Help needed by a newbie. Handley/Arthur

[vmarthur]

|help|Hi
I am desperate for help to find records on my mother in law.
you would not think that was going to be hard, but I have spent many hours
trailing records.

She did exist, but I cannot find a birth record, or indeed her marriage record.
Her maiden name was Vera Handley. Her mothers maiden name may have been Handley also.(Although we have no proof of this )

She died in March 1955 age 33, so born 1921 or 22. Birkenhead ao at least Wirral.
Her death record does exist BMD Birkenhead Ref 10A page 970.

Probably married 1941 as children born 1942/3/4.
Husband
George H Arthur. I have all records on George except marriage certificate.
He was actually born in St Stevens Cornwall, and came to Birkenhead around 1940 (merchant seaman) when his ship came in to Cammel lairds for repair.

Any Help would be appreciated.
Happy Easter to all

[kcapes]

HELLO
FOUND MARRIAGE
GEORGE H ARTHUR TO VERONICA HANDLEY JAS QUARTER 1948 WIRRAL 10A 2146.
ALSO VERONICA L HANDLEY JFM QUARTER 1918 W. DERBY 8B 615 MOTHERS MAIDEN NAME COLEMAN
HOPE IT HELPS LET ME KNOW IF YOU NEED ANYTHING ELSE
KIM

[vmarthur]

hi
Thank you so much I will check out the marriage.
it sounds right, although at least 5 years late. But there was a war going on.

I do not think that the birth is the right one. we are convinced that it was wirral.
I tried to skip a generation and checked the 1901 census.
only One Handley family in Birkenhead. Alfred handley who originated in neston.
He had daughters, born around the end of the century, which would put the timing right, but I will continue my search.
Thank you again
happy Easter
v

[kcapes]

HELLO AGAIN
IF YOU CHECK THAT BIRTH ENTRY ON FREEBMD YOU CAN SEE THE AREA W. DERBY COVERS AND IT'S A LOT OF LIVERPOOL. ONE THING I HAVE LEARNT PEOPLE DID MOVE ABOUT, THEY DID'NT ALWAYS GET MARRIED AND THEY LIED. ALOT. SO TI PAYS TO KEEP AN OPEN MIND.

[Wirral]

HANDLEY is quite a common name in the Merseyside area. In the 1940 Liverpool Kelly's Directory there are 53 HANDLEYs, 7 of whom are in Wirral.
I think the references that kcapes has given you are quite likely correct. Do you have the birth certificate for your spouse? You can use the address given to check the electoral register & the directories at Birkenhead library.

It only cost 2d to cross the Mersey by ferry. When looking for people in the area, ignore the river & the fact that Liverpool was in Lancashire & Birkenhead was in Cheshire.

[Peter Goodey]

vmarthur: It sounds as if you don't have your husband's birth certificate. Many, many "problems" result from trying to jump over a step.

The GRO index shows, for example, a Kenneth A HANDLEY registered in the June quarter of 1943. The same person is also registered under the surname ARTHUR. However, the mother's maiden name in this case is shown as BEBINGTON. Isn't that a place in the Wirral RD? That might just be an indexing error.

These sort of entries in the GRO index are typical of births where the parents are not married bur are both named on the certificate.

I think you need to get your husband's birth certificate if it's not otherwise available.

[Wirral]

A full birth certificate in England & Wales does not actually specifically state the surname of the child. It is assumed from the names on the certificate.

Layout of a birth certificate [I've put the surnames in capitals]

Column 1: When & where born.
Column 2: Name, if any - these are the forenames, not the surname. (eg William Joseph)
Column 3: Sex
Column 4: Name & surname of the father (eg Fred BLOGGS)
Column 5: Name, surname and maiden name of mother - if she was born Eliza SMITH and married Fred BLOGGS, then she would be listed as "Eliza BLOGGS formerly SMITH". If Eliza & Fred were unmarried, then she would be listed as "Eliza SMITH". If she had been married earlier to John BROWN, then married to Fred BLOGGS, then she would be listed as "Eliza BLOGGS late BROWN formerly SMITH".
Column 6: Occupation of father
Column 7: Signature, description & residence of informant.
Column 8: When registered
Column 9: Signature of registrar
Column 10: Name entered after registration

So in this example, if Fred & Eliza were married when William was born, then his name would be indexed as William Joseph BLOGGS.
If they were unmarried & the father's name had not been included on the certificate, then his name would be indexed as William Joseph SMITH.
If they were unmarried & the father's name was included on the certificate, then he would be indexed under the names William Joseph SMITH & William Joseph BLOGGS.

