Genealogy Chat

my fathers birth was re reg after 17 yrs does anyone know under what circumstances this may of been allowed and would a record of been kept to say why he was re reg in 1929 after being born in 1912, thanks jackie

was his name changed or anything? What makes you think it was and there wasn't another person born of the same name 17 years later?

Could be the original record was lost or a correction needed to be made from the 1st registration. Rose

Hi jess yes he was born john mchugh in 1912 mother mary elizabeth mchugh she married joseph hurtley in 1919 then in 1929 my fathers name was changed to john hurtley, i thought it strange as he would of been 17 then and was it only allowed under certain circumstances, jackie

Only by comparing the 2 birth certificates ,it may have been one of many reasons,from the registar office entry into the GRO entry in that the wrong parents have been put down,,,and that information was copied from an entry above or below his,,,,,or even that a page was oveturned,, Have you got both of the certificates?? Kay, Add-On, Just read your replies,,,,it may have been possible for this name change to happen as in the eyes of the law in England he was still under age,,,of 21.perhaps he was asked when his mother married if he would like to go in same name,,,???but I would have thought the original would have been changed as well....have you been back to look at this to see??

I dont have two birth certs but he is under mchugh on 1837 on line when i sent for his birth cert it tells me he was re reg on the authority of the reg general under the name of john hurtley in 1929, another strange fact is that on my parents marr cert he used the name william sharp other wise john mchugh not hurtley jackie

Did Joseph adopt him and so he was registered under his new name then?

It could be that his new step father wanted to formally adopt him and therefore that is why he has another birth certificate. The reason I know this is that I also have two birth certificates. The first one is in my mother's maiden name and the second one is in my father's name. I asked my parents the question why, and the response I got was as they were not married I could not take my father's name, once they got married for me to have his name, my birth had to be re-registered. If I look at the BMD index for me there is also a linking entry for the 2 births. Hope that makes sense Regards Sue

I found the following on a UK Parliament site from 1997 when it was proposed to simplify the procedure. Guess in 1929 the procedure was similar: ' The re-registration of births may take place in two circumstances. First, where the parents of a child were not married to each other at the time of the birth and no-one was entered in the register as the father. The second case is where the parents of a child subsequently marry each other after the registration of the birth, thereby legitimising the child. At present, an application for re-registration has to be made either directly to the Registrar General or through a local registration officer, who forwards it to the Registrar General. If an application is successful the Registrar General then sends his authority for the re-registration of the birth to the registrar concerned, who then arranges for the parents to attend his or her office to complete the formalities. '

Thanks to all for your help, some very interesting information has been given, it could explain a lot of things wonder why it took them so long to re reg him as they had been married ten years, thanks jackie

Ive seen this before at a similar time-circustances were that the children were given up as young children,because the mother died young and fatherwas away at war,got hitched and the 2nd wife did a runner->>>>all 3 kids went in to care>>would have left at the age of 16/17 from a well known chain of care homes.....something house(cant remember the name right now)