Find Ancestors

Gwyn,

Yes, I agree, they should have been registered with her legal surname, Mrs J. I doubt very much Mr B went with her.

We are just wondering why over 11 years later, she removed Mr B and re-registered them as J.

I think this will forever be a mystery lol

This family has more skeletons than a cemetery!

MaryMc

As she was Mrs J. any children should have been registered with that surname, unless Mr B.went to the registration to give them his surname.

Any surname becomes 'your's' by usage
.... If your family is not legally correct, then nor are many of the trees on GR I suspect. as many of us have come across a situation where a married couple would seem to be a child's parents, but no earlier marriage was found.

Gwyn

So I'm guessing that my husbands legal name is J not B!

Who knows lol the local Office is hunting for us.

MaryMc

Kay,

I know she shouldn't haven't entered Mr B's name at the first registration, but she did. (She was calling herself Mrs B, even though she was still married to Mr J)

The second registration was because she AND Mr B made a statutory declaration to omit his name.

To make it even more complicated - AFTER that, she -re-registered them under the surname of Mr J.

MaryMc

Mary,

The birth is not registered twice,its just a re-issue of a birth certificate with the correct or not information entered,and as the father couldnt be present or made a signed ***Declaration****at the second birth certificate issue,a fatehrs name count be entered,,,,,,and as she was never legally married to Mr B then she couldnt enter his name anyway,

Same circumstances would also apply to Mr J,

Why there was a re--issue may have come about by many reasons,,,,

My grandmother's marriage cert gives her name as Q##### E#### C### otherwise B#######. Her birth surname was C### but she was then adopted and her surname became B#######.

Potty,
Will do (nothing this morning in my email inbox)

MaryMc

Mary

Please let us know what the local Office comes back with.

Well, I need to go and sleep, hopefully in the morning I will have heard from the local Office.

Thanks all!

MaryMc

Potty,
Yes she did register the birth.

One of the two kids who were not changed did die (the first born), about 9 months after he was born.

The other didn't die until a couple of years ago.(The last born)

Wasn't anything to do with inheritance, for sure, they never had a penny to rub together!

We have the local Office looking into it, but they are having difficulty - hoping to hear from them shortly though.

MaryMc

She gave her surname as the same as the father's so the Registrar assumed they were married and therefore the father's presence was needed. Did she register the birth?

Did the two children who were not changed die? I wonder if this had something to do with inheritance?

I still think asking the local Office might bring up an answer.

Potty,
I think the Father would have had to have been there as they were not married?

I was the same as you with my kids though - registered in the hospital, hubby was at work and I also don't remember having to prove we were married.

But my husband was born at home, so I'm not sure what you had to do to register a child born at home in 1960?

MaryMc

I am not sure that the father has to be at the registration of a birth to be named as the father.

My twin sons' births were registered in hospital. My husband wasn't there and I wasn't asked for any proof that he was my husband.

I wonder if an enquiry to the Registry Office on the cert might help? Perhaps a record is kept there of Statutory Declarations?

Chrisa,
She was married to him (Johnson) it was Mr Brennan she never married.

The more we delve into my husbands family, the more mystery we come up against lol

MaryMc

Would it not have been changed from "late" to Otherwise bescause she was actually never married to him? It was just a name she was known by.

Thanks Minnie and Christine,
This is a bit like yours Christine.
Maiden name Staples, first marriage to Mr Johnson - he was still living, they never divorced and she never married Mr Brennan lol

I do wonder why it was corrected though - from "late" to "otherwise".

Maybe the registrar was just being pedantic!

Still, the main thing we're looking at is why the Fathers name was removed (actually there were 7 kids and he had his name removed from the MIDDLE 5).

They were still together as well, so who knows what the heck was going on!

MaryMc

Yes - Minnie's right.
I have a cert which says mother is..

A....... J..... late Moore formerly Calvert

Her maiden name was Calvert, Her first marriage to Mr Moore (he was still living & they hadn't divorced)
and if fact she never married Mr J !

Suppose it looked better for the child though.

Regards Christine

usually the term 'late' is used to denote other former names.

so if Miss Helen Brown married 3 times,lets say to Mr Green, Mr Black & Mr Yellow, ( in that order)

When she married Mr Green, she'd be Helen nee Brown

Helen Green, nee brown then married Mr Black

Helen Black, nee Brown Late Green

etc etc

Its more 'formerly known as' rather than anything to do with dying

Hi david,
Yes, I did wonder if she had misunderstood the term 'late'. Although it was 11 years later the correction was made.

Thanks again.

MaryMc

n