Author Topic: Birth registration 17 years late?  (Read 655 times)

Offline Maiden Stone

  • RootsChat Aristocrat
  • ******
  • Posts: 1,880
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Re: Birth registration 17 years late?
« Reply #9 on: Tuesday 27 November 18 15:24 GMT (UK) »
Leslie was the oldest - two daughters followed him. Found their birth registrations, no similar issues with them. 

 ??? ???

If their parents married in March 1911 they would have been legitimate.

RootsChat is the busiest, largest free family history forum site in the country. It is completely free to use. Register now.
Also register instantly with Facebook or Twitter (and other social networks). Start your genealogy search now.


Offline Paul S.

  • RootsChat Veteran
  • *****
  • Posts: 552
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Re: Birth registration 17 years late?
« Reply #10 on: Tuesday 27 November 18 15:27 GMT (UK) »
My niece registered her 2 children at birth and then again after she married in the 2000's, can't see the point myself as they were already registered in her married name, if they were a tad ashamed at the children being born out of wedlock it won't make any difference as they will have been registered twice anyway as Lisajb discovered

Louisa Maud

Re-registration of children after the marriage of the parents is a legal requirement, at least in England/Wales. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/application-to-re-register-a-childs-birth-following-marriage-of-natural-parents

RootsChat is the busiest, largest free family history forum site in the country. It is completely free to use. Register now.
Also register instantly with Facebook or Twitter (and other social networks). Start your genealogy search now.


Offline AntonyMMM

  • RootsChat Veteran
  • *****
  • Posts: 552
  • Researcher and ex Deputy Registrar
    • View Profile
Re: Birth registration 17 years late?
« Reply #11 on: Tuesday 27 November 18 15:44 GMT (UK) »
My niece registered her 2 children at birth and then again after she married in the 2000's, can't see the point myself as they were already registered in her married name

It is  a legal requirement to re-register the birth of children after the later marriage of their parents, not an option (although many don't actually bother)  - they were probably reminded by the registrar when they got married.

..The children were born and registered in the late 1920s under their mother's married surname. He married the mother in 1938, after the death of her first estranged husband. The children were then re-registered under his surname.

Children aren't registered under any surname at all before 1969 - the entries are indexed by mother or father's surname (or both) according to their marital status.



Late registrations are quite a rare thing, although they do occur - nearly all the ones I've looked at turn out to be re-registrations for one reason or another.

Offline louisa maud

  • RootsChat Marquessate
  • *******
  • Posts: 5,779
    • View Profile
Re: Birth registration 17 years late?
« Reply #12 on: Tuesday 27 November 18 15:58 GMT (UK) »
Well I have learnt something today after researching for donkeys years, I never knew  the children had to be re-registered and legitimised my nieces were registered in their mothers  marriage name (to be) anyway , if they were in her maiden name I could understand that, I also think that not many do re-register their children

Thank you for clarifying that point even though I was not the originator

Louisa Maud
Census information is Crown Copyright,
from  www.nationalarchives.gov.uk

Garner, Marylebone Paddington  Northolt Ilford
Garner, Devon
Garner New Zealand
Maddieson
Parkinson St Pancras,
Lethbridge Paddington Slough
Jenkins Marylebone Paddington
Mizon/Mison/Myson Paddington
Tindal Marylebone Paddington
Tocock, (name changed to Ellis) London
Southam Marylebone, Paddington
Bragg Lambeth 1800's
Edermaniger(Maniger) Essex Kent Canada (Toronto)
Coveney Kent Lambeth
Sondes

Offline Lisajb

  • RootsChat Veteran
  • *****
  • Posts: 744
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Re: Birth registration 17 years late?
« Reply #13 on: Tuesday 27 November 18 17:25 GMT (UK) »
I have one couple who married in their 50s, after the birth of 7 children, they donít seem to have bothered re-registering the children.
Mullingar, Westmeath Ireland: Gilligan/Wall/Meagher/Maher/Gray/O'Hara
Bristol: Woodman/James/Derrick
Bristol/Somerset: Saunders/Wilmot
Gloucestershire:Woodman/Mathews/Tandy/Stinchcombe/Marten/Thompson
Wiltshire: Mathews
Carmarthen: Thomas, Davies, Lewis, Humphreys, Williams, Jenkins

Offline iolaus

  • RootsChat Veteran
  • *****
  • Posts: 996
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Re: Birth registration 17 years late?
« Reply #14 on: Tuesday 27 November 18 20:21 GMT (UK) »
been married 17 years probably should redo the 18 year old but I don't see why, the record is true from when she was born

Offline Melbell

  • RootsChat Senior
  • ****
  • Posts: 389
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Re: Birth registration 17 years late?
« Reply #15 on: Wednesday 28 November 18 14:17 GMT (UK) »
Well I have learnt something today after researching for donkeys years, I never knew  the children had to be re-registered and legitimised my nieces were registered in their mothers  marriage name (to be) anyway , if they were in her maiden name I could understand that, I also think that not many do re-register their children

Thank you for clarifying that point even though I was not the originator

Louisa Maud

Registrars arranging a couple's marriage will advise about re-registration of children and hand out the appropriate forms, but for religious marriages this is unlikely to happen, so the procedure gets missed. 

Melbell

Offline CaroleW

  • RootsChat Marquessate
  • *******
  • Posts: 56,354
  • Barney 1993-2004
    • View Profile
Re: Birth registration 17 years late?
« Reply #16 on: Yesterday at 17:54 »
Quote
If their parents married in March 1911 they would have been legitimate.

Leslie was born 3.2.1911 as per earlier reply.  Parents marriage was in the March qtr so anytime between 1st Jan and 31st March.  If the parents only married between 4.2.1911 and 31.3.1911 then the explanations above would apply
Census Information is Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk

Offline Maiden Stone

  • RootsChat Aristocrat
  • ******
  • Posts: 1,880
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Re: Birth registration 17 years late?
« Reply #17 on: Yesterday at 18:51 »
Quote
If their parents married in March 1911 they would have been legitimate.

Leslie was born 3.2.1911 as per earlier reply.  Parents marriage was in the March qtr so anytime between 1st Jan and 31st March.  If the parents only married between 4.2.1911 and 31.3.1911 then the explanations above would apply

I meant that Leslie's younger sisters were legitimate, having been born after parents' marriage. I was referring to the girls when I wrote "they".