Birth registration 17 years late?

[Lisajb]

I have found a birth registration which is of interest to me, but I am rather puzzled by it.

Free BMD shows it as a birth March 1911, for Leslie Stinchcombe, Chipping Sodbury district, Vol. 6A, but under page number it says Sep’28. There is no image I can look at, but clicking on info brings up a message

“This entry appears to be a late entry referring to the following
Births 1928 Sep: Stinchcombe.Leslie.Watts.Chipping S 6a 371”

There is an image available from that, and the entry is handwritten. I just don’t know what to make of it, I’ve never seem anything like it before. A very very late or reregistration for some reason? MMN in the entry is Watts, which is what I was looking for.

Thanks
Lisa

[AntonyMMM]

Not late ... it will be a birth in 1911 and a re-registration after the parents later married, which became possible after the Legitimacy Act of 1926.

There will be a separate entry in the 1928 index.

[Gadget]

This happened with the children of a great uncle of mine.  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.

Gadget

[Lisajb]

Parents married on 18th March 1911. According to the 1939 Register, Leslie’s birthdate was 3rd Feb 1911 (he’s living in Weston super Mare and working as a mechanic.)

[iolaus]

It may be that they only realised at that point that they needed to reregister to legitamise him, or he wanted to do something and needed a copy of his birth certificate so they finally got round to it

[CarolA3]

I have one entered in exactly the same way as Lisajb's original query; birth D/1920, registered J/1939.

The parents married in 1916.  Sons were born in 1918 and 1919, and both were registered in the usual way.

Daughter was born in November 1920 - but not registered until J/1939.  I knew all three children and was shown the daughter's birth certificate after she died.  The Registrar General had authorised the late registration.

There's no question of illegitimacy or re-marriage in this case, but there's no-one left to ask.  I suspect the parents simply didn't think of it until the daughter started work or needed a passport.

Maybe the Stinchcombes were equally forgetful

Carol

[Lisajb]

Leslie was the oldest - two daughters followed him. Found their birth registrations, no similar issues with them. 

 

[louisa maud]

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

[CarolA3]

Parents married on 18th March 1911. According to the 1939 Register, Leslie’s birthdate was 3rd Feb 1911

There's a FreeBMD birth entry for Leslie WATTS, M/1911, Chipping Sodbury, vol 6a, page 221 (I've checked image of GRO index page via FreeBMD).  Before 1912, mmn was not shown on this index.

GRO website has the same entry with mmn shown as a dash (-), usually suggesting illegitimacy.  Page number is 220 which I've reported as a possible error.

It looks like Leslie was born before the marriage, so had to be registered as WATTS, and couldn't become a STINCHCOMBE officially until the law changed in 1928.  And my earlier example wasn't relevant at all

Carol