Unmarried mothers often gave the surname of the actual father as a middle name for the child. In this example, if she had given William the middle name of Bloggs instead of Joseph, then he would be listed as William Bloggs SMITH & as William Bloggs BLOGGS!

The name that a child was registered under & the name by which he was subsequently called are not necessarily the same.;)

[Peter Goodey]

In my message above, for 'registered', please read 'indexed'.;)

[vmarthur]

Hello Folks

Thank you all.
I now realise that my husband and siblings were indeed registered twice,or registered and then ammended?
I did not even realise that that was possible.
I assume my best way forward is to get marriage certificate for vera, as this I assume will give a date a birth.

regards
Vma

[Alan Welsford]

I now realise that my husband and siblings were indeed registered twice,or registered and then ammended?
I did not even realise that that was possible.

I'm not sure anyone has said that, exactly.

I think we are talking about a single registration, but where multiple entries have been included in the GRO indexes to point to it.


I assume my best way forward is to get marriage certificate for vera, as this I assume will give a date a birth.

This will almost certainly give her age, as it was reported, from which you can estimate a year of birth. People didn't always report their true age at marriage, so this may provide no better estimate than what's on her death registration, unfortunately.

Best wishes,

Alan

[Wirral]

I now realise that my husband and siblings were indeed registered twice,or registered and then ammended?

That is only true if there is something written in Column 10. If Column 10 is blank on each certificate, then your husband & his siblings were each just registered once.

The most likely explanation is that the children were born illegitimate, the mother gave them the father's name as a middle name, then she later married the father. That would be consistent with the information you have given. The mother & father may have lived as man & wife (common-law marriage), but been unable to marry until later. Perhaps waiting for a divorce or the death of a spouse.

[Alan Welsford]

To avoid further confusion, do you actually have a copy of your husbands birth certificate, please ?

It should be obvious from that whether the parents were married at the time, (or at least claiming to be).

By this I mean does the mother's name appear on the certificate as Vera ARTHUR (formerly HANDLEY), or just as Vera HANDLEY, please ?

Best wishes,

Alan

[vmarthur]

Hello good folk,

The penny has now dropped that entries for 1943 in the Birth index were entered twice(in this case anyway).
Once under fathers name , once under mothers name. Same index reference.

But can anyone tell me, the difference in the original, or a copy.
The one in question says copy. Is A5 size and does not give address.
Over the years we have several of these all the same.

My own which presumably is also a copy, is the large size with address etc.
(1945).

regards

[Wirral]

Sounds like you have a copy of the "Short certificate" (A5), rather than the "Full certificate" (A4). Always ask for a copy of the Full certificate as it gives much more information.

[Alan Welsford]

Will it kind of sounds like it doesn't it.

I believe that, more recently, at least, that was all you got "for free" when you registered a birth.

If you wanted a full certificate, I think you paid for it as an extra, (it's a while since I registered my kids, but that's my memory).

You'll know if it's a "short form" certificate, as it will be more than the address that's missing. They don't contain any mother or father details, so if yours doesn't, then that's what you have.

If you do have parents listed, then it's not a short certificate, even if it's on small paper.

Out of historical interest, I think our ancestors often never had a full certificate. I have original certificates for both my grandmothers and a great aunt, all dated in the 1879s and 1880s, and there is no evidence they ever had need of any other. Incidentally these are smaller again, being about 8 inches wide, but no more than 4 inches deep. They have survived remarkably well.

I suspect when I applied for one grandmother's full birth certificate, it was probably the first time anyone had. (And no, it had no damned address on it, either |computer|).

Alan

[Alan Welsford]

Sorry, I forgot the question of "copy",

I haven't thought too closely about it, because I thought they were all "copies", being a "certified copy of an entry of birth".

However I do notice that short-form certificates I have say "Certificate of Birth", whereas the long form ones tend to say "Certified copy of an entry of birth"

But it's not a hard and fast rule, as very old long-form ones do also say "Certificate of birth".

At the end of the day, I think it's academic. They are all copies of some or all of what's in the original registers, and certified to be such.

The important thing, as Wirral has said, is to make sure you always get the full certificate, as the other contains little more than a name, date, and registration district - not much use in family history research.

Alan

[vmarthur]

Thank you Wirral, for pointing me to this.
But I thought the Kellys directories were only business related.?
Do I have this wrong?
Where do I go to look at this.
Is it Birkenhead library.
I believe the family were in Tranmere at this point. What was referred to as "Donkey town".

I have sent for the marriage cert, so thuis may help me further.
regards
V