Genealogy Chat

I am in receipt of a Birth Certificate for an illegitimate child born in 1880 in Ely. I was really surprised to see a father's name on the certificate; however the Registrar has put a thin line through both the first name and surname of the father but the name can still be clearly seen.

The Registrar has put the number 19 against the first name and 20 against the surname. On the left hand side of the certificate the Registrar has written the words Nineteen and Twenty and then placed his initials. Now I realise that he has done this to show that it was he that had made the amendment.

But why would the Registrar make this amendment?

Has anyone come across anything similar?

Thanks in advance

I had something very similar when I was having to do some research for probate following a family death.

It indicates that the mother named the father who was not present and as they were not married could not be named. ( Because it was for probate I rang the local registry office to confirm it - the numbers have no specific relevance.)

Mine went a little further as the Registrar started writing the mothers surname to match the father.

That's interesting nameslessone! I thought if it had been error the Registrar would have made sure that the father's name could not be read at all but it was still clear for everyone to see!

I would have thought that arguments over tampering would occur if the names were completely blacked out.
In my case the parents actually married some time later - but being able to see the fathers name is great news for some.

Yes, the mother must have given the father's name before the registrar realised that they were not married and he could not be named on the certificate if he was not present.

The numbers next to the crossing out and in the margin refer to mistakes or amendments which are then put into a separate book or log with these numbers against them. It means that these were number 19 and 20 in a given period.

I don't suppose that when the registrar made this amendment in 1880 anyone thought that someone would still be looking at this more than 130 years later!!

I really wish the same thing had happened with my grandmother's birth certificate. She was illegitimate with no possibility of us knowing who her father was so it's a bonus for you really.

Kath. x

Thanks, Kath. Yes, when I saw the Certificate I just said to myself "well I never!" I really didn't expect to see anything for the father such a surprise!

Thanks for clarifying the amendment....that's great!

I suppose it could be the other way round. The unwed mother rego'ed the birth alone, so the registrar put a line thru the father's name box, as he's supposed to do, and then the mum persuaded the dad to add his name, so they came in together to amend the cert. Forms were made available at some point to facilitate this name-adding for remotely located dads.

Good point, mgnv. Suppose really we'd need to see that book/log that Kath refers to see why the amendment was made.

Thanks for your feedback....

Who signed as informant, Did both mum and dad sign as informant?

(1) Where the parents were married to one another, fathers details must be entered in the register and only one parent will sign the register (or some other informant)

(2) Where the parents were not married to one another there will be blanks in Column 4 (fathers name) and Column 6 (his occupation).

This situation lasted until the Registration Act of 1875 where the instruction read "The putative father of an illegitimate child cannot be required as father to give information respecting the birth. The name, surname and occupation of the putative father of an illegitimate child must not be entered except at the joint request of the father and mother; in which case both the father and mother must sign the entry as informants". There are therefore 3 kinds of entry after this Act:



(3) Where the parents are not married to one another but both attended the register office together, fathers details are entered in Column 4 and Column 6 and both parents sign. Looked at a different way - if both parents have signed in Column 7 regardless of what names they are using then the parents were not married to one another at the time of the birth of the child.

This situation lasted until 1953 when the same 3 entries could still be made but there were other ways in which father when not married to mother could be included in the entry without being present to sign but I don't think this later period will be of interest to most family historians so I haven't included it. If a mother was widowed before the birth of her legitimate baby the entry will show (deceased) after fathers name


From http://www.dixons.clara.co.uk/Certificates/births.htm#COL4

Roy

Many thanks for that info, Roy

The strange thing is that only the mother has signed as the informant in Column 7.

The father's name, which is crossed out, is in Column 4 and Column 6 is blank.

Anything Baptism wise?, see some interesting things written sometimes!.

Chris :)

I've looked on FreeReg but nothing there :-(

What was the name?...

Chris :)

Her name was Charlotte Cross born 12 May 1880 Ely, Cambs., Chris

Cambridgeshire Baptism Index has an entry, 1880 Charlotte Cross Ely. Holy Trinity.

(looking on FMP to get the Parish details, but not there)

Sorry about that.

