Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - AntonyMMM

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 ... 56
Family History Beginners Board / Re: Finding an Unknown Father
« on: Tuesday 12 June 18 12:04 BST (UK)  »
That BC tells you quite a lot.

The fact that both parents signed as informants means that they went to register the birth together, but acknowledged that they were not married to each other.

The way the mother's name is shown would certainly mean that she said she was (or had been) married to a WILLIAMS.  But more rarely it could also indicate that she just said she had changed her name from Williams to Ambrose at some point in her life.

It would be quite normal for hotel staff to "live in" so you can be fairly confident George Broomfield was working as a cook at the London Hotel, and living there.

The Perey Clifford ( probably Percy ?) is just the name of the Superintendent  Registrar who added the word "adopted" to the entry when he was notified by the court - nothing to do with any person or company who dealt with the adoption.

The Common Room / Re: Lying on your marriage certificate - 1940's
« on: Thursday 31 May 18 22:20 BST (UK)  »

You missed the beginning of that list where it says "one of the following original documents" and first on the list is a passport. The clergy guide is a slightly simplified version of the GRO manual but essentially  it doesn't really make clear the two different evidential requirements of name usage and nationality.

The person giving notice has to provide evidence of name, surname, date of birth and nationality.  A valid passport is acceptable to support all those requirements on its own and only evidence of condition & residence is then required.

However, if no passport is produced, a British birth certificate could provide evidence of nationality only (depending on when it was issued) and further evidence of name and name usage is then required.

Where non EEA citizens are involved there can also be issues of immigration status and if necessary photographs can be required and an extended notice period imposed.

In no cases however is production of a birth certificate an absolute requirement.

The Common Room / Re: Lying on your marriage certificate - 1940's
« on: Thursday 31 May 18 21:32 BST (UK)  »
Giving false information to a registrar "for insertion in a birth, death or marriage register" is a specific offence (and was in the 1940s) under s3 of the Perjury Act and the maximum sentence is 7 years imprisonment. But this applies to information that is required by law to be given and giving an age that is  a few years out, so long as it wouldn't affect the potential validity of the marriage, may not meet that test. If it does it would be at the very lowest end of the scale and very unlikely to be prosecuted and as mentioned seems to be quite a common thing to do.

Producing a birth certificate is not a requirement when giving notice to marry, and as far as I know never has been. Current processes are quite detailed and slightly different rules apply to UK, EU and Non-EU couples. Essentially, identity and current residence  have to be verified and a birth certificate may be one of a number of documents used  to help do that, but is rarely produced. The most common way is by showing a passport (which will have a date of birth)  and a combination of other documents - e.g. utility bills and bank statements, so in practice these days most ages should be pretty accurate.

Father's names are not checked against any documentary evidence,and are recorded as whatever the bride/groom says on the day - I have had a number of weddings when the bride/groom either refuses to have their father's details recorded at all (even though they are known), or are not sure of his full name or the spelling, or have no idea about his occupation and have to rush off to ask the family what to say. It is quite acceptable for the name given to be that of a biological, adoptive or step father.

I did on one occasion have a bride who had given her correct age but was substantially older than her groom, both having been married before. He knew but his family didn't and she was terrified that his grown up children, one of whom was to be a witness, were going to find out. That was avoided by me carefully sliding a piece of blotting paper over the age column during the register signing and they all went away happy.

Family History Beginners Board / Re: Finding an Unknown Father
« on: Thursday 31 May 18 12:02 BST (UK)  »
My Aunt and Uncle had a copy of his birth certificate I believe, I'm not sure if it was the full birth certificate, but I saw it a few weeks ago and if I remember correctly it just said mother: "Sybil Williams (formerly ambrose)".

You need to have another look, or order a copy yourself - the index has the name BROOMFIELD  as being on the entry somewhere.

If the couple are married ( and the informant column is what tells you that), then another option, if the mother is just shown as "WILLIAMS formerly AMBROSE"  is that the father has two surnames shown so he could be "WILLIAMS otherwise BROOMFIELD" , but the only way of knowing is to look carefully at the certificate.

Family History Beginners Board / Re: Finding an Unknown Father
« on: Thursday 31 May 18 11:30 BST (UK)  »
Robert was also registered indexed as Robert G BROOMFIELD with a mmn of Ambrose?

Which would indicate a birth registered by joint (unmarried) informants, however the inclusion of  the maiden name AMBROSE indicates a married mother (but not to the named father).

How the parents names (and those recorded as informants) are shown on the birth certificate is crucial - do you have a copy of it ?

I still cannot find a marriage between a Williams and a Ambrose,

Which you won't if the scenario above is correct.

The Common Room / Re: Liverpool assizes records
« on: Thursday 31 May 18 11:16 BST (UK)  »
If it was definitely heard at the assizes ( which suggests it was a serious assault), rather than the Liverpool Sessions then;

Assize records are held at the National Archives, Kew. But unless it was a capital case (e.g. murder)  any surviving case papers may be very limited.

You might be better looking at newspaper reports of the case, they often give much more detail than surviving court records do.

England / Re: General question re death information
« on: Monday 21 May 18 15:33 BST (UK)  »
If there was an inquest then the coroner would be the informant shown on the certificate.

The cause "coma and paralysis" could be many things - possibly a stroke ?

The Common Room / Re: Death Certificate...
« on: Monday 21 May 18 15:13 BST (UK)  »
The informant column on which document, sorry?

The birth certificates of the children - as they only have a single informant, but mother and father are both named, then you can be certain that they were claiming to be married.

The Common Room / Re: Death Certificate...
« on: Monday 21 May 18 14:51 BST (UK)  »

I know there was a stigma attached to having children out of wedlock back then but I find it rather sad that having had his two children & being involved with him from 1912 till 1927 (which is a long term relationship) she is just listed as his domestic housekeeper & a Spinster according to him...

He didn't really have much choice (other than to commit perjury). If they never married, then he wasn't a relative of hers and unless he was present at the death then "causing her body to be buried" may have been the only qualification he could fit in to be able to register the death.

The same qualification gets used today for co-habiting couples quite regularly.

If she was using his name then the names  of the father and mother on the birth certificates could be OK, but it sounds like they were falsely claiming to be married - to be sure you need to look at the informant column.

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 ... 56