Tracing a birth with just the father's name

[sorrilsain]

Hi

I have been researching my family tree for about seven years. For the most part I have quite a comprehensive tree now. I have, however, hit the obligatory brick walls with some ancestors - and I hope that in time, with a little inspiration, I might surmount these dead ends.

I am wondering if anyone can tell me if there is any precedent for requesting to view the registrar's actual register of births. I ask this question because I know that my Grandfather had an extra marital relationship in WWII and fathered a child. No-one in the family can remember his lady friend's surname - and there's the rub... how do I search for the birth. However, I have been informed that he registered the birth so I'm sure he is listed as the father.

I am sure I have read somewhere that we can request to view the actual register (Halsbury's Law paragraph 505 note 4) - however, the relevant office say I can only do a general search of the indexes. Any advice please!

[Merry]

Welcome to the forum, sorrilsain :)

I don't have time to answer now as am just off out of the door, but I'm sure someone will come to your rescue shortly! I just thought I'd say welcome in the mean time :)

[Phoenix]

If you think he registered the birth, the child might be registered under two surnames - ie as illegititmate under mmn and as if legitimate.

Provided the surname isn't Smith! you could search Ancestry births for the relevant period, using your grandfather's surname, then search under the mmn for illegitimate entries.

[Nell]

Hmm. Do you know the sex of the child or which area s/he was born? If your grandfather registered the birth but wasn't married to the mother they would both have had to attend the register office together. If she was a married woman she might have passed the child off as hers, or they may have invented a surname for respectablility and pretended to be married.

On the other hand, if they were straight-forward about it, Phoenix's suggestion might help you find the answer.

[MargaretMarch]

I would be interested to know if it is possible to search the registers rather than the indexes. I have seen them do it on the Heir Hunters programme so it does seem that it can be allowed.
Margaret

[MargaretMarch]

Here's an extract of the relevant regulation
Searches at a registrar’s office.
Every registrar must, at any time when his office is required to be open for the transaction of public business, allow searches to be made in any register of live births or deaths and register of marriages in his keeping and must on payment of the proper fee give a certified copy under his hand of any entry in them. The right of the public to search the registers of births and deaths cannot be taken away by the Registrar General under his power to make regulations.
Seems clear that the public can make a search so I'd go armed with this info and demand rthe right to search.
Margaret

[JBee]

I think actually viewing the register is a rare occurrence for the extremely lucky/influential - otherwise they would be inundated with requests.

I would also think that they wouldn't be too happy to help if you're looking for the result of a out of marriage relationship.

That would be interesting if the Registrar adhered to the above regulation (wouldn't be surprised if they had another to counter it).

[MargaretMarch]

I don't suppose they make it easy but I'm not sure they would necessarily be inundated as it's much easier now to search the digitised index than physically go to a particular office and spend possibly an hour or two leafing through a register.
I'd be interested to know how Sorrilsain gets on with a challenge.
Margaret

[Uncle John]

I remember on Heir Hunters one of the Fraser & Fraser folk spent hours going through registers in a RO. It helped that he had previously worked as a registrar.

[Kit]

You can search the registers.

Guy on FTF has done it and can quote the law backwards. The ROs may not want to let you but legally they have to. There is supposed to be a small fee attached to this but I don't know if Guy has been charged it.

I would think you have to make an appointment and it would be best to take a copy of the legislation with you to assert your right.

Last time I heard of Guy going to search a register they were bloody minded and wouldn't let him touch the register, meaning someone had to sit with him and turn the pages when he was ready.

[Merry]

Guy on FTF has done it and can quote the law backwards.

lol! I think forwards would be sufficient :D

I know about ten to fifteen years ago Southampton Reg Office charges £19 to do this and you were allowed a set legth of time, which I've forgotten!

[maggie_4_7]

I would also think that they wouldn't be too happy to help if you're looking for the result of a out of marriage relationship.


Why what difference would that make?

