Born out of wedlock?

[ziksby]

Below is a scan of a birth certificate which has no father entered. The mother's surname is BERROW.
The child's name is Frederick Charles JONES. Next to the name JONES is the number 35. This is repeated in the right-hand margin in words. The registrars initials appear next to the number and words.
Several years later the mother married a JONES, who I believed to be the father.
I had always thought that the son was a JONES by birth, but could this name have been added later? And does the number 35 have any bearing on this?
Was he a Berrow with another father and adopted at the time of marraige? He was brought up as a JONES and until I saw this certificate I never knew any different; one of many generations of bootmakers who carried on the family business.



http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v377/ziksby/bc1.jpg

[Pam Downes]

Hi Roger,

I'm sure I've seen a similar question asked before, but as the song says 'can't remember where or when'. I have a feeling it's something to do with the name on the entry being changed/the entry being 're-registered' and the 35 is a cross-reference.
If nobody on the forum gives a positive answer then if you have a register office in your town I'd go and ask them what the significance of it is. Then you could either phone Bromyard or else send them a copy for them to confirm any of the details which might need a further reference.

Barbara Dixon's excellent website about BMD certificates only covers a change of forename not surname.
http://www.dixons.clara.co.uk/Certificates/births.htm

Pam Downes

[Peter Goodey]

As I read it, the childs FORENAMES were Frederick Charles, later amended (amendment No. 35 in the list of amendments to the register) to FORENAMES of Frederick Charles Jones. The childs full name would be (conventionally) Frederick Charles Jones BERROW. Presumably when the mother remarried or otherwise started living with Mr Jones, one would expect the BERROW to be dropped.

Circumstances such as this were not uncommon. Birth certificates in England & Wales do not explicitely state the child's surname.

[ziksby]

Thanks for that, Peter and Pam.
Next to the 35 there is a faint "a", more prominent under the words in the r/h margin. This probably confirms "amendment".

Both are listed as BERROWS on the 1881 census living at their mother's home.

I'm now waiting for sight of his brother's bc (my grandfather) to see if that carries the same amendment, or perhaps 34 or 36. My son sent for these, but unfortunately the certificate I thought would be my grandfather's turned out to be someone else's.
Regards

[Peter Goodey]

I think you're probably right, Mythology. I don't think the registrars were given precise instructions on every single little aspect of their work and I guess they had some system for amendments that met the needs of what they were required to do but otherwise only meant sense to themselves. I don't think these lists of amendments are available to the public, by the way (not that I've tried!).

And is ziksby going to let us into the secret of how to get a picture by one's name? ;)

[ziksby]

And is ziksby going to let us into the secret of how to get a picture by one's name? ;)What can I say? ........

Some are born great,
Some achieve greatness,
And some have greatness and "avatars" thrust upon them ...

[Ladkyis]

In a thread that you can only see if you search on the word avatars or piccy
- the thread is called "how do I upload my piccy" everything about avatars and who can have them is explained by Rod
|woohoo|
feeling good cos I am special - Rod said so
Ann

[Peter Goodey]

Thank you. Yes. I have noted that "avatars are reserved for extra special regular contributors". I shall ask my friends what they read into the phrase "extra special".

[Peter Goodey]

Thank you. I think I see what you're driving at.

[A Lee]

I too have a birth certificate with number references on. In my case I now know that the mother was unmarried and the child in question takes her surname. What is confusing is there is an entry under father and the fathers name incidentally is very similar to the mothers, but a line has been drawn through it and a number 2 next to it and in the margin. Also, a line has been drawn through the word 'formerly' in the mothers column with a number 3 reference, as she has no maiden name.
I thought it might be some sort of code for not being married, I sent a message to the GRO and they thought it was just a mistake.
What I am puzzled about is whether to take the fathers name as accurate or not. Also the surnames are so similar we have found a copy that was acquired 11 years later and the names are the same?

What do you reckon was going on?
The certificate is from 1921

[Peter Goodey]

I don't know why you've resurrected this ancient old thread ;) but...

"I thought it might be some sort of code for not being married"

No. It's an audit trail of sorts. The number simply refers to an entry in a register of amendments (which we don't have access to).

"What I am puzzled about is whether to take the fathers name as accurate or not."

Well, clearly not because it's been crossed out. I'd take it as a clue to bear in mind for further research.

[A Lee]

Thank you for your comments, only just discovered this site, not quite sure how to use it all yet, but just trying to fathom a mystery we've recently discovered and trying all avenues!

[sandiep]

A Lee dont be put off by peters slightly rude comments it isnt a sin to resurect an old thread, in fact it sometimes gives answers to others also
happy hunting keep enquiring sandie

[Peter Goodey]

"slightly rude comments "

You chose not to notice the smiley, then. And yes I did notice that it was the poster's first message hence what I thought was a non-hostile tone.

