happy to have a look.

[Ann Bentley]

I have had a "Ball" reading through these posts! Now I would like to add my ' 2 pennyworth' My Husband and I have two Marriage Certificates. We were married in 1963 at Guiseley Registry Office in Yorkshire. We have the certificate we were given on the day, handwritten, all correct. Early in 1964 we had a letter from the registrar, to say that the safe holding the "Book" with all the information had been stolen, and asking us to call at the R.O. with our witnesses. As it happened, our witnesses had been my husband's brother and his then girlfriend, who had since parted. We were supplied with a new certificate, with the name of my Mother-in-law instead of the absent girl friend. That one was typed. That must have happened to a few people at that time, but not everyone's would have had a different name on it. I believe we were contacted through the 'appointments book' information.

[Olde Crone Holden]

Ann

How very interesting!

I wonder though, why Guiseley RO didn't just contact the GRO, who would have had copies of all marriages performed.

OC

[JudithM]

Ann

How very interesting!

I wonder though, why Guiseley RO didn't just contact the GRO, who would have had copies of all marriages performed.

OC

As the contact was made early in the year following the marriage perhaps they had not yet sent their quarterly return to the GRO?

[Anne in Carlisle]

Ah, yes, Judith and maybe they needed the details to send up to the GRO. ie the register had been stolen before they could do the returns! Ooooops!
Anne

[Katarzyna]

As it happened, our witnesses had been my husband's brother and his then girlfriend, who had since parted. We were supplied with a new certificate, with the name of my Mother-in-law instead of the absent girl friend.

The Registrar must have panicked - surely that is falsification of a marriage certificate. Why couldn't he have just copied the information from the handwritten certificate, after all he did have three witnesses there to confirm the name of the missing witness.

[AntonyM]

It sounds like an unusual occurrence - but the important thing is to remember that the marriage is legal because it happened in front of witnesses in an authorised place - the register office (never registry !). The register that was completed at the time getting stolen doesn't change that.

The entry in the register is merely a record of that happening - so as long as the new entry was signed by the couple and two witnesses who were present at the wedding, I don't think there is any reason why the registrar couldn't create a new entry and then issue certificates which are copies of that entry. I suspect that recreating the stolen register is something that would have to be agreed through the Registrar General though - not something that is covered in the GRO manual as far as I can remember.

[Ann Bentley]

Hi O.C.
I believe the story was that the register had not yet been forwarded to (what was at that time)Somerset House. I just wonder though what the position would be if we had said "Forget it! and just not gone back?
Ann

[Bo the Bodger]

Bo

That's an interesting one - I'd need to see the certificate and the index entry to see exactly what happened and when. The adding of a "name given after registration" is the one type of certificate I haven't got an example of at the moment, because they happen so rarely these days. Registrars supply GRO with information about registrations, corrections and any other changes in a process known as "quarterly returns" , if a name is spelt incorrectly then it could be wrong on the regsiter entry, or had been copied out incorrectly at some point in that process , which does happen quite often.

On the one occasion I had a couple arguing about the name of a baby they were registering, I just sent them away and told them to come back in a week when they had come to some agreement (which they did).

If you want to email me the details, I'd be happy to have a look.

Anthony - I will scan and send later today via PM

[James18]

Antony, I don't possess the certificate in question, but have you come across many examples of a father's name being given on a birth certificate despite him having been dead for some years prior to the birth? In my example, a First World War widow who never re-married had a son six years after her husband's death. The son was registered with his mother's married surname, and when he died some years later as a prisoner of war, the memorial inscription gave his parents as his mother and his mother's late husband. The woman moved from one county to another after her son's birth, and I suspect that she did so to avoid having to answer awkward questions about the boy's father, who evidently was not her late husband.

I do not know whether the husband's name was indeed put down as the father on her son's birth certificate, or whether she simply chose to not mention any father at all -- however, given that when the young man died his mother and 'father' were enshrined on his memorial plaque, I believe this may well be the case. It is my understanding that as long as a child's parents are married, the father can be named in absentia. If the mother intended to keep up the pretense that her son was this man's child, what would stop her from doing so? Would a registrar be likely to quiz her on this nearly a century ago?

[AntonyM]

Before the late 1960s , a birth register entry gives no surname for a child, only the given names. The entry was simply indexed (and so a surname might be assumed) under the parents surname(s) according to their marital status.

I am aware of cases where a widow has named her late husband as father of a child. If he was alive at the time of conception that would be allowed, if not it is straightforward perjury. In this case though, from what you say there is no evidence that the father is named on the birth certificate ? Without such evidence, I would suspect that the child was correctly registered by the mother alone as unmarried. If she had not remarried and was still known by her husbands surname, then her name as the mother would quite correctly be shown as such ( e.g. Mary X formerly Y) and so that is what the child would be indexed under.

There is never any question about a mother choosing to name a father or not - if the parents are not married he has to be present to sign the register as co-informant otherwise he is not named on the register. That was the case 100 years ago and is still the case now.

[JBee]

An elderly lady I knew told me that when she worked as a housekeeper that the vicar/priest was so forgetful that he forgot to enter the details of marriages into the register. The bride got the marriage certificate but wonder whether it was ever registered properly with the GRO.

It may be that he filled in the register properly later but I'll never know lol.