[maggie_4_7]

If you think he registered the birth, the child might be registered under two surnames - ie as illegititmate under mmn and as if legitimate.

Provided the surname isn't Smith! you could search Ancestry births for the relevant period, using your grandfather's surname, then search under the mmn for illegitimate entries.

sorrilsain doesn't have the MMN though thats the problem.

[kiterunner]

I think what Phoenix meant was, search using the father's surname, and if you find a likely entry, then take the MMN from that entry and search again using that as the surname and see if there is a corresponding entry, i.e. the child was indexed under both surnames.

[JBee]

That's really interesting. I'd always wished the english system was like the scottish one where you could see the images from the registers and be able to search.

I should ask Guy what his experience was.

It might be that if you approach the Registrar nicely that they would do the search for you for a fee - that is if you know the rough date and register office involved. (though they might say they couldn't find anything as there's a good chance the father's name isn't registered).

[Olde Crone]

I too feel that the Registrar would be obstructive in this kind of search, which might be seen by some to be "sensitive" information, that is, looking for evidence of an extra marital relationship, so it might be better to keep the purpose of your search rather vague, in case they play the Data Protection card.

You can certainly search the registers in my local office, at a search fee of £28 per hour, and in the presence of the Registrar AND at her convenience. You can also pay for a search, but with such vague information you aren't going to get value for money!

OC

[Phoenix]

I think what Phoenix meant was, search using the father's surname, and if you find a likely entry, then take the MMN from that entry and search again using that as the surname and see if there is a corresponding entry, i.e. the child was indexed under both surnames.

Thank for explaining my thoughts more lucidly, Kite!

I've used the method the other way round, to put illegitimate children into family groupings.

[Kit]

The prices you are quoting are far higher than what Guy has said. It's trivial from memory although I can't remember the amount.

As for what you want there is no reason to tell the Registrar anything other than you want to look at the registers under the applicable legislation.

[Olde Crone]

Kit

The fees are as quotd on the various websites.

There doesn't appear to be any consistency. Some local ROs state that you cannot search the registers yourself, others don't exactly say you CAN, but they give research fees and instructions about making an appointment. The research fees are high enough to put off the nosey parkers.

OC

[maggie_4_7]

I think what Phoenix meant was, search using the father's surname, and if you find a likely entry, then take the MMN from that entry and search again using that as the surname and see if there is a corresponding entry, i.e. the child was indexed under both surnames.

ahhh now I understand.

[Kit]

Kit

The fees are as quotd on the various websites.

There doesn't appear to be any consistency. Some local ROs state that you cannot search the registers yourself, others don't exactly say you CAN, but they give research fees and instructions about making an appointment. The research fees are high enough to put off the nosey parkers.

OC

What I meant OC was that the fees are high compared to my vague memory of what Guy said was allowed to be charged under the legislation that allows you to look at the registers.

I can understand them not wanting to allow access to the registers particularly the old ones but if the legislation allows ...

[sorrilsain]

Hi Phoenix
Thanks for your message - I have tried searching for the child using my Grandfather's surname but didn't have any luck. However, I will try again - I'm sure you know what it is like trawling though lots of results - sometimes you miss what you are looking for.

[sorrilsain]

Hi Nell
Thanks for your message. Yes, I know that the child was a girl, ***/*. The birth would have been registered in Stoke on Trent. My grandfather wasn't married to the mother - so you think he couldn't have registered the birth on his own - that makes tracking the birth down harder - if the baby was given the mother's surname. How frustrating! I will, however, do as Phoenix recommends and do another search under my Grandfather's surname ******

[Margaret in Burton]

Hi Sorrilsain

When you say you have trawled the indexes have you looked on Ancestry? They "should" have all of them transcribed.

What year are you looking for?

