Birth Certificate

celinepatricia

am going through paperwork of my dads and on his birth certificate
it says born 1930 registered 1948 by order of regiistrar general.
Is this odd or normal???

DigForVictory

Entries "by order of registrar general" tend to be error correction or removing duplication - any chance of getting to see the original register & seeing which?

(A splendid excuse for a break, as any genealogist will tell you.)

TonyMMM

It could be a late registration, where it just didn't get done in 1930 but it is much more likely to be a re-registration of the birth, and at that time the most common reason for that would be under the Legitimacy Act after his parents married. Check their marriage date to see if it was after his birth, and if it was there is probably an original birth registration just under his mother's name.

celinepatricia

do i write to the place where he was registered to find out the answer?

Shelldean

My boys born 1995, 1995 + 1998 are all registered 2002.
They was registered when born but due to their father and I marrying (their births were legitimized) and 're-registered in 2002.

From what I believe their original certificate can not be accessed. And if they apply for their birth certificates they will be sent the 2002 version.


Maybe that is what happened for your father?

And yes contact the registry office the event happened they should be able to help x

[Deleted User]

My mum and her siblings were not registered until they were teens back in the 70s. Reason being they were illegitimate and my nans partners wife died. Suppose they felt they could register them then.

POPPYOSCAR

Shelldean wrote: »

My boys born 1995, 1995 + 1998 are all registered 2002.
They was registered when born but due to their father and I marrying (their births were legitimized) and 're-registered in 2002.

From what I believe their original certificate can not be accessed. And if they apply for their birth certificates they will be sent the 2002 version.


Maybe that is what happened for your father?

And yes contact the registry office the event happened they should be able to help x

Same here.

We were told to destroy the originals as it was illegal to use them.

Browntoa

Never came across this until the other day whilst researching a family tree.

As described , first birth registration , then married and finally 2nd birth certificate issued with a 2nd registration

POPPYOSCAR

Browntoa wrote: »

Never came across this until the other day whilst researching a family tree.

As described , first birth registration , then married and finally 2nd birth certificate issued with a 2nd registration[/QUOTE]

Yes this was something we were advised to do by the registrar when we got married.

Apparently, children born out of wedlock have fewer legal rights/claim than those born within.

Re-registering with new birth certificates showing parents as married puts them on equal terms.

DigForVictory

Roughly what time period? I'm intrigued as to what the benefits of being legitimate were, or the penalties for being illegitimate. Certainly apprenticeship indentures varied somewhat regarding the father's relationship with the son, but I'd be interested to know if the daughters suffered anything more concrete than the usual doubts of 'just like her mother'...

Mojisola

_shel wrote: »

My mum and her siblings were not registered until they were teens back in the 70s. Reason being they were illegitimate and my nans partners wife died. Suppose they felt they could register them then.

Did your Nan get fined for not registering the births?