General Chat

Hi, I was looking for an Aunt's birth registration. But, I have found two entries two years apart!

1st) Joan B Foot 1927 in Poplar mmn Gilbert GRO ref states see 1929
2nd) Joan B Foot 1929 in Poplar mmn Gilbert ref 1c 591


Can anyone explain what this means?

Thank you for your help

If you look at the image of the Index on FreeBMD, you'll see that her birth registration was missing from the Index, and has been added as a handwritten note at the bottom of the page.

The second entry is in its proper place in the typed Index.

It may be that the birth wasn't registered until 1929, although it should have been in 1927.

EDIT:

Her illegitimate birth was originally registered under her mother's name Gilbert.

Births Jun 1927   (>99%)
Gilbert  Joan B  Gilbert  Poplar  1c 629

And on the GRO website:

GILBERT, JOAN BARBARA -
GRO Reference: 1927 J Quarter in POPLAR Volume 01C Page 629 Occasional Copy: A
 

So the 1929 correction will have been to give her her mother's husband's name.
He may or may not be her actual father:

Presumably the mother's marriage:

Marriages Jun 1927   (>99%)
FOOT  Michael  Gilbert  Poplar  1c 911
Gilbert  Eleanor F  Foot  Poplar  1c 911

Hi, yes I have ordered it, but 2 yrs difference for a change to come to light is a long time. All my cousins her children have always said her birth was in 1927. But they don't have her birth certificate! It's very strange!!

Thank you for your help

See my edit above, re original registration as Gilbert.

Just to add - she's not with her probable parents in 1939:

Michael Foot
in the 1939 England and Wales Register
Name: Michael Foot
Gender: Male
Marital Status: Married
Birth Date: 25 Aug 1909
Residence Date: 1939
Address: 23
Residence Place: Bethnal Green, London, England
Occupation: Upholsterer
Line Number: 19
Schedule Number: 61
Sub Schedule Number: 1
Enumeration District: Adov
Borough: Bethnal Green
Registration district: 17.2
Inferred Spouse:
Eleanor F Foot
Household Members (Name) Age
Michael Foot 30
Eleanor F Foot 33

Hi, that makes sense, I have the marriage certificate and the father was only 17 at the time of marriage & she was 21. 1 will order the first birth certificate & the marriage certificate as in my copy he is listed as just Michael Foot.

I thought she was a twin as in the 1929 registration her sister Rachael I Foot is also listed 1c 556.



Thank you again
I appreciate your help

No I haven't been able to find her either! I did find her two sisters Rachael & Myra in Kings Lynn Norfolk probably evacuated! I wonder where she was?

Brings up more questions. But at least you have made sense of the late birth registration.

Thank you again

They probably thought that as they were registering Rachel's birth, they might as well give Joan the Foot surname officially at the same time, although I suspect she was already being known as Foot.

In 1939 Rachel and a younger sister Myra are in Norfolk - maybe evacuated from London??

Ray Foot
in the 1939 England and Wales Register
Name: Ray Foot [Rachel Bennett]
Gender: Female
Marital Status: Single
Birth Date: 5 Jul 1929
Residence Date: 1939
Address: 5
Residence Place: King's Lynn, Norfolk, England
Occupation: At School
Line Number: 14
Schedule Number: 192
Sub Schedule Number: 3
Enumeration District: Tqek
Borough: King's Lynn
Registration district: 236/2
Household Members (Name) Age
George K Wilkerson 28
Kathleen V Wilkerson 28
Ray [Rachel] Foot 10
Myra C Foot 7

But still no sign of Joan in 1939.

No, I wondered if they thought the authorities would ask too many questions at an age that Joan would be old enough to understand her start in life! Did they put illegitimate on the BC in those days?

Thank you

They wouldn’t put illegitimate but only showing the mums name and no father listed indicates illegitimate especially when it’s the same surname

Don’t think birth certs have ever said illegitimate!

Baptismal records may well say illegitimate child of and mothers name

In the case of illegitimate children if the parents later married then that would legitimise the child and and new birth entry made .

In view of Michaels age he may or may not have been her father as he would be 15 when she was born . Not impossible of course though !

A declaration at the time of re registration would have had to be made that this was a true entry

Michael was 17 at the time of the marriage, which was in the same quarter of 1927 as Joan's birth - but presumably 16 when she was conceived.

I believe the law may have changed in the last few years but at the time in question a later marriage of parents did not legitimise a child born before marriage. To legitimise the child they would have to re register as it appears to have happened here.

This problem arose when trying to sort out an intestate family death and was confirmed by a lawyer.

Following on from Names comment... I'm thinking that in the case of previously unwed couples, if they married after a birth the father had to legally adopt the child even if it is his own blood relation?

Current information on the GRO website…..

https://www.gov.uk/correct-birth-registration

The Legitimacy Act 1926 enabled a child to be classed as ‘legitimate’ as long as their parents married after their birth (provided that they had not been married to someone else at the time of conception) and provided the parents re-registered the child’s birth after marriage so that the same is evidenced on the child’s birth certificate.

I wonder how many couples actually re registered their child or if they just assumed marriage made everything ok.


If my cousin hadn’t died intestate we would never have had to look into this.

My mum forgot to register my brothers births (in Malta) when they came back to the UK. - ironically on the 'Empire Windrush', in March 1951.
It's hardly surprising, as my brothers were 20 months and 7 months old - one rather harassed 21 year old mum!!

Elder brother got his first passport in 1975, with no problem.
Younger brother tried to get a passport in 1980, and was declared an 'illegal alien'!
He was threatened with deportation to a place he had left at 7 months :-S

Fortunately, a letter from my mum and a slightly late registration meant he wasn't deported, and eventually got his passport!!!