|
I am probably going to answer my question myself but thought I would get some extra opinions.
I have been trying to find out more about my husbands elusive side of the tree and by chance found a link to Middlesbrough .. so went on a hunt for his nan over that way, and bingo found her birth and marriage, looked for her children withthat husband, found them... then went looking for my father in law (one of her sons from second marriage) and found him .. However ...... he is registered twice in 1952 ....
Luke C Jones
Mother's Maiden Surname: Plunkett
Date of Registration: Oct Nov Dec 1952
Registration district: Coventry
Registration county: Warwickshire
Volume Number: 9c
Page Number: 832
Luke C Jones
Mother's Maiden Surname: Plunkett
Date of Registration: Jul Aug Sep 1952
Registration district: Coventry
Registration county: Warwickshire
Volume Number: 9c
Page Number: J69
(He was born august 31st)
but then I found
Luke C White
Mother's Maiden Surname: Plunkett
Date of Registration: Oct Nov Dec 1952
Registration district: Coventry
Registration county: Warwickshire
Volume Number: 9c
Page Number: 832
now I am assuming that this was because his mum and dad got married 10 years after he was born so was registered under his mums surname... this I can grasp BUT
then i found .....
Luke C Jones
Mother's Maiden Surname: Plunkett
Date of Registration: Apr May Jun 1964
Registration district: Coventry
Registration county: Warwickshire
Volume Number: 9c
Page Number: 1350
and there were other entries for exactly the same time for his siblings. Could this be because they got married in 1962 and he would of applied to change their name? but then if this is the case why were they registered in the name Jones in the year they were born? ( I say they as I have cross referenced his brothers and sisters)
Any ideas would be greatfully received .. my appologeise if nothing makes sense I am having trouble with the thread box scrolling away with its self!
Many thanks in advance
|
|
I have exactly the same with my grandsons mother's side of the family, and you are absolutely correct in your assumptions. The children were originally registered in the mothers name only (in the case of Luke, see below) and following the marriage several years later, were re-registered in the name of the father.
The original entry is obviously there on the register as is the subsequent re-registration years later. If you look at the actual page for the re-registration you will probably see all the children listed together one after the other.
What also happens is that the original index page is amended to cross reference the later entry. This is the significance of the entry with the page J69 - it is telling you to look at the register for June 1969 for the details. Looking at the index page for SEPTEMBER 1852 you will see that this is hand-written on the bottom of the page.
Turning to the two separate index entries for Luke in DECEMBER 1952, these are originals, not later amendments. They also have the same vol & page reference, 9c 832, so there is in fact only a single entry in the actual register, not two.
What this is saying is that the Lukes birth was in fact originally registered in both mothers and fathers names - perfectly ok as long as the father agreed - at the time. So in fact there was no need to re-register him again later, but perhaps they hadn't realised this.
What is also confusing is that there are two different quarters involved. Would it be correct to say he was born in the Sept qtr, or towards the end of it? In which case the original reg was made in the following qtr, but the re-reg referenced back to the actual qtr he was born in.
|
|
Thank you for your reply, I thought I was along the right lines but you can never tell!
Luke was born 31st August 1952, so I am guessing that is why there is one in one quater and one in another.
I have found 2 other births that link very nicely with the family ... right mothers surname, right area, right dates but my father in law has never heard of them (they would have been from his mothers first marriage) I wonder how likely it was that the 2 children are his siblings but went to live with their father while the others stayed with their mum. And if this is the case how would I go about finding out? sorry to through another one into the fire!
|
|
You would probably have to buy one of the birth certificates for one of the children who you think stayed with the father, and also one of the certificates for one of the children who stayed with the mother and see if the mother's first name matched and also if any of the addresses on the certificates matched (although addresses might change of course). It might be difficult to prove unless someone in the family knows anything about the family situation.
Kath. x
|
|
Think the birth certs will be my only option. Sadly no one knows a great deal about the family and those that might have done, have passed away.
By the looks of it I will be asking for a lot of certs for xmas!!
Many thanks
|