*sorry if you have already mentioned this, I may have missed it*

[sorrilsain]

To everyone who has replied - Thanks

My next step is to do another search just in case I've missed something. If that proves fruitless I think I will write to the relevant Registrar to request access to the registers. I will quote Halsbury's law and also see if there is any leverage under the Freedom of Information Act.
Sorry if I'm being a wee bit dense but what if FTF?
I will keep you updated on my progress.

[Margaret in Burton]

Ah, just read it again, during WW2

[Margaret in Burton]

Just looked at Ancestry births and there are no **** ******registered in Stoke until 1955.

[sorrilsain]

Hi Margaret in Burton

I have searched on Ancestry (that was last year - I'm not signed up with Ancestry at the moment - but will sign up again) I have also searched the indexes for Stoke on Trent - but no luck there.
Year of birth not exact - we know it was during the War (WWII) probably 1941 -1944.

[sorrilsain]

Thanks for doing a quick Ancestry search for me

[Margaret in Burton]

Nothing on Staffs BMD either

[sorrilsain]

It does seem that the baby was given her mother's surname.

[Margaret in Burton]

Yes it looks like it.

[kiterunner]

Sorrilsain, I've had to edit a couple of posts to remove the name you're looking for in case she is still alive. Unless you know for sure that she isn't, in which case I can put the name back?

[Olde Crone]

If your GF registered the birth, then the birth would be indexed either in his surname, or in both surnames.

How sound is the information that he was present at registration? Also, as it was wartime, could the birth have been out of area - many pregnant women were evacuated during the war years.

OC

[Kit]

FTF is Family Tree Forum that some of us are also members of.

[sorrilsain]

Hi Kite Runner

No, I'm not sure if this person is still alive - I'll refrain from using names in the future - sorry got a bit carried away answering other posts.

Sorril

[sorrilsain]

Hi Olde Crone

The information about my Grandfather registering the birth and the baby being born in the Stoke on Trent area is pretty sound.

Sorril

[Olde Crone]

Sorril

Then I don't understand why the child is not cross indexed in his name, as his name MUST have appeared on the birth cert, no point in him going to register the birth otherwise (and I'm not sure that he could have registered the birth, unless he was claiming paternity).

OC

[maggie_4_7]

Sorril

Then I don't understand why the child is not cross indexed in his name, as his name MUST have appeared on the birth cert, no point in him going to register the birth otherwise (and I'm not sure that he could have registered the birth, unless he was claiming paternity).

OC

Agress with OC.

Not sure what year sorrilsain is talking about but my father registered me and my parents weren't married so as everyone as said you can see my birth reg in both my mother's name and father's name. Also if the man wasn't married to the woman/mother he would have to state his paternity so should be registered in both names.

[Olde Crone]

Oh, I suppose he could have lied about HIS name!

If the lady in question was Mary Smith, he may have said he was her husband, Joe Smith. In which case you don't have a chance of finding the registration without knowing her name.

OC

[Merry]

I have someone on my tree whose birth was registered by the occupier of the house where the child was born. The occupier was also the child's father, but it doesn't say so on the cert, because he and the mother were not married and she didn't attend the registration.

[Olde Crone]

Ah, right Merry, I had it in my head that only a parent could register a birth.

So Sorril's GF could have registered the birth if he was "present" at the birth, i.e. in the house at the time of the birth?

OC

[Merry]

From the Dixon Cert tutorials, the order of precedence for registering a birth (this is the Victorian list, but it's not changed substantially with regard to this query):

(1) In all cases - mother

(2) Father - if he is married to mother

(3) Father and mother jointly where they are not married to one another

(4) A person present at the birth

(5) The owner or occupier of the house or institution

(6) The person in charge of the child

[Uncle John]

I have one where the birth was registered by the occupier of the house. There was obviously a subsequent argument about the first names given, and there is an entry in Column 10 changing her first names.

[Nell]

The point is that a father who ISN'T married to the mother has to be present at the birth registration if he is to be named as father on the cert. Though as OC says he may have given a different name.