Genealogy Chat

Bear with me.....typing below......

I am very confused. I ordered a certificate for my partners illegitimate grandfather, Thomas Farnsworth who was born in 1922 in Rotherham. I have the mother, Muriel Farnsworth, marrying a Stenton Atkinson in Jan 1923. The certificate the GRO have sent me is the right man but down as Thomas Atkinson with father named as Stenton Atkinson! Birth is Sep 1922 but registered by Muriel Atkinson nee Farnsworth in 1928!! Very confusing. But today, have received the certificate i actually ordered, the child born Sep 1922 and reg sep 1922 by Muriel Farnsworth no father listed. Please can someone shed any light onto this for me? Claire x

Maybe they registered him because the father officially adopted him?

Would adopting a child automatically mean they are reregistered in the indexes? How did the GRO know to send me the other certificate when i ordered the original one and then send me the original one? When did adoption become legal? I am very confused by this. Regards, Claire

Can't help with the registration mystery, but adoption was made legally possible in 1927. nell

I'm not sure, but I think you can re-register a child if you want to add a father's name at a later date, or if a woman has a child when she is married and at first gives the child her husbands name, then leaves him to live with the father, I think the child can be re-registered. In this case I think there are sometimes two page numbers on the registration details. Perhaps the GRO just automatically send out both certificates, but I'd be surprised if they do this without charging twice. Kath. x

It's possible that she re-registered him under the Atkinson surname, but the reference would be under both Atkinson and Farnsworth. I know this could be done from about the 1960s onwards, might well account for it... maybe they've always been able to do it!?! Trying looking for Thomas Atkinson under the same qtr etc and see if there is a reference that is the same for the Thomas Farnsworth.

As Muriel married only 4 months after the birth, it is quite likely that Stenton was in fact the father but being unmarried Muriel would not be able to name him as such unless he was present at the registration. One can only guess as to why there was a later registration without the child having the 'father's' surname.

Hi all, I have looked for a birth of Thomas Atkinson under the same years but nothing, only the Farnsworth registration. According to details Thomas left behind, Stenton is not his real father, he took him on when he married Muriel, apparantly Stenton had been married before and his wife had died and left him with one son. But, the details also said that Muriel was in a workhouse for 6 years with Thomas before she met and married Stenton, well i dont know about the workhouse but it was 5 months later she married Stenton! The address of birth is 42 Alma Street in Rotherham, i am sure that is a workhouse. But, on the original Farnsworth one, it says Muriel Farnsworth, Domestic Service 98 St Johns Road? It says she is the informant living at Alma Road. But on the marriage cert she gives St Johns Road as her place of residence?? I am very confused. I think the GRO sent the original as i phoned them to say not received the first certificate and then got home to find the Stenton one had come and then yesterday, this one comes! Regards, Claire