Genealogy Chat

Cathy Might it be worth you contacting the registrars office and asking for the details relating to the original reference you gave them? It may be theres a cross reference in theie books saying the registration was re-done in 1940 and they automatically send out that certificate. They should still have the original info though Zoe

Hi...have you seen the earlier thread "late and formerly"?...Robert Clayton gives a good explanation as to what otherwise and formerly mean. Dierdre X

hi cathy maybe the formerly is her maiden name, the otherwise was a first marriage, i wasn't married when my first child was born, but i was using his name, my childs birth cert. has my maiden name (first) and also known as my married name (second) penny

Have now found marriage in 1939! Thanks for help. The otherwise surname is on the index, so now I am wondering why there was a formerly surname on her childs birth cert. I'll send for the marriage cert now. Cathy.

I was born in a colony and had a local birth certificate; when my brother was born 2 yrs later my father discovered he was now able to register his English children in England swhereas he couldn't before because the law was different, so I got another birth certificate, dated 2 1/2 yrs after my birth. This is the one I produce when required and it always causes comment! Maybe this is what happened to your rellies?

Thanks for your replies. Amanda - Thanks for your offer. I found this one on 1837 and applied to GRO with the index reference for the year of birth 1937. The certificate they sent was the 1940 one. The pink order sheet has my index reference number crossed out and the one for 1940 put in its place. The baby was given the Father's surname in 1937 as it is on the index with the Father's surname. It doesn't say re-registered. Deidre - I think your explanation is very possible. I haven't found a marriage before 1937 so perhaps I should look between 1937 and 1940 for it. Cathy:)

It may be possible that the parents were not married when the birth occured, in which case the child would have been registered, but technically illegitimate. The birth could have been re-registered in 1940 because that is when the birth parents married. My husband and I did not marry until some months after the birth of our first child, and applied to the Registrar General for a new birth certificate. The wording on it is exactly as you describe. Dierdre X

My mums half sister was registered with one name (Anne Marie) and then called another (Janine). On her marriage cert it says Janine otherwise Anne Marie. She is still known as Janine (except she isn't cos I made the names up but you know what I mean!)

Forgot to mention that I found this birth on the index in 1937 not 1940. Also the mother's surname is the same as the Father's then it says Formerly another surname and then otherwise and another surname. Have seen formerly and the maiden name before but never seen the otherwise bit.

I have a birth certificate (arrived today) for a birth that took place in 1937. The birth wasn't registered until 22nd April 1940 by Mr X Xxx (Father) as per declaration dated 20th April 1940. It also says, under the when registered section, on the authority of the Registrar General. My first thought is adoption but as far as we know the parents on the cert are the birth parents. Any clues please, Cathy.