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
brick wall still in place
| Profile | Posted by | Options | Post Date |
|---|---|---|---|
|
Gwyn in Kent | Report | 21 Jul 2004 11:06 |
|
I'd agree with Judith, however we have several different certificates, 1830s and 1840s in an area of Sussex where the same registrar always referred to the woman's maiden name as 'late'. Very confusing. We have also a certificate where the woman is shown as formerly NAME, whereas a marriage didn't take place until after the birth. I suppose they registered the child that way to keep things respectable. |
|||
|
Judith | Report | 21 Jul 2004 10:39 |
|
Where there has been a second marriage 'formerly' on the birth certificate should still refer to the maiden name and 'late' to the previous married name, as in Joan Brown, late Smith, formerly Jones. (Unless of course whoever registers the birth doesn't give the info about previous marriage) |
|||
|
Unknown | Report | 21 Jul 2004 09:52 |
|
Formerly is not necessarily the maiden name. It is the name she had before the marriage. So Joan Jones marries Fred Smith. If they have children it will say Joan Smith formerly Jones. But if Fred Smith drops dead and Joan remarries, to someone called Tom Brown, then if they have kids the cert will say Joan Brown, formerly Smith. Helen |
|||
|
Seasons | Report | 21 Jul 2004 08:41 |
|
I have the same problem for 1901. On 1901 birth certificate have parents names and mothers name formerly. Although I can find them in 1901 census as married I can't find a marriage for them. I have the father in 1881 census living at home in Oldham with parents and brother but nothing in 1891 census for either of them. Family story is that the mother died when baby was toddler but now can't find a death either. Think she beamed in - had a baby and departed?????!!!!!!!! |
|||
|
Crista | Report | 21 Jul 2004 05:18 |
|
Ann, Formerly refers to her maiden name. Have you found William on the 1901 census? Was he married then? If you know which parish the children were born in you can order these at you local LDS centre. Crista |
|||
|
Annabel | Report | 21 Jul 2004 03:24 |
|
Rec some certs today but no farther foward, on a birth cert of 1916 does formerly for the mothers name mean her maiden name?. I can not trace her marriage, on the cert it says father WILLIAM NEW mother MARY NEW formerly POTTER. Also still can not trace the older children, is there any where in wiltshire I can check birth records for 1903- 1911 have tried all ways you name it I feel like giving up but my husband would like to know its driving us mad ANN |
|||
Researching: |
|||