Find Ancestors

I have a birth cert for my husband.
He was born in 1960. Both parents were named on the cert.

In 1971, both parents made some sort of "statutory declaration" and the Fathers name was removed from the cert.

Does anyone know what this means??

Thanks in advance

MaryMc

Maybe they were not married at the time of the birth?.....He allowed his name to be entered onto the birth reg....


Maybe later on it was discovered that he was NOT the biological Father?........

Thanks.

No they were not married at the time of birth (they in fact never did marry), although the Mum was using the Fathers surname at the time of registration.

I guess it has to be something like that.

Thanks!

MaryMc

Mrs Bucket,

So to allow his name on the birth cert in the first place, he would have had to go with the Mum to register the birth - is that correct?

MaryMc

Yes...

Thanks, thought so.

It appears he was re-registered after that in the Mums surname - or rather the surname of her first husband - so I'm guessing she was still legally married to him although she hadn't' seen him for 16 years by that stage.

Thanks

MaryMc

Another question! Apart from the above mentioned amendment.

Under "Name, Surname and Maiden name of Mother" it says"

D****** Brennan LATE Johnson
Formerly Staples.

(Brennan being my husbands birth surname after the man who was later removed from the cert, Johnson being Mums first husbands surname, and Staples being Mums maiden name.)

In the margin it says " Change LATE to read OTHERWISE"

Can anyone explain why she would have put LATE - we know her first husband is still alive.
She was obviously calling herself Brennan too, when my husbands birth was registered.

MaryMc

Giving a nudge for the morning folk :)

MaryMc

n

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

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

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

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

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.

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

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?

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

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,
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

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

Thanks all!

MaryMc