Chris :)

Thanks for trying, Chris

Could I be cheeky and ask if you can find Herbert Cross in 1884 again Ely. There are two registered that year but don't want to send off for the wrong Birth Certificate.

Thanks in advance

Baptisms. One in 1883, Ely St. Mary, Other 1884, Ely Holy Trinity.

(FMP hasn't got this far yet, don't think!)

Chris :)


Births Mar 1884 (>99%)
--------------------------------------
Cross Herbert Ely 3b 565


Births Dec 1884 (>99%)
---------------------------------------
Cross Herbert Ely 3b 559

I thought the birth registered in Mar 1884 might have been born in 1883; that could help in narrowing down which one it is!

Thanks for trying Chris, much appreciated

1891
VAUGHAN, Aaron Head Married M 38 1853 Farm Laborer
Ely, Cambridgeshire
VAUGHAN, Mary J Wife Married F 31 1860
Ely, Cambridgeshire
VAUGHAN, Charlotte Daughter F 10 1881 Scholar
Ely, Cambridgeshire
VAUGHAN, Herbert Son M 6 1885 Scholar
Ely, Cambridgeshire
CROSS, William Nephew M 5 1886 Scholar
Ely, Cambridgeshire
Piece: 1298
Folio: 45
Page: 18
Registration District: Ely
Civil Parish: Holy Trinity
Municipal Borough:
Address: Springhead Lane, Holy Trinity, Ely
County: Cambridgeshire


Marriages Dec 1884 (>99%)
----------------------------------------------
Cross Mary Jane Ely 3b 1148
VAUGHAN Aaron Ely 3b 1148

1891
CROSS, George Head Married M 38 1853 Agricultural Labourer
Ely, Cambridgeshire
CROSS, Mary Wife Married F 33 1858
Soham, Cambridgeshire
CROSS, Arthur Son Single M 12 1879 Scholar
Ely, Cambridgeshire
CROSS, Hannah Daughter Single F 10 1881 Scholar
Ely, Cambridgeshire
CROSS, Herbert Son Single M 8 1883 Scholar
Ely, Cambridgeshire
CROSS, Emily Daughter Single F 5 1886 Scholar
Ely, Cambridgeshire
CROSS, Leonard J Son M 2 1889
Ely, Cambridgeshire
OKEY, Thomas Father In Law Widower M 77 1814
Ely, Cambridgeshire
Piece: 1298
Folio: 143
Page: 31
Registration District: Ely
Civil Parish: Ely St Mary
Municipal Borough:
Address: Cow Lane, Ely St Mary, Ely
County: Cambridgeshire

1901
VAUGHAN, Aaron Head Married M 49 1852 Bricklayers Labourer
Ely, Cambridgeshire
VAUGHAN, Mary J Wife Married F 43 1858
Ely, Cambridgeshire
CROSS, Herbert Son M 16 1885 Farm Labourer
Ely, Cambridgeshire
VAUGHAN, Bertha A A Daughter F 8 1893
Ely, Cambridgeshire
VAUGHAN, John Son M 6 1895
Ely, Cambridgeshire
Piece: 1545
Folio: 43
Page: 18
Registration District: Ely
Civil Parish: Ely Trinity (Isle of Ely)
Municipal Borough:
Address: Spring Head Lane, Ely Trinity (Isle Of Ely), The City Of Ely
County: Cambridgeshire

(either of above?)

Chris :)

When I rang the registry Office ( see 4th 14.55) the person on the other end did not need to look at their records - my description of the certificate meant she knew exactly what had happened

Mother asked for fathers name - gave it. Registrar assumed they were married and started to write the mothers surname same as father - obviously mother then pointed out hers was different as they weren't married so he ruled out the fathers name and the mistake on the mothers name .

I couldn't remember the significance of the numbers but Kathleen Bells comments sound familiar. It won't help Londonbelle at all to see the Registrars notebook - it is just an 'accounting' number.

The mother in Londonbelles case told the truth about the fathers name before stating they were not married OR she named an innocent party before stating they were not married - take your choice. I'd just be grateful a father was named.