Mystery - Why would a birth be registered 3 years after actual birth date?

[Jay1001]

I have already posted on Genes Reunited – but still struggling to find an answer
Hi
I don't know if anyone can help me solve this mystery for me - might be a very simple explanation but it does seem strange to me.

My father was born June 1913 but was not registered until May 1916 (quoted on Birth Certificate - on the Authority of the Registrar General). At the time of registration my Grandfather was serving as a Private in 2nd 5th North Stafford Regiment.

Was there no time frame for births to be registered? Could it be something to do with serving soldiers and next of kin issues?

There is some talk that Grandfather had extra marital affairs and a possible child outside of his marriage - could he have left the marriage and not registered the child until he 'had to'?

Any help would be appreciated.
Kind Regards Jay1001

Replies already received can be seen at

http://www.GenesReunited.co.uk/GenesReunited.asp?wci=ThreadedBoard&bb_type=G&bb_orig_key=8591228&yourthreads=1

[Gardener]

It does sound as though his birth was not originally registered for whatever reason and then when the Army needed documentation (for family entitlements of some sort) his birth was registered late.
If you could look at the baptism which you mention it should at least confirm he was born by then 
I don't know why his birth was not registered at the right time. Perhaps some family row going on and no-one got around to it?

[trish251]

Hi Jay  - welcome to RootsChat     

I know in Australia, the number of children was specified on some forms on joining the Army - it could well be that the allotment was higher for a man with children - it may have been found that the child was never registered - hence the late record. If you post a query on the armed services board
http://www.rootschat.com/forum/index.php/board,300.0.html
someone there would know if army pay was impacted by the number of dependants.

Trish