Help

[Megan Roberts]

I've been helping a lady with her family tree. She knew that her father was born in 1908, and she believed that her grandfather was Jack Hayhurst. Together we bought a digital copy of his birth certificate, and it shows something quite different.

The name Robert Rawcliffe has been written there and then crossed out. Her mother is shown as Margaret Hayhurst nee Wilding.

We know that Margaret and Jack married, but by the 1911 census she is describing herself as a widow, and later that year she marries someone else.

So my question is around the initial inclusion of Robert Rawcliffe and then its subsequent removal. I know that a father could only be listed if he was the husband, but does it seem likely that Robert was the real father, and then when the registrar realised that they weren't married that they deleted his name, or was it just a plain and simple error?

Thanks

[Pam Downes]

Hi Megan,
Hopefully AntonyMMM will see your post and give his insight, but to the best of my knowledge any amendment (however big or small) made within the columns of the certificate have to have an acknowledgement of the reason for the amendment entered at the side. Such an amendment probably won't show on a digital copy - though it should. Your friend may need to get a copy of the certificate from the relevant Register Office.

[AntonyMMM]

Hi Megan,
Such an amendment probably won't show on a digital copy - though it should.

Any change to an entry will generate some sort of marginal note. If made whilst the entry was being created it may just be a number, if later there will be additional information. The one difference between the digital images and pdfs/paper certificates is that because of the auto production system any marginal notes present on the entry, which can be very important, don't get shown on the digital version.

So my question is around the initial inclusion of Robert Rawcliffe and then its subsequent removal. I know that a father could only be listed if he was the husband, but does it seem likely that Robert was the real father, and then when the registrar realised that they weren't married that they deleted his name, or was it just a plain and simple error?

You are correct - from 1874 (and still now) an unmarried father could only be named on the birth entry if he was present at the registration to sign with the mother as a "joint informant".

I'd want to see the entry ( as a pdf preferably just in case there are any marginal notes), but my guess is that there will be a number by the crossing out of the father's details ? That would indicate a "numbered correction" made whilst the entry was being created, and not later.

The explanation probably is that the registrar was under the impression, was told, or just assumed, that the mother was married to the father and entered the name she gave for him but then realised or discovered that wasn't the case and crossed them through. I've seen a number of similar entries before.

Her mother is shown as Margaret Hayhurst nee Wilding.

I'd be surprised if it says née as that means "born as" and that isn't necessarily the same thing, for registration purposes, as a maiden name so the term that should be there is "formerly". Having a maiden name shown tells you that she was, or had been, a married woman at the time of the birth, but in this case not married to the father of the child.

[AntonyMMM]

Further to the above, I would work to the assumption that the father of the child was called Robert Rawcliffe and that the mother was a widow (or no longer with her husband) by 1908, and look for other evidence to confirm that.

Have you established when Jack Hayhurst did die ?

[grisel]

If Jack is the John Thomas Hayhurstwho is on the same freebmd page as Margaret Wilding at an 1898 marriage in Blackburn, then there look to be a couple of possible deaths in Blackburn in 1902 and 1904.

Also there is a 1913 birth in Blackburn of a Mary Rawcliffe mmn Wilding which could be relevant.

[Megan Roberts]

Thank you to those who have responded.

I've had another look at the Digital Image. The first legible column is "No.", however, it is apparent that there is some writing to the left of that, but is not legible as it's been cut off. Next to Robert Rawcliffe's name is the number "4".

My apologies to Anthony, Margaret is described as Margaret Hayhurst formerly Wilding, a cotton winder.

Jack Hayhurst, was actually John Thomas Hayhurst, who was born around 1874. We have not found a definite death for him, but we can't find him after the 1901 Census, and I would agree with Grisel about the probability of the 1902 and 1902 death registrations. I'm not certain that the lady I'm helping would have the funds to buy certificates on spec, but I will explain the options to her. If one of those deaths is correct that means that her uncle who was born in 1906, was also illegitimate.

I will suggest that she might want to get a pdf of her father's birth certificate.

Interestingly her father was very scathing about his mother, and she never met her grandmother. But this is the first time that she had ever heard any suggestion that Jack Hayhurst was not her grandfather. Thankfully she's OK about that, and even laughs.

Grisel: regarding the 1913 birth of Mary Rawcliffe, it is a different family the parents being John and Mary.

[Pam Downes]

Any change to an entry will generate some sort of marginal note. If made whilst the entry was being created it may just be a number, if later there will be additional information. The one difference between the digital images and pdfs/paper certificates is that because of the auto production system any marginal notes present on the entry, which can be very important, don't get shown on the digital version.
[SNIPPED]
I'd want to see the entry ( as a pdf preferably just in case there are any marginal notes), but my guess is that there will be a number by the crossing out of the father's details ? That would indicate a "numbered correction" made whilst the entry was being created, and not later.

Thank you to those who have responded.
I've had another look at the Digital Image. The first legible column is "No.", however, it is apparent that there is some writing to the left of that, but is not legible as it's been cut off. Next to Robert Rawcliffe's name is the number "4".

Thank you, Antony, for the clarification about when a number is used. I remembered that a number was involved sometimes but couldn't remember under what circumstances.

Slightly off-topic:
I have a death certificate for a Downs registered in 1893. I bought it in 2004, long before PDFs and digital images had been thought of, and at the right-hand side of the columns is written 'In no.221, col 2, for Daniel Downs read Daniel Downes and in col 7 for D Downs read D H Downes. Corrected on 16 March 1893 by me Wm Clark Registrar on production of a statutory declaration made by [name redacted by me] son of [name redacted by me] Downes.
Because the amendment was made in the same quarter as the death registration had taken place the entry appears in the GRO Index as Downes though the name on the certificate says Downs.