Genealogy Chat

A relative born 1837 was registered Silvey. Was this not suitable for baptism, when she was named Jane Sylvia? ..... Most census she shows as Jane and appears with that name on her childrens' birth certificates. She died as Jane too.

I subscribe to the 'cock-up' theory rather than conspiracy theory. He just got it wrong, I'm sure.

I know of someone born in the early 1950's whose parents were told they couldn't have her christened Sally. They had to have her done as Sarah. She has been known as Sally all her life though.

There are no rules about which names regarding registration, so that registrar was exceeding his authority. On a lighter note, I have an ex-registrar friend. A traveller woman came to register her 7th child, Elizabeth. My friend asked 'Is that with a z or an s?' The woman looked puzzled and then said 'ELIZABETH. WITH AN E'!

Julie, my great aunt (born in 1863) was registered Lila. Just shows how little that registrar knew when recording your mother's birth! Anne

My late father-in-law was a vicar. He would never allow parents to baptise children using shortened names. He use to tell them that they could call the kid Tom, Dick or Harry if they wished but they had to use the full name so the child had the choice later. I suppose I half sympathise with his attitude. What might seem a sweet little name on a baby could be totally unsuitable for a great big adult. It's odd how people don't think through their choices of names sometimes. We knew friends called Pratt who nearly called their new baby Simon till we pointed out that he'd go through life being called Spratt. Sue

A parish priest (RC) in my home town had very definite ideas about naming children. He refused to allow Maureen and substituted Marian when my mother was baptised, her sister was baptised Katherine instead of Kathleen. When my grandfather registered the births he thought he had better stick with those names in case of later difficulties with officialdom. They have been known as Maureen and Kathleen all their lives and used those names on passports etc. so Grandad needn't have worried.

Be grateful you're not French, then! They used to (maybe still do?) have to choose from an offically approved list of names for registration. There are only about 300 names on the list....imagine researching THAT. OC

I was born in 1957, no problem with the vicar for the christening but my parents had an awful job getting my birth registered as Joseanne as they were told it wasn't a proper name. They insisted that it was as my sister who was a boarding school in Belgium had a school friend over there called Joseanne. In the end they won and I was registered as Joseanne. But wait for the funny side ....... When the girl was told I was named after her, my parents found out that her name had been shortened, her real name was Josephusann. I'm glad that wasn't known before!!!! Josie

I think the French changed that rule about ten years ago. I remember reading about one poor infant who was born on the Paris bypass and called Perepherique. (The road is La perepherique (sp).

According to my Grandma her parents wanted to call her Christine but the vicar wouldn't let them so she was Joyce instead. Switzerland also has an approved list of names and in Spain you should give your child a name according to their gender. There was talk of The Beckhams having problems with Cruz if they registered his birth through the Spanish Civil Reg system. Sounds sensible to me.

When our daughter was born in 1958 My hubby went to register her and the registrar queried her name KAREN.Asked if it was a proper name & even went and queried it to his boss before he would register it. Since then theres lots of karens of course but there werent that many then

A few years ago wasn't there a vicar that refused to allow a family to use the word 'Dad' on a gravestone?

Our local priest - RIP - refused in the 90's to baptise a child of a local catholic family ( regualr churchgoers ) as he didn't agree with the modern name they wanted............... the name escapes me now but it wasn't that unusual.................... and he won they changed the name!!! Joanne

Speaking of travellers, there was a Romany gent who went through his whole life called 'no name' Hearn, because according to the legend anyway when his parents tried to have him baptised the vicar refused to let them name him Jehova as he felt it was blasphemous. They decided if he couldn't be Jehova then he wouldn't be anything and the poor chap became 'no name'. I believe near the end of his life he got himself baptised as Edward and this is what's on his gravestone. He was killed in the 1830's with his cousin Tyso Boswell, sheltering in a barn during a storm, both were hit by the same bolt of lightening and killed outright. So much for Gypsy luck.

Thank you for your comments.It is interesting to read of your experiences. When I first received a copy of Silvey's birth certificate, I thought there had been a mis transcription of her name, - it seemed a more modern pet name- but a search on freebmd shows many more were registered with that name too. The parents could have changed their mind before her baptism too I guess. Gwyn

A friend of mine went to register her daughter as 'Mandy', but was livid when - without discussing it with the parents, the registrar actually wrote it down as 'Amanda'. When they pointed it out that it was wrong, the registrar said they were not allowed to use short forms, only full names, and the full version of 'Mandy' was 'Amanda'. My friend enquired how they could possibly tell the difference when parents of children of different nationalities came in naming their children, as often their names meant little to people of English origin, who couldn't tell if they were full length names or short forms, and that it was unfair in that instance that English names were questioned but not foreign names. The registrar was adamant, so my friend got up to leave, saying that in that case they would report it to the registrar general and not register their child's birth until such time as she could call her child what she chose. On hearing this, the registrar relented and issued 'Mandy's' birth certificate with haste! Seems to me that it can often be just a personal thing that registras don't like short form names. Very unfair to try and impose their views on others though.

That's interesting Gerry. Maybe that particular registrar was a 'Job's worth'. I have a friend with a son whose registered name is Ben, .... not Benjamin or Benedict or anything else. As far as I remember she had no problem with the name. Just what would and would not be acceptable, I wonder. We have a birth cert( 1840 ) for a Jim, which we thought unusual. Perhaps it's now down to individual registrars how carefully they stick to guide lines. Gwyn

That was definately 'jobs worth'. I have ancestors going back to the 1850s registered with the name Tom (generations of them including my brother.) My husband's grandfather was registered Fred in 1880. Anne

A friend of my mother's claimed that she had been baptised Avarilda. When the vicar said 'name this child', the father replied, We'll 'ave 'er 'Ilda. She went by the name of Hilda every afterwards. I don't know her maiden surname or I'd go looking for her. J