Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 17
  1. #1
    teecee90
    Guest

    Default Amended Birth Certificates

    Hi, Im still quite new to all this and would welcome some help.

    I have come across an amended birth certificate, and there are two in the same family.

    Sarah Hill married Ernest Gibbons in 1919 and had 2/3 children.

    The oldest was born in 1921 and the birth certificate has this note .... "In No. 438. Col. 4 (father) omit Ernest Robert Gibbons and in Col. 6 (fathers occupation) omit General Labourer. Corrected on 22nd May 1925 on production of a statutory declaration made by Ernest Robert Gibbons and Sarah May Gibbons by me Cecil W Bell Superintendent Registrar."

    The second sibling was born in 1923 and the birth certificate has this note .... "In No. 70. Col. 4 (father) omit Ernest Robert Gibbons and in Col. 6 (fathers occupation) omit General Labourer. Corrected on 23rd May 1925 by me Amy Pennington, Registrar on production of statutory declaration made by Ernest Robert Gibbons and Sarah May Gibbons."

    I assume this means that the name and occupation of the father was added to both siblings in 1925 but left blank in the original certificates.

    Interestingly, the third sibling (assumed) born 1926 to the same mother has the fathers name and occupation blank and not subsequently added.

    Can anyone confirm that the notes on the certificates are indeed adding the fathers details? Bby saying "omit" I originally thought this meant the correction was to remove the fathers details, but that doesn't make much sense.

    Also, any suggestions as to why this situation might happen, why the third siblings fathers details might remain blank and whether any of this should have any impact on the level of confidence I should have about whether the father for the first two siblings is indeed correct, given they were blank on the original certificates.

    Finally, whether it is reasonable to assume that Ernest was also the father of the third sibling, or should I record this as father unknown?

    Thanks

  2. #2
    teecee90
    Guest

    Default

    Something else I have just noticed, on their marriage certificates, both first (1941) and second (1944) siblings have left the name and occupation of their father blank. I dont have a marriage certificate for the third sibling yet. All very curious.....

  3. #3
    Super Moderator christanel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Wairarapa New Zealand
    Posts
    10,676

    Default

    Hi

    "In No. 70. Col. 4 (father) omit Ernest Robert Gibbons and in Col. 6 (fathers occupation) omit General Labourer.
    I read it as being the opposite way around. The births were registered with the father's name and occupation in the required columns but then for some reason the father? wanted his name removed from the certificates. But if that was so why would the children's surname remain the same as his? What is the significance of the the No 70 and No 438? If i have the correct birth registrations on FreeBMD they were registered in Bourne reg district as was the marriage and the numbers 70 and 438 do not relate to the volume and page numbers. I wonder if they are a number which denotes the reasons for the amendment, although they are different numbers which would indicate 2 different reasons for the removal of the father's name and occupation.
    Someone will have the answer I am sure.

    I have just found this thread on the same subject, see post 3 by Anthony MM
    https://www.british-genealogy.com/fo...th-certificate
    Christina
    Sometimes paranoia is just having all the facts.
    William Burroughs

  4. #4
    Super Moderator - Completely bonkers and will never change.
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    England
    Posts
    9,620

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by christanel View Post
    Hi

    I read it as being the opposite way around. The births were registered with the father's name and occupation in the required columns but then for some reason the father? wanted his name removed from the certificates. But if that was so why would the children's surname remain the same as his? What is the significance of the the No 70 and No 438? If i have the correct birth registrations on FreeBMD they were registered in Bourne reg district as was the marriage and the numbers 70 and 438 do not relate to the volume and page numbers. I wonder if they are a number which denotes the reasons for the amendment, although they are different numbers which would indicate 2 different reasons for the removal of the father's name and occupation.
    Someone will have the answer I am sure.

    I have just found this thread on the same subject, see post 3 by Anthony MM
    https://www.british-genealogy.com/fo...th-certificate
    Christina
    I think the entry referred to in that thread is an error made at the time the register was being completed. (I have a similar certificate where the second name of Eileen has been crossed through and Irene written below it.)

