Birth Registration Query - Supplementary pages?

[AngelaR]

I'm hoping one of you experts will know about this.

I was looking for the birth registration for Freda M M Rogers, born November 1903 and found it in FreeBMD with question marks on it. Looking at the original index page, this entry had been added in by hand at the bottom with a reference "E Glamorgan 11A see S/52"

East Glamorgan didn't exist as a registration district until 1935. Can someone with experience of this sort of thing point me in the right direction, please? I sort of assumed that S/52 might be some sort of supplementary pages but I could be completely wrong of course 

Many thanks for struggling this far!
Angela

(PS I looked in the new GRO index and it isn't there at all. It should have been registered under Merthyr Tydfil)

[rosie99]

S/52 probably relates to an amendment September 1952

Maybe re-registered...
Births Sep qtr 1952 
Rogers    Freda M M   mmn Pile   
E.Glamorgan    8b   395

It looks as though the birth was not registered in 1903.  Presumably a birth certificate was needed for some reason c1952 and it was issued then

[AngelaR]

That's very interesting, Rosie - thank you so much - I've never seen that before! And so long after the birth too.

That's the girl - right mother's maiden name and everything...

What on earth would induce someone to register a birth 50 years on?

[rosie99]

She needed a passport 

I think that she sailed on the Franconia to New York in December 1952 with husband William Preece

[AntonyMMM]

Most entries like these are re-registrations, and you would expect to find an original registration in the correct birth quarter, usually in the mother's name (as unmarried). The handwritten entry in the index is just a pointer to the registration done in 1952.

I can't see a 1903 entry that matches in this case, so it may just be a late registration, and no registration was ever done at the time of the birth.

You would need to get  a certificate from the 1952 entry to see what it actually says, but it looks like Rosie99 has found the probable reason things needed to be sorted out.

[AngelaR]

Thank you Antony and thanks again Rosie!

It's very useful to know this sort of thing. The girl was legitimate as far as I can tell (and I share DNA with a descendent so that fits) It's particularly useful to know that, in this context S/52 means SEP 1952 and I shall go back and have a look at a few other handwritten entries I've found before to see if it clarifies things.

I'm sure the guess about the passport is right too - the family is still in the States.

It's very kind of you both to share your expertise - very much appreciated!

[groom]

What an interesting post.

Antony - how hard would it be for her to get her birth registered? I presume she would have needed some sort of proof as to when she was born?

[AntonyMMM]

Antony - how hard would it be for her to get her birth registered? I presume she would have needed some sort of proof as to when she was born?

Almost impossible that she could have registered her own birth - it would need a "qualified informant", usually a parent, to make an application. A file, with any supporting evidence, would have been sent to the Registrar General for the necessary authority to be given. Some of those files can be found in the RG48 series at The National Archives.

A late registration is most likely for this case, but there are always other potential explanations - essential to get a certificate.