Genealogy Chat

My late father-in-law never had a Birth Certificate. He was one of 15 children and I think they just didnt bother to register his birth. When he turned 65, he applied for a State Pension, having failed and tried, to find his birth registration. He had to produce 'evidence' of how old he was, including his Apprenticeship papers and details of his War service. After a lot of faffing about, he was then required to swear an affidavit to say he truly believed himself to be 65. He then got his State Pension. Olde Crone

I found out about ten years ago when I was fifty. My parents married when I was eight years old but my bcert shows mum and dad with the same last name. They even got married on a school day and didn't invite me. Incidently, in my fathers family marriage was something one did after having all ones children... Also... My own father and his sisters had two birth registrations each... one with their father's name on it and one with their mother's husband's name on it. Try working your way round that lot! My wife says that as a B'd son of a B'd son of a B'd son I should be a wizzard or something! Roger GC

The short birth certificate didn't even have to have the child's name on it! My mother, born in 1931 in the middle of a large, poor family, had one that just said 'female', and the date and place of her birth. She had to get a real one when she applied for a passport just a few years ago. Funny thing is, I looked her up, and she is in the 1931 GRO index with both her forenames. I think the registrar was just being nasty. She has spent most of her life thinking that her parents didn't even care enough to name her.

That would explain it then. My gg gran was born Mary Ann Walder in Sussex, her mum Mary Ann Walder Snr moved to London, married her child's supposed father Thomas Roberts in July 1864 then he bought her up as his own, and had subsequent children. They gave her another middle name Katherine. She was baptised Mary Ann Katherine Roberts but the fathers name wasnt re entered onto her birth certificate. Going by that, it would seem as if Thomas wasnt the real father, but it all depends whether Mary Ann Walder was already living in London but had gone back to Sussex to her parents house for the birth. She was still at home in Sussex on the 1861 census. Thomas Roberts wasnt in the area. I cannot find him on 1861. My gg gran lived until 1943, when she died aged 79. So she would probably of had a pension. Ben

Rebekah I didn't have to produce my birth certificate when I married...That was in the mid 1980s. My sister did, late 1970s, but only 'cause she looked alot younger than 18 and the Registrar wanted proof. Maybe you do have to provide nowadays due to Identify theft problems? Chris

As I said in my posting above: 'In any case, a lot of people would have got the short birth cert - which is/was cheaper than the long cert. The short cert just gives name, date and place of birth, with no information about the parents.' And I also said that it is only recently that we have needed to provide records of everything. My grandfather joined the army in 1914 lying about his age - obviously he wasn't asked for his birth cert as proof of age. Its only in the latter part of the 20th century that people have had passports as a matter of course and also bank accounts. I well remember my parents opening their first bank account in the 1960s! nell

Janet, You are quite right about the short cert! In answer to Ben's original Q. I'd say, they might, or might not, find out the truth and they might, or might not, keep the information to themselves! Merry

Janet That would explain how Grandmother managed to get her 'benefits' as she only had her Baptism Certificate...However I doubt she would have been able to have it verified being Baptised in Egypt! I am really jealous of your Baptism Cert. My Grandmothers only gives her Fathers name, no GGrandmother noted(therefore no maiden name)......Hence why my GGrandmother's tree stops there :((( Chris

I don't think the old 'short' version of the birth certificate had parents' name on it ??? Someone who knows can perhaps verify or correct me! Jay

I can never understand how some people don't find out they're adopted til they're in their 60's, or whatever. We all need a birth cert for various things, including getting married. The persons birth parents (or at least the mother) would be named on the cert. My own cert was a bit of a shock to have a big blank space where 'fathers name' should be...but Ive since met him and 4 half siblings.

For pension purposes, people not having a birth certificate and unable to get a copy of the original (due to non-registration) were able to submit a copy of their baptismal entry from the appropriate church register, if this was copied out and verified by the vicar or priest of the parish. Many years ago, we found the one for my grandmother, along with her husband's birth certificate and their marriage certificate. It proved really useful, because it gave the names of both parents and the maiden name of the mother. Jay

My GG Grandfather was born in a workhouse and his mother married later that year I'm presuming he wasn't the father. I say this because the first census with parent he was called Henry Rudland the next census he was called Henery Witing (Whiting mothers maiden name) I believe his mother died between the first and second census and maybe his 'father' told him he was not really his. On the third and fourth census he was a Charles Henry Whiting. His 'father' was Charles Henry Rudland so he took his 'fathers' first name but changed his surname . But the funniest thing was when I got his marriage cert it says father 'Rudling Whiteing' mixture of the two parents surnames so he was unsure and never spoke of his family to relatives they did not even know where he came from. So as the others have said not many people could read or write so information was just given to them and they believed it Zoe

I have seen several pieces in The Times newspaper about people who didn't have a birth cert because of not being registered (born before 1875) who couldn't get their old age pension. The government allowed a search to be made on the census, to ''prove '' who they were and their age. One I looked up.....turned out he was lying anyway!! LOL So I still think the need for a pension would be the only normal reason for needing a birth cert for ''ordinary'' people. Even then the person concerned might not see the cert. When my gran needed her cert for pension purposes, her dau bought the cert and filled in the pension documents. She had to lie to her mum about getting the cert (said it wasn't required!) as gran always went off on one if her birth was mentioned at all. The reason was that gran wanted the identity of her own mother to be kept under wraps - she had always lied about who her mum was. Families - who'd have 'em??!! Merry

My Grandmother was born in 1889 in Egypt (father in the Army) and her birth was never registered,either there or here, only her Baptism Cerificate exists. She lived well into her 80s and never needed her Birth Certificate to claim anything ....Mind you she never left the country so didn't need a Passport! I guess she obtained Old Age pension ect on the back of her husband's entitlement. I don't think we would get away with it today given how strict the 'authorties' are now since identity theft became such an issue! Chris

Another point - the illegitimacy may or may not have mattered. My great-grandmother was illegitimate and on her marriage cert - the information would have come from her as her mother was dead - in father's name column she has 'illegitimate daughter of Susannah Barnes'. I don't think she was ashamed. She chose to use Barnes as the middle name for one of her sons. nell

But I do know that my husband's great-grandfather Charles Carter, born 1866, was unable to obtain a birth cert when he applied for one in 1936. After lots of help from Fiona on this site, I found that he had been registered as Charles McCarthy. His father was James McCarthy on 1861 census and James Carter from 1971 onwards. To confuse matters further, James was Dennis McCarthy on Charles' birth cert and on his (Dennis) marriage cert. Despite Charles knowing when he applied for his birth cert that he was born in Southwark, he variously put his birthplace as Bow or Islington on the census! In any case, a lot of people would have got the short birth cert - which is/was cheaper than the long cert. The short cert just gives name, date and place of birth, with no information about the parents. nell

People born 1864 would probably never need a birth cert to be produced. You wouldn't need to open a bank account or prove your identity in the routine way that we do these days. From www.ukpa.gov.uk/history.asp 'Passports as we know them today did not really exist before 1915...... Early British passports were cloth backed and contained no photograph of the holder. Passports were individually printed and each one was personally signed by the incumbent Secretary of State. [so you can see how few there would have been!]'

There were very few scenarios in which people had to show their birth certificate. Not everyone born before 1875 even had one.

Because you had to pay for the actual cert, not everyone purchased them. things like passports were much rarer then and people I suppose took as true what was said

Someone born in 1864 might have needed their cert to get an old age pension, so they might have seen it for that - if they lived long enough.. Merry