Genealogy Chat

No problem Cascas

I didn't read your post right! My fault

Thanks Shirls.......Im not the only numpty here ;-)

Thanks for the info peeps

Ive learned a lot from this!.
Sorry also for the 'example' names leading a few people astray.

Regards everyone have a lovely Sunday!
Cassie

:-D

I too spent time looking for the entries and wondered why I couldnt find them

Forgot too that later births dont have the page you can look at

Only a long time later did I re read the OP and it registered names changed

Another Numpty here too I think :-) :-)

Oh dear.......what a numpty!

Think you must be having a "blond" moment Gins ;-)

From opening post "example (name changed)"
:-D

Is it me................

I cant see either birth entry on Ancestry?

:-S

Yes I have, my short certificate gives me a surname, dob, date issued & place of registration. The long version does not give me a surname, but names parent(s).

Interesting point IGP - does anyone have both a short and long BC they can compare?

I'm fairly certain that the 'short' version gives the child a surname but not sure on the other details.

Interestingly, until relatively recently (around the 1960's I think, but someone might like to correct) the child's surname was not actually recorded on the certificate at all. It was simply assumed he or she would be named after the father, or mother if there was no father named.

Today, the mother of the child can give the child any first names and surname she chooses. She may give the child the father’s surname if she wants and does not even need the father’s consent to do this. However, the father will only assume parental responsibility if he registers jointly with the mother.

A married couple can also choose any surname for their child. It does not have to be the name of either of the parents.

So it looks like there is, currently, the possibility of three different surnames names appearing on the Index, and that is without any subsequent amendments which may be made,

An adoption should not affect the birth register, which should essentially be a true record of a child's birth.

No adopted father's name should be recorded on the birth index unless he was a natural ( biological) father.

Gwyn

Thanks for all the replies everyone. Very interesting.
I suspect in this case that the 'father's surname' was actually added later as he may have actually adopted the child whilst the child was very young.

We do know the 'father' as in the surname of the father, was not the natural father at all. the natural father was not mentioned at all.
So the birth was registered in the mothers (maiden) name - she was unmarried and also the birth was then registered in another surname (the father - not natural father)

Complicated stuff eh?

Thanks for all the entries peeps
Cassie :-S :-S

Kuros - Today the father doesn't have to accompany the mother. However, normally both parents have to give their permission for an unwed father to be named, and nowadays, a form is provided that both have to sign. I know of one case wher the father was overseas, and had to get a notary public to witness his signature (I don't know the English term - maybe commissioner for oaths). I believe a court can also order the father's name to be added, but normally the form is signed in a registrar's office, but not necessarily the same one the mother uses.

Shirley - there is no printed image post-1983 - it all gets computerized.

I've seen printed images where a later entry refers back to the first one, and there is no page ref - in place of the page ref the second entry will say "See Mar '78" or whatever.

Two entries in the index doesn't necessarily mean theres 2 distinct certificates..

Have you looked at the actual GRO page to check the entry for the dads name it looks as if its a transcription error

Whatever surname you order the cert in its the same one that would be sent .

In theory the child could be known by either surname .

Thanks everyone.
The Vol number was the same on both entries but on the page number for the fathers surname entry the page number was 0

I am unable to find a marriage but they pos married abroad anyway. the names of the parents are eg Wood and North though as per the birth records

Regards
cassie :-)

If the parents were not married at the time, the father would have to have been present for the child to be registered in his name. This still applies today. Maybe the father and mother both presented themselves at a later date so the child was then given the father's last name. If, as seems to be the case here, this was done at a later date then the register would have moved on so the numbers would not be consecutive.

Annie

Do you have the marriage record for the parents?

I would have thought it was because the parents were not married at the time but the father went to the register office with the mother to register the birth. However you would expect the page numbers to be the same (or at least consecutive numbers).

Kath. x

Hi
Im just enquiring about 2 birth records for the same person and wonder if anyone can tell me the reason.
example (name changed)

John Andrew Wood (mmn Wood) qtr 1 1988, Leeds Vol 5, Page 1004
Also recorded as
John Andrew North (mmn Wood) qtr 1 1988 Leeds, Vol 5 Page 0

I believe it is because the mother wasnt married at the time and so the birth was registered in her surname and also the fathers surname.

Or because the references are different could it mean that the father may have adopted the child and the birth re-registered later in fathers surname?

Please could anyone give me any info on this type of record?

Many thanks
Cassie :-S