Genealogy Chat

*I've updated this to say that I've ordered the marriage certificate for Henry Rolfe and Emma Jones so I'll let you know what I can gather from that* Me again - Yes, I do have Ethel Rolfe's marriage certificate to Alfred Hayden in 1908. They were married on Dec 27 1908 and her age is given as 24 (which suggests a birth year of 1884). The enumerator books for the 1891 census gives Ethel's age as 7 (birth date of 1884) and the 1901 census gives her age as 17 (birth date of 1884). I have the birth certificate of Ethel's sister, Florence, who was born in 1891, mother 'Emma Rolfe, formerly Jones', although the first recorded child of the marriage itself was Henry Charles Rolfe, born in 1889. So I have a gap of some years between Ethel being born in 1884 and the next surviving child, Henry, born in 1889. In-between those two dates Henry Rolfe married Emma Jones, in 1886. Now there IS another Henry James Rolfe, who got married to either a Jane or a Rose (according to FreeBMD) in St Olave, Southwark in June, July, Sep 1884. But I've been through the death index for England and Wales for between 1884 and 1886 and can find no record of anyone dying called Jane or Rose Rolfe (or Rolf) who would be of the correct age. I think I'll have to order the marriage of Henry James Rolfe and Emma Jones, just to see if it states if Henry James was a widower at the time. London ancestors are such a nightmare!!! All my dad's family lived in London at some point in the 19th century (some came across from Ireland in the late 1830s, just to make things more complicated) and trying to find them has been absolute hell. Anyway, thanks for the feedback. It's helped suggest a way forward from here if nothing else! Richard

Ricahrd, Are you certain that Ethel Letitia Rolfe is the daughter of Henry James Rolfe and Emma Jones? Could Henry have been married before, and Ethel is the child of that first marriage??

James, I don't know if it's always been so but it's currently free to register a birth. The thing that costs is the full standard birth certificate, which you don't have to buy if you don't want to. It's a copy of the complete register entry. At the moment, you get the short birth certificate free of charge but it only has the baby's full name, DOB, sex and where born (for my local area, only the county) and is not valid for passport applications. You can also pay for further short copies but as they're the same price as the standard ones, it seems like a waste of money to me! Jack

Well I dont know what date the content of a birth certificate changed to include name and surname....BUT it makes no difference the entry would still be included under mothers maiden name, father names (if added) and given name.

I cannot find my mothers or father birth certificates after searching through the indexs at FRC london and presumed that the cost at the time was too much so they did not bother registering them James

No, my birth cert definitely states 'Jacqueline' and 'female' and as far as I know, my dad was virtually teetotal in those days, so not under the influence when he went to register me LOL! Jack

Digressing even further, Jack is a she, not a he!! And yet further, I did hear an interesting story the other day about birth registration where the registrar entered the wrong sex for a child because the father was the informant and had been wetting the baby's head and lost it temporarily. Nobody noticed until the baby was much older and had to undergo a medical examination to determine he was in fact male before he was able to marry!

jack sprat does bring male to mind...even I thought you was male

Hi OC yes they do, but things havent changes it just an additional entry. As I said my daughter has three entries one for my name (maiden name) one for husbands name (we wasnt married) and then a year later there is another entry where I re-registered her when we got married (the registrar told us we could re-register her).....So she has 3 seperate entries. My other daughter several years later has 2 entries, I take it one for my maiden and another married....But I was married and had been for several years.

Right - Jack has pm'd me and it seems that modern certs DO include a surname. Hopefully he will return to this thread and tell us when things changed - I am interested to know these things, lol. All my certs are historic ones, and my daughters have taken their BCs with them, so I cannot narrow the dates down. Sorry Richard - we are digressing. OC

Ok,,,I have had a look at one of my daughters birth certificates that 1995. It does state under section 2, Name and surname. However like OC said it is registered under both names if the parents are unmarried. So...if for whatever wierd reason I choose to name my child Donald Duck then they would be entered under Donald Duck and Donald Duck Smith and Donald Duck Jones....all holding the same reference. ???

not sure if this will help, bu I recently solved a longstanding problem with a birth certificate: I couldn't find a John Donaldson Penman anywhere; turns out that in the registers and on the subsequent certificate he is just listed as 'male', his christian names were given AFTER registration; it is definitely the correct one as the parents match; Any comments?

Jack Not trying to be argumentative, but MY birth certificate does not have a surname entered against my forenames. My forenames are entered in column 2. Column three remarks that I am a girl.Column 4 states mt father's name. My parents were well married by the time I arrived. In fact, just flicking through other birth certs from 1840 onwards - no surname given for any child, whether or not the parents were married. OC

Currently, the birth register, which is the legal document, states the child's full name e.g. Donald Duck SMITH, with the surname in capitals, hand-written by the registrar. The birth certificate has the same info printed out by computer. The surname does not have to be the same as that of either parent, although it usually is and quite often now is both, hyphenated.

Jack , my first born has three entrys (shh wasnt married) one under my maiden name and another under married name....and if I remember correctly I went back down the following year after her birth and I married her dad and re-registered her. So if you look at the index's now she has 3 entries.

One of the first things the registrar asks nowadays after the date & place of birth have been ascertained is, 'What is the full name that the child will be known by and using?', so I'm a bit puzzled, Judith, when you say the informant doesn't give a surname and none is entered in the birth register. Jack

Jack If you look at any full birth certificate, there is no space for the child's surname. Surnames are 'inferred' either as the father's surname if the couple are married, or the mother's if they are not, but there is no legal requirement for the child to use either name. I think the current Registration question 'and what surname will the child be known by' is to make things easier for the Registrar - but there will still be two entries in the index. OC

lol, have you heard what they call some little mite's these days....apple, forest and all sorts...not that im not keen on unusual names because I have one myself

'Donald Duck Smith' LOL And the child would get very funny looks at school :-)

'A child can take whatever surname the informant wishes' No! Actually the informant does not give a surname for the child and none is recorded on the register, just the child's christian names and the full names of parents. The index then lists the child under the father's surname if parents married, under both if unmarried but both named, and under mother's surname if no father named.