Genealogy Chat

Eliza Garfield late Richards formerly Smith? Born Eliza Smith, first husband Mr Richards, second (current) husband Mr Garfield.

Brian regarding the 'on the authority of the Registrar General' part, i would say Nell is correct. The parent may have married after the birth or it was a late registration. I had three boys, twins 1995 and another in 1998, they was all registered under my maiden name. However when i married their father in 2002, i was by law required to re-register their births. The registrar stated it was because i had legitimised their births!!!!. So all thre boys were registered again shortly after my Marriage, on all three new certs it states 'on the authority of the Registrar General'. I did ask the registrar what would happen if the boys ever needed a copy of their certs and gave their DOB as ref. She stated that the orginal entry would refer the searcher to the later entry. But they would not be able to obtain a copy of the orginal entry as it was no longer valid. Hope that all makes sense Shelli

What about .....mother: Eliza Garfield late Richards formerly Smith? Would that mean she was married to a Richards before Garfield and her maiden name was Smith? Sorry but this one has always confused me as I can't find either of her marriages. Sylvia

Brian I googled "authority of registrar general" and birth - it appears that you can re-register a birth if the parents subsequently marry. Hope all is becoming clearer. nell

Brian from http://home*.clara*.net/dixons/Certificates/indexbd*.htm "it is possible to find a mother registered along the lines of Margaret Blinco otherwise Margaret Joel. This shows that she was using a name to which she didn't have legal entitlement e.g. she was living with someone called Blinco and using his name but was not married to him. Margaret Blinco otherwise Margaret Joel formerly Smith would show that she started life as a Smith, married and became Joel and was now living with someone and using his name." nell

A friend has a certificate with "on the authority of the Registrar General" on it. In that case the birth was registered 21 years after birth! Not sure how quickly you had to register a birth in 1950, but the wording might be because the registration was after the official limit. Brenda

Sorry, Brian, didn't mean to rush you. I do that sometimes - type the sort of heading, then go to reply to put the next bit, because otherwise it gets all jumbled up, and then people sometimes jump in before me, and I get so confused then! anyway, can't help re your puzzle, am very sorry. Hope someone can though! J

Sorry Joy, my typing isn't too fast.

On a birth certificate in my possession, the date of birth is 13th February, the mother is shown as "Violet Jane Smith formerly Jones otherwise Jones" and in the Where registered column it has "Twenty Third March 1950 on the authority of the Registrar General" (names and dates ficticiously changed by myself but wording exact). I presume the name bit means Smith is the married name and Jones the maiden name, but was she previously married coincidentally to a Jones or was she known by her maiden name? And I don't understand the "on the authority of the Registrar General" bit at all!

help! can't see it! J

See below