Merry
23-06-23, 08:36
A unmarried woman has a child in the 1920s and registers the birth herself within the 6 week time frame allowed. Let's say her maiden name is Sarah Smith and the father of her child is John Jones.
At the registrar's she says she is married and that she and her husband are Sarah and John Smith (so she gives her partner her own maiden surname!). Then she is faced with being asked her maiden surname but she's already used that, so she brings up another name (don't know where from) and says her maiden name is, let say, Taylor.
This entry appears in the Ancestry/FMP/FreeBMD GRO index looking just like any normal birth reg for the child of a married couple.
On the gov GRO index however, this entry says Occasional Copy: A after it and there is no mmn at all (ie no Taylor and no dash either)
In 1990 the person researching buys a copy of this cert from the GRO. I have seen it and it is Smith/Taylor as described above. At the side of the entry there's a note from the registrar saying the entry is false and that a re-registration has taken place along with the date of the re-registration. This date is in the next Q to the original registration.
Inexplicably, the researcher didn't think it was a good idea to buy the other copy. He has spent since 1990 believing the fake maiden name on the cert in his possession to be the birth name of the mother of the child.
In the gov index the replacement cert (one Q after the original) looks exactly like an illegitimate registration with surname Smith and mmn - (dash). I'm imagining on this cert there will be no mention of the father and the mother will be shown as a single woman with her correct maiden surname. Obviously I'm going to be suggesting this cert is purchased, but I have two questions:
1) Do you think the above makes sense as a scenario?
2) Shouldn't the new cert have replaced the old one? Should the application for a cert in 1990 have caused only the illegitimate entry to be posted out? Has the GRO 'system' failed, or is it normal for the uncorrected entry to be issued?
Oh, that's a lot more than two questions!!
At the registrar's she says she is married and that she and her husband are Sarah and John Smith (so she gives her partner her own maiden surname!). Then she is faced with being asked her maiden surname but she's already used that, so she brings up another name (don't know where from) and says her maiden name is, let say, Taylor.
This entry appears in the Ancestry/FMP/FreeBMD GRO index looking just like any normal birth reg for the child of a married couple.
On the gov GRO index however, this entry says Occasional Copy: A after it and there is no mmn at all (ie no Taylor and no dash either)
In 1990 the person researching buys a copy of this cert from the GRO. I have seen it and it is Smith/Taylor as described above. At the side of the entry there's a note from the registrar saying the entry is false and that a re-registration has taken place along with the date of the re-registration. This date is in the next Q to the original registration.
Inexplicably, the researcher didn't think it was a good idea to buy the other copy. He has spent since 1990 believing the fake maiden name on the cert in his possession to be the birth name of the mother of the child.
In the gov index the replacement cert (one Q after the original) looks exactly like an illegitimate registration with surname Smith and mmn - (dash). I'm imagining on this cert there will be no mention of the father and the mother will be shown as a single woman with her correct maiden surname. Obviously I'm going to be suggesting this cert is purchased, but I have two questions:
1) Do you think the above makes sense as a scenario?
2) Shouldn't the new cert have replaced the old one? Should the application for a cert in 1990 have caused only the illegitimate entry to be posted out? Has the GRO 'system' failed, or is it normal for the uncorrected entry to be issued?
Oh, that's a lot more than two questions!!