Birkenhead registrars - certificate delays

[louise renfrey]

Is anyone else having/had problems obtaining certificates from Birkenhead? I sent a letter requesting two death certficates (one had month/year, the other quarter/year) first class post on 3rd May. I am still waiting for them. I telephoned on 21 st May and was told there was a 'big pile' for family history and they would 'get to them when they were not busy'. Very offhand and disinterested - they did not advise what post date they were up to or check on their computer at what stage the application was at, like Liverpool do. I cannot stop the cheque because it is guaranteed and presume the only thing I can do is write to the Superintendant Registrar asking for the certificates or cheque back by return post - then go via Southport. What has made this worse, is that on the same day, 3rd May, I sent a request for a death certifcate to Burton on Trent, and got it on Saturday 5th. I know different offices take varying times but have not had a delay like this before. Any advice would be greatly appreciated.

[vmarthur]

Hi
Seems to be in keeping with my own thoughts on Birkenhead registrars.
My own husbands birth certificate was registered at Birkenhead.

His first name is Ke****h. His Surname is Art**r, His mothers name is H******, and he was born in Bebington.

His birth certificate says
First name: Ke***h Art**r, Surname Art**r,
so he is now Ke****h Art**r Art**r.
Mothers Maiden name says Bebington.

whats that all about.

regards
V

[Wirral]

I think Birkenhead have got their act together since Louise's posting last year. I went to the registry office this Thursday, hoping to get a certificate as soon as possible. Unlike some offices which refuse point-blank to issue certificates that day over-the-counter, at Birkenhead I was given a short form to fill in; paid my £7 & handed in the filled-in form; was asked to take a seat; then 30 mins later was walking out with the certificate! And they apologised that it might take longer than usual because they were short staffed!

[Alan Welsford]

Hi
Seems to be in keeping with my own thoughts on Birkenhead registrars.
My own husbands birth certificate was registered at Birkenhead.

His first name is Ke****h. His Surname is Art**r, His mothers name is H******, and he was born in Bebington.

His birth certificate says
First name: Ke***h Art**r, Surname Art**r,
so he is now Ke****h Art**r Art**r.
Mothers Maiden name says Bebington.

whats that all about.

regards
V

This may not be the fault of the local registrars office.

As was pointed out in another thread the GRO indexes also have an entry for a
Ke****h A Art**r and that quite clearly shows mother's maiden name as Bebington.

This seems too much of a coincidence, given the certificate you have been issued by Birkenhead.

It would seem that the registers held both locally and also centrally at the GRO may be in error, and they are giving you a verbatim copy, (which is what they should do, of course..)

Did you try querying it with the Birkenhead office, pointing out that Bebington was more likely to be a place than a surname ?

A

Footnote:

Do I really have to partially blank out the name of a living person, when all I'm giving is information freely available in the GRO indexes, (and the surname appears in your forum username anyway :o)

[Wirral]

Did you try querying it with the Birkenhead office, pointing out that Bebington was more likely to be a place than a surname ?

In th 1940 Liverpool & Area Kelly's Directory there were 18 BEBBINGTONs and 6 BEBINGTONs listed. So it is not that uncommon a surname around here.
I agree that it looks likely that the error was made when the birth was originally registered.

[Alan Welsford]

Hi
His birth certificate says
First name: Ke***h Art**r, Surname Art**r,

Actually thinking about this some more, a birth registration in the 1940s would not have recorded a surname for the child at all, I'm fairly confident.

Surnames were recorded for the mother, and the father, (if on the certificate), but not for the child. (There wasn't a box in the register for it back then, a situation that continued, I believe, until the late 1960s).

So if you have been issued a certificate that has a surname for the child, (as distinct from either parent), then I would guess that's because it's on modern stationery.

If they have done that, they have made a decision about which parents surname to use. If you had obtained a GRO certificate with the standard photocopy approach, no surname would be attached to the child.

Strange, but true.

Alan

[Wirral]

Actually thinking about this some more, a birth registration in the 1940s would not have recorded a surname for the child at all, I'm fairly confident.

Surnames were recorded for the mother, and the father, (if on the certificate), but not for the child. (There wasn't a box in the register for it back then, a situation that continued, I believe, until the late 1960s).

So if you have been issued a certificate that has a surname for the child, (as distinct from either parent), then I would guess that's because it's on modern stationery.

If they have done that, they have made a decision about which parents surname to use. If you had obtained a GRO certificate with the standard photocopy approach, no surname would be attached to the child.

Strange, but true.

Alan
Sorry Alan, but we have already been round these houses a few times! ;) See the other thread that vmarthur has started. One of the problems with having multiple threads referring to the same individuals is that those who try to help can end up answering questions that have already been answered on another thread. Which I think is a waste of their freely-given time & effort.

[Alan Welsford]

Fair enough ;)

I did see the other thread, but didn't think it covered what was on the locally issued certificate, only what was in the GRO indexes. (None of this helped much by the partial blanking out of names, all of which can still be guessed :confused:)

I've just checked some certificates that I had issued by a local office some while back, where they have typed the information onto a new form rather than photo-copy it. I was interested to see if it was a modern form, with extra "boxes" not present before 1969. It isn't - the form has only those "boxes" that would have existed at the time the original registration was made.

So I'm still curious if what has been issued here actually does give a surname for the child or not. (I can only see it could, if a "post 1969" blank form had been used).

Just trying to educate myself, really.

A.