Genealogy Chat
Welcome to the Genes Reunited community boards!
- The Genes Reunited community is made up of millions of people with similar interests. Discover your family history and make life long friends along the way.
- You will find a close knit but welcoming group of keen genealogists all prepared to offer advice and help to new members.
- And it's not all serious business. The boards are often a place to relax and be entertained by all kinds of subjects.
- The Genes community will go out of their way to help you, so don’t be shy about asking for help.
Quick Search
Single word search
Icons
- New posts
- No new posts
- Thread closed
- Stickied, new posts
- Stickied, no new posts
Later addition to records, legitimisation?
| Profile | Posted by | Options | Post Date |
|---|---|---|---|
|
An Olde Crone | Report | 12 Aug 2006 12:43 |
|
Graham Several possibilities but the Legitimatisation Act springs to mind. This allowed children born illegitimate to be reregistered with the father's name showing on the BC PROVIDED THAT Both partners had been free to marry (each other) at the time of the child's birth. Another possibility - the father of an illegitimate child can only be named on a cert if he is present at the Registration. This can be done retrospectively. Another possibility - legal Adoption came into force in 1927, perhaps he formally adopted the children. OC |
|||
|
Graham | Report | 12 Aug 2006 12:05 |
|
Yes, thanks for that last tip. In fact, four children who had been born over 7 years were registered under father's surname at this point, ie June 1928. But - I can't find any ref to a marriage, and wonder if anyone knows of an alternative way in which they could have changed their names. Could they have gone in for mass deed-polling? |
|||
|
Thelma | Report | 12 Aug 2006 11:17 |
|
You can test the cross reference theory. Look at the image in june qtr. 1928 under fathers surname. It could be they married prior to this event. |
|||
|
Deb | Report | 12 Aug 2006 10:28 |
|
I have a similar event but it happened in the 1940's. I will not mention any names but a family member was registered under her mothers name but when the mother married the birth was re registered under her married name......She appears twice in the index!!! I think sometime after ww2 the law changed and you could re-register a birth after marriage.... Deb |
|||
|
Glen | Report | 12 Aug 2006 10:07 |
|
In this case J is for June quarter. When an addition is made M, J, S & D with a 2 digit number are used to refer you to the original quarter & year. Glen. |
|||
|
Shirley~I,m getting the hang of it | Report | 12 Aug 2006 09:15 |
|
Its like the accounting method of adjustment. You put up a Journal voucher which is numbered sequentionally and is then filed for future ref. The same is done for changes to these records.so J28 is the Journal ref for the change made,has no other meaning. Shirley |
|||
Researching: |
|||
|
Jeannie | Report | 12 Aug 2006 07:38 |
|
Could it be January, June or July ? I have a birth cert where the surname has been definately added later, in a different pen and by a different hand ! Jeanne |
|||
|
Graham | Report | 12 Aug 2006 07:15 |
|
My mother's birth was registered under the maiden name of her mother. The parents were not married. The parents lived together for a long time and had four other children. At some later time an ink written (obviously a steel nib dipped in an inkwell) addendum was put on the bottom of the page, referring to her change of surname to the name of her father, which was the name she later went by. I am not sure however that the parents actually married. My question for the group is - if anyone can please tell me - there is a note (in handwriting) 'See J. '28'. This seems to refer to the ... authorisation of the change of surname. Can anyone tell me what J. stands for (I guess 28 means 1928. Thanks |
|||