However if Sandie P thinks that was rude, I can but draw her attention to the "Ignore" facility and my coarse uncultured ways will never again offend her sensibilities.

To return to the question...

A Lee says the father's name was similar to the mother's name. What do you mean exactly? Identical? And am I right to assume that the informant was the mother on her own?

In a case where the mother was unmarried. it wouldn't have been in order to record the father's name simply on the say so of the mother. It makes me wonder whether there was a simple failure of communication at the time of registration and the registrar wrongly assumed that she was married.

"Well Mrs Brown and what is the father's name?"

"Er, John"

"OK ..John Brown..."

"No, John Smith"

"Oops!!!" Whereupon the registrar scratches out the bits he's got wrong. :D


Could that be a possible scenario?

[sandiep]

I should hate to ignore you Peter I quite often find your posts very helpful, but on this occasion I just felt a newcomer might have felt put off, not wishing to put my foot in it any further will now disappear .........sandie

[A Lee]

Ooh, Peter and Sandiep there is no need to start an argument!

I was merely looking for the answers to a couple of things and when you're communicating with complete strangers it makes sense to start with someone who you think has the vaguest idea of what you're talking about!
But, no offence taken and thank you both for your responses!

This is actually the second time I've tried to write this, the first time I sent it, then edited a couple of spelling errors, but it kept duplicating itself and wouldn't be deleted, so I've started again!

Back to my question. I do have to be a bit careful what I disclose at the moment just in case there is anyone else still alive who may be affected by it.
If you'll excuse the waffle, I'll start at the beginning:

My grandfather died nearly a year ago and we had always been told that his father died either just before or just after he was born, so was raised by his mother. We were led to believe she was a widow and than was always the way it was.
After my granddads demise, we discovered a typed BC, obtained 11 years after his birth, stating the fathers name identical to the mothers, so although we wondered why certain things were crossed out, we thought nothing more of it.
My mum then thought it would be a nice idea to try and find out the birth and death dates of his father. to cut a long story short we could find no record of a death in the years we thought and it materialised what we thought was his mothers married name was actually her maiden name.
This was no big deal in itself but we did wonder why the fathers name was the same as the mothers if she wasn't married to him. it did explain why 'maiden' was crossed out on the BC.
We obtained a copy of my granddfathers original BC and this time the fathers name was slightly different and both christian and surname had been crossed out.

This poses a number of questions:
1) How did my granddad acquire a clearly altered copy of his BC about the time he would have taken 'The 11 Plus'
2) If the father's name is accurate, is he in any way related the mother?
3) If the surname was wrong why cross out the whole name and not write a correction?
4) If the name isn't correct at all, why give it in the first place, when it's clearly legible anyway?
5) Who was my granddads father?

My main point of the message is to fathom whether or not to pursue the man on the BC or am I wasting my time?

[Guy Etchells]

This poses a number of questions:
1) How did my granddad acquire a clearly altered copy of his BC about the time he would have taken 'The 11 Plus'
2) If the father's name is accurate, is he in any way related the mother?
3) If the surname was wrong why cross out the whole name and not write a correction?
4) If the name isn't correct at all, why give it in the first place, when it's clearly legible anyway?
5) Who was my granddads father?

My main point of the message is to fathom whether or not to pursue the man on the BC or am I wasting my time?
1) Three possibilities
a; There was an original birth certificate and someone in the family crossed out the details - not very likely as a further cert. has been obtained with similar details crossed out.
b; He simply applied for the birth certificate (anyone may apply for any persons B. M. or D cert.)
c; He was given his certificate by a family member.

2) No way of telling on this evidence - could be close or distant family, could be related by marriage, could simply bear the same name and be no relation.

3) Possible confusion - the surname correct but the forename wrong, on telling the registrar the name is wrong the surname is crossed out in error rather than the forename. Difficult to say without details.

4) Again confusion, Registrar asks for a name mother states their name or child's name rather than the father's name. For those not accustomed to dealing with authority registering a birth may be stressful.

5) The person on the birth certificate - or someone else. Not enough details to say.
Cheers
Guy

[Geoffers]

My grandfather died nearly a year ago and we had always been told that his father died either just before or just after he was born, so was raised by his mother. We were led to believe she was a widow and than was always the way it was. After my granddads demise, we discovered a typed BC, obtained 11 years after his birth, stating the fathers name identical to the mothersWhen you mention that the parents' names are identical - is this the forenames? Is the mother's maiden name included or is the same as her 'married' name?

Most other possibilities have been covered by Guy and Peter. Just to throw my suggestions in as well:

1) In the hope that your grandfather was baptised, have you tried to check the parish register(s) for where he lived to see what they record?