    The entries in this query refer to corrections made several years after the register was completed, but like Christina I read the corrections as meaning that in the first instance the columns for father's name, and occupation were completed in the relevant columns but the couple later made a declaration to the effect that Ernest wasn't the father of the children.

    As for the numbers 438 and 70 - look at the extreme left of the certificate, in the first column. Are the numbers 438 and 70 written there?

    Hopefully Antony will be along shortly to clarify matters.

    Pam
    Vulcan XH558 - “Don't cry because it's over, smile because it happened.”

  5. #5
    teecee90
    Guest

    Default

    To confirm, the numbers are indeed thos appearing in the far left column of the birth certificates.

    That's starting to make sensenow. Why else would both siblings leave the name of their father blank on their marriage certificates.

    Sarah May appears to have remarried to an Albert G Sinclair in 1948, who was also present in the household in the 1939 register. Perhaps Albert was the mystery 'real' father, although I guess we will never know.

    Not only is this interesting for my family tree (wife's side), it also affects a potential inheritnece, so I need to get it right....

  6. #6
    Knowledgeable and helpful
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Wiltshire
    Posts
    731

    Default

    Did you note that the first correction for the first child was made on one day and the second on the following day? I wonder how you got the amended certificate with all of this detail as I thought the amendments meant that the certificate should be made with the details blank, and no notes. Otherwise it defeats the purpose of the amendments.
    Were the certificates obtained from the local registrar? If so, the numbers cited would be from the original registration, found on the far left. These are not included in the GRO index or copies.pwholt

  7. #7
    teecee90
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by pwholt View Post
    Were the certificates obtained from the local registrar? If so, the numbers cited would be from the original registration, found on the far left. These are not included in the GRO index or copies.pwholt
    Both certificates from GRO. One is a typed up version, the second they sent both the original manuscript version and a typed up version.

  8. #8
    Super Moderator christanel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Wairarapa New Zealand
    Posts
    10,676

    Default

    I wonder how you got the amended certificate with all of this detail as I thought the amendments meant that the certificate should be made with the details blank, and no notes.
    I remember reading somewhere this morning that the full birth certificate would have all the details including amendments but the short certificate would only have the new details.
    This is where I saw it and applies to present day. Would it have been the same back in the 1920's?
    https://www.gov.uk/correct-birth-registration
    Christina
    Sometimes paranoia is just having all the facts.
    William Burroughs

  9. #9
    Super Moderator - Completely bonkers and will never change.
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    England
    Posts
    9,620

    Default

    I KNEW I had another certificate where there was a note added to the far right of the certificate. Remembered as I opened my eyes this morning - suddenly went 'William!'

    Death registered 2 January. Surname of deceased and surnames of informant was spelt Downs. (i.e. minus the 'e'.)
    Note on far right says 'In no. 221 (number in first column of certificate, i.e. entry number in register) col 2 (name of deceased) for William Downs read William Downes and col. 7 (name of informant) for Frederick Downs read Frederick Downes. Corrected on 16 March by James Bloggs Registrar on production of a statutory declaration made by John Downes and Frederick Downes. (Bits in italics added by me for clearer explanation.)

    So you do get the details as written on the original certificate, with what the details on the certificate should have said written on the far right, including the date of the statutory declaration and who made it.
    In this case, a father's name and occupation was given on the birth certificates and Ernest and Sarah later made a declaration that those details were given in error and should not have been included.

    Pam
    Vulcan XH558 - “Don't cry because it's over, smile because it happened.”

  10. #10
    Famous for offering help & advice
    Join Date
    Aug 2016
    Location
    East Sussex
    Posts
    1,246

    Default

    the marriage certificate of one of my great-grandfathers was amended 15 years after the event, firstly to correct the spelling of his surname and secondly to remove his fictitious father's name. The incorrect bits are underlined and the details of the amendment written to the right hand side, dated and signed in the presence of the parties.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Select a file: