Genealogy Chat

From Genuki 'It is (or was) possible to re-register some events. Mistakes made by staff are usually just initialled on the original certificate. But when requested by the registrant, a new entry is made and the old one sealed - you are not allowed to see it. When a child's birth is re-registered, the original entry becomes closed. The information may be the same but when re-registered after marriage the 'illegitimate' child becomes legitimate (ie. a child of the marriage, even if it is years later, as long as the original father was the man the mother marries). You wouldn't normally be told it was a re-registration. You might pick this up by the information on the certificate by the registrar's signature and date on the new certificate, but most people wouldn't notice this subtle anomally and not realise the birth had been re-registered. What are likely to be the differences on the two certificates? On the original entry the mother's name would be her maiden name, obviously different from the father's name. On the new certificate, her name will appear as name (married name) and maiden name as 'formerly xxxxx'.' Bob

I have just looked up a case I know about. A child born to a single lady and a married man. I think his birthday is Feb Child reg under mmn in AMJ quarter (mmn given as cross ref) Interestingly, child was NOT reg in district where he was born. Parents marriage reg in same Qtr - father was divorced by his wife Child is re-reg under name of father in OND same year - mmn given as cross ref No marks or special ref given in index to indicate this is a re registration. But, following on from OC's post, I suppose this could have been after an adoption by the natural father. However, I had always been given to understand that legally his name could be changed because his birth mother had married his natural father. No, I shalln't be getting any certs to find out, as this is no relation to me at all - it was just a matter of checking the reg details. In small villages which were close knit communities, it used to be very difficult not to have your dirty linen washed in public! Jay

No, I have been married twice and didnt have to prove who I was, either time. You can call yourself anything you like, as long as it is not done with intention to deceive. OC

Thanks OC I am thinking now that the common usage bit might apply in this case, but surely when he got married he would have had to prove himself? The cert is a copy I ordered a couple of years ago. Thanks again Abigail

Depends of course how old is the birth certificate that you have? If it is his original cert, belonging to him, then it will not have any alteration numbers, because the alteration was done later, if you see what I mean. You could check this out by finding his birth in the index and seeing if their are any amendement numbers (do these show on the index? I don't know, you might have to ring the Register Office). Also, depending on when he got his passport, you didnt always have to show your birth cert - I didnt, for a passport obtained in 1968. He may just have adopted his mother's married surname 'by common usuage' - nothing illegal about that. OC

Hello OC! So that would mean the re registration would be in the normal BMD index? I have the original cert but there isn't any extra information on it. He married under his mother's married name, so I have assumed, since I got his birth certificate, that he must have been either adopted or re registered. Surely he must have had to produce his birth certificate several times over the years as I know he had to have had a passport because he worked abroad. Mystifying at present.... Regards Abigail

Abigail I am not an expert on this but I understand that a new entry and certificate would be made, with a note cross referencing it to the original. Therefore the original should have a note against it in the index, directing the Registrar to the entry. As to a time limit - I don't think there is one. If you can prove that your natural parents married at some point after your birth, then you can have the entry amended when you are 80, if you want to. I have a feeling - not entirely sure - that the parents had to both be free to marry at the time of birth in order to legitimise that birth later on. If one parent was married at the time of the child's birth, that birth can never be legitimised and one parent would have to adopt that child in order to make it legitimate. OC

In 1926 this Act allowed for children who had been born before their parents had been married, to be legitmised on that marriage. Does anyone know if this re registration led to another birth cert being produced and if so, where would I look to find it? Also how long after the marriage is the limit for this re registration to take place? Many thanks Abigail