2) As your grandfather sadly died recently, may I take it that he might have been born early in the 20th century? If so (and hoping the surname isn't Smith, Wright, Jones, etc) have you tried tracing either/both parents in the 1901 census?

3) How wealthy was this family? Is there a possibility that they might appear in workhouse records?

These are just suggestions to give an idea of other ways of looking at the problem. I appreciate your laudable sensitivity in case other relatives read these postings; but it's difficult to suggest much more without an idea of whether this was a rural or urban area; if someone may have died in WW1/2, whether the gt-grandfather had an occupation for which he may have needed specialist training or if he was a labourer.

Geoffers

[Peter Goodey]

1) How did my granddad acquire a clearly altered copy of his BC about the time he would have taken 'The 11 Plus'

You didn't mention who issued the certificates. I'd hazard a guess that one was from GRO (the one you acquired?) and the earlier one from the local registrar.

Clerical error is perhaps the likeliest explanation for the discrepancy between the two versions.

It might be worth approaching the local registrar and simply asking whether they can shed any light on the discrepancy - you might catch them on a good day :)

In any case, you haven't necessarily reached the end of the road - Geoffers has provided several examples of what you might do next but as he said it's difficult to give specific advice without knowing more details.

[A Lee]

Thanks, Guy, Geoffers and Peter for your prompt responses!

My grandfather was born in 1921 in Wandsworth.
His mothers side was all from a similar area in London. His mother was born in 1894 and the whole of that family was very working class.

I have found out who his mothers siblings were, her parents, uncles etc....

In the 1901 census she was about 6 or 7 after that, obviously, there's no available information.

The only missing piece of the jigsaw - and the only I set out to discover - is the idententity of my grandfather's father. if the name I have is accurate there are so many of them it would be impossible to know where to start - and no it's not a very common name, although it's more common than I realised!
If the fact the name is crossed out on both BC's means he is not the father, obviously I won't pursue that any further.
All I know is there was obviously some deception going on as his mother claimed to be a widow until the day she died and referred to herself as 'Mrs'. Therefore I do not know quite what to believe.
I also do not know how much my grandfather truly knew about this situation himself.

[Peter Goodey]

Is there anything you don't like or don't understand about the various suggestions people have made?

[Geoffers]

My grandfather was born in 1921 in Wandsworth.
His mothers side was all from a similar area in London. His mother was born in 1894 and the whole of that family was very working class.I have found out who his mothers siblings were, her parents, uncles etc....
Okedoke, you've got the birth certificate of her son and you've found the mother 's family in 1901. Is their surname in 1901 the same as the son's surname at birth in 1921? Or, is the surname of the father given in 1921 - and - the maiden surname of the mother also recorded? What I'm trying to elimintate is the possibility that your grandfather was illegitimate or his dad had done a moonlight. However, the more I read what you have typed, the more it seems a possibility that your grandfather was illegit.

"If the fact the name is crossed out on both BC's means he is not the father, obviously I won't pursue that any further."

He may well have been the father, the problem is in finding the proof. Have you been able to identify the alleged father in the 1901 census?

Geoffers

[Guy Etchells]

Did your grandfather have any siblings, if so what do their birth certificates show?
Cheers
Guy

[A Lee]

Thank you all for your responses. I'm taking on board all suggestions.

We have already discovered the significant probability that my grandfather was illegitimate. We certainly now know that what we thought was her married name - i.e.my grandfathers surname - was in fact the name she was born with as well as died with. My grandfather was an only child.

The father's surname is slightly different to the mothers on the birth certifcate that we acquired from the GRO, although it is a name that frequently crossed over in earlier censuses. This copy is handwritten, we presume copied from the original. We also have a copy done in 1932 this is typed, all the original crossings out are present and this time the surname is identical. We don't have my grandfathers original certificate.
The surname on the handwritten copy is more common than the surname of my grandfather, his mother, and the father on the second version, if that makes sense.

We have checked both surnames and there are possibities in censuses and birth records for the alleged father in both versions, in the London area.
This is the problem with no way of verifying what information is correct, I won't easily know if I do come across him.

I don't want to spend any more time or money trawling through records and registers if the name is not correct, but as I've already said I can't imagine a situation where the mother is going to say 'the father is so and so...........oh no it's not actually'. (The birth was registered by the mother). There is no correction telling me the registrar had just written a part wrong. But as I said I am no expert on these matters.

I am sorry for being so vague at this stage, but we were only ever told that my granddads mother was a widow and he never knew his father. Now we are exploring a slight possibility that there was even incest involved. Until I know what I'm talking about I don't want to reveal too much about what has obviously been a long kept secret.

Thanks to you all