GRO Births Index Entry - 2 Unmarried Parents Named

[Alan Welsford]

I'm going to try my question again, as I asked it badly last time, and don't think I eventually got a definitive answer, (though there were some most helpful suggestions....)

So, using the same scenario:-

Unmarried John SMITH and Mary JONES produce a son Thomas.

It's after 1875 - the father is happy to go along and consent to being named as the father, but the parents make no pretence of being married.

How does Thomas appear in the GRO Births indexes.

1) just as Thomas SMITH
2) just as Thomas JONES
3) 2 entries, so both as Thomas SMITH and Thomas JONES

What I would really like is for someone who actually has a certificate with both unmarried parents named to post details, along with exactly what's in the index.

(None of my unmarried mums have persuaded the father to supply his name).

Alan

[Geoffers]

How does Thomas appear in the GRO Births indexes.

1) just as Thomas SMITH
2) just as Thomas JONES
3) 2 entries, so both as Thomas SMITH and Thomas JONES


It could be any of those, it depends on what the registrar was told and what was recorded.

[Alan Welsford]

It could be any of those, it depends on what the registrar was told and what was recorded.

OK, then.

Lets keep it simple, and assume the registrar wrote

Thomas in the "name if any" box
John SMITH in the name and surname of father box
Mary JONES in the name, surname & maiden surname of mother box

Surely there must be some standard set of rules about what GRO index entry/(entries) then got created for the birth of Thomas ? (Which may have been different, at different times, it has been suggested).

It's something I can't find answered in various places I've tried to read it up.

Alan

[Geoffers]

I don't think you will find an answer - for whatever directives that may have been issued by the GRO, there is no certainty that they were always followed.

If thinking of the thread about DANIEL and ALBON, I don't think speculation as to what may have happened 150 years ago will necessarily help to locate a birth that may not have been registered anyway.

If the birth was registered then there is no certainty that dad went along and acknowledged paterntity, or that the couple didn't claim to be married (they certainly seem to have done so in one census prior to their marriage), or that dad didn't have a fling with someone else and the birth is registered under the name of this unknown third woman.

There are just too many uncertainties in this situation to allow speculation to reach a probable conclusion that is worth pursuing.

[ChrisKelly]

I haven't got an exemplar birth certificate to show you, but I would have thought that the GRO scribe would have entered "Smith or Jones" which is sometimes seen in other contexts.

Ps. I understood your question the first time. ;)

[Alan Welsford]

No,

Whilst my question was prompted from the ALBON / DANIEL debate, I wasn't actually hoping to use the answer to help solve that mystery.

I agree that I don't think the births are registered there in either surname, and investigations must divert elsewhere.

It was more a case of trying to educate myself, because I genuinely neither knew the answer, nor could I find out the answer.

I still feel that there must have been a set of guidelines as to how to formulate index entry/entries for each situation encountered, (and I'm not talking about a completely out of the ordinary one!).

I'd still like to know the answer ;)

Alan

[bumblebee]

Funny this should come up as I have been wondering which certificate to send for next and a contact prompted me to look again at this family in my tree.

This is the reference for a 1901 census

Class: RG13; Piece: 1429; Folio: 100; Page: 1

This couple made no pretence of being married, they are down on the census as single, with all of their children and they did eventually marry in 1905. (Annie Marie Slater/Charles Bond)

The children are all registered as 'name' Bond Slater - so given mother's name but father's surname as a middle name.

I have just been wondering what name the children married under (Slater or Bond). i.e. were they legitimised after their parents marriage.

I am going to send for the birth certificate of John Frederick Bond Slater out of curiousity.

Bumblebee

[Alan Welsford]

I have just been wondering what name the children married under (Slater or Bond). i.e. were they legitimised after their parents marriage.

Hmm

If their surname was changed to the father's on the parents marriage, did they end up as

James Frederick Bond BOND ? :confused::confused:


I am going to send for the birth certificate of John Frederick Bond Slater out of curiousity.

Bumblebee

I'll be interested in what it says.

These appear to be in the GRO indexes just indexed under the mother's surname, so if the full father details appear on the certificate, it would seem it's ignored for indexing purposes.


Thanks for your interest

Alan

[Pam Downes]

Hi Alan,
This one is in 1843, and therefore some time before 1875, but it might be helpful. Or muddy the waters even more. :)
Name: William Horsepool.
Name & surname of father: William Horsepool
Name, surname & maiden name of mother: Sarah Wigginton spinster
Father's occupation: Labourer

William junior was married and buried as Wigginton, and his children had the name Wigginton.
William's parents, William senior and Sarah married in 1845.

What is very interesting and is something I've only just found out - and that was by pure chance because I typed in the wrong name! - is that William's birth is registered under both Wigginton and Horsepool. Previously I had only looked for the registration, and obtained the birth certificate, as Wigginton. Under the Horsepool registration, his name becomes William Horsepool Horsepool. :)
Pam

[bumblebee]

As an update on John Frederick Bond Slater, I today received his birth certificate and as suspected no father named.

John Frederick Bond, Mother Annie Slater, Domestic Servant, registered by Annie Slater Mother. Name and surname of father and occupation of father blank.

If the father registered the birth or was with the mother at the time of registration, does that mean that the father's name could be listed even if the parents were not married?

If that is the case, it seems strange that Charles Bond, (who Annie lived with, had several children by and later married) did not register the birth to ensure his child took his name.

Bumblebee

[Alan Welsford]

If the father registered the birth or was with the mother at the time of registration, does that mean that the father's name could be listed even if the parents were not married?


I've just looked at Mark Herber's "Ancestral Trails" that I rely on quite heavily, and is usually pretty accurate.

That says that until 1875 a mother could name the father and have him put on the registration, even if he were not present.

After 1875 the father's name could only appear on the certificate if he attended the registration process.

It is, I guess, possible, that the mother didn't know it was possible to have the father recorded ?

Alan

Of course, even after 1875, there was nothing to stop the mother including the father's surname as a child's forename, even if he were not there ;)

[Alan Welsford]

Hi Alan,
This one is in 1843, and therefore some time before 1875, but it might be helpful. Or muddy the waters even more. :)
Name: William Horsepool.
Name & surname of father: William Horsepool
Name, surname & maiden name of mother: Sarah Wigginton spinster
Father's occupation: Labourer

William junior was married and buried as Wigginton, and his children had the name Wigginton.
William's parents, William senior and Sarah married in 1845.

What is very interesting and is something I've only just found out - and that was by pure chance because I typed in the wrong name! - is that William's birth is registered under both Wigginton and Horsepool. Previously I had only looked for the registration, and obtained the birth certificate, as Wigginton. Under the Horsepool registration, his name becomes William Horsepool Horsepool. :)
Pam
Pam,

Sorry, I missed your very helpful reply until now, somehow.

You have turned up the first genuine example of what I was asking about, i.e. two unmarried parents both on the registration.

I suppose one single example doesn't necessarily establish a rule, but at least in your case we know there are multiple GRO index entries on the same page, so he can actually be found searching on either surname.

It's of course correct that because he has been given the father's surname as a second name, that had he chosen to use the father's surname he would have been William Horsepool HORSEPOOL.

I find it strange, if the parents wed soon after, that he used the mothers surname.

BTW, being pedantic, I'd say he is indexed twice, but registered just once, but in a way that gives him a choice of names.

But I think you have answered my question, finally.

Alan

[bumblebee]

Thanks for that Alan, Possibly that was the case.

Bumblebee.