Wayne, For the father to be named on a birth certificate the couple must be married or   the father must confirm his agreement to be named by being present at the registration . In this case somebody made an illegal declaration of marriage so the origanal registration was void. Whoever made the declaration would have committed an offence and would have been liable to at least a fine. Cheers Paul From: Wayne Shepheard <[email protected]> To: [email protected]; [email protected] Cc: Edmonds Bev <[email protected]>; [email protected] Sent: Sunday, 13 November 2016, 14:56 Subject: Re: [DEV] YELLAND Stoke Damerel Paul, Bev and Others, I came across an example of birth entries being changed through a researcher who was looking into some information from Plympton St Mary, one of my parishes. This is the gist of what he told me: He was looking for an 1867 birth record for a James Eastman, a brother of his great-grandmother. He found a reference in civil records for which he applied for a copy. The register office told him that they could not deliver the certificate because it had been cancelled due, apparently, to the there having been no proof of a marriage between James's supposed parents, Samuel and Mary Eastman. They would, however, send him a copy of one that had been reissued in the name of James Kellow, son of Mary Elizabeth Kellow. (Mary did marry Samuel but not until 1874.) On a subsequent visit to the Plymouth Record Office, they would not show him the original entry but did confirm that the boy's father was Samuel Eastman. (I do not know how or whether that means by blood.) This was all part of a complicated search for information about the Kellow family, who were also shown in various records as Kellar, Callard and Callow. In this instance, though, a birth was registered twice, under different surnames, and both can be found on searchable records. They also have the same volume and page number on the GRO index. I realize this is not quite the same issue as that referenced by Anne below but it does show that registrations can be and were changed under certain circumstances. Wayne Shepheard Cornwood OPC -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] Sent: Sunday, November 13, 2016 7:01 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [DEV] YELLAND Stoke Damerel Bev, Unless there is a material mistake by the registrar, i.e. sex or a father added a registration cannot be changed or a new certificate issued. To register twice to changea forename would be illegal (though that would not neccssarily stop anybody trying). The only exception is legal adoption when the original entry is is removed from the index and becomes "secret", unless requested by the adoptee.following a the legal process. A replacement entry made with the new name and parents. Cheers Paul -------------------------------------------- On Sat, 12/11/16, B. Edmonds <[email protected]> wrote: Subject: Re: [DEV] YELLAND Stoke Damerel To: [email protected] Date: Saturday, 12 November, 2016, 22:10 Anne Could the parents have decided to change the name of the baby? Regards Bev -------------------------------------------------- From: "Anne Brooks" <[email protected]> Sent: Sunday, November 13, 2016 7:22 AM To: <[email protected]> Subject: [DEV] YELLAND Stoke Damerel > The GRO search for births, now including the maiden name of the mother, is > quite fascinating. I have a question regarding my latest discovery. > > I have a family of YELLANDs living in Stoke Damerel. The mother's maiden > name was DOVE. I had four children for this couple between 1848 and 1854. > One was a Fanny YELLAND, 1850 D. Quarter Stoke Damerel 09 pg 439; mother > DOVE. I was able to find all four, them all, with a mother DOVE. > > I then searched for any children born in that time frame, surname YELLAND, > mother's maiden name, DOVE. To my surprise another child came up, a Jane > YELLAND with the identical criteria as Fanny, mother DOVE, except a 2 page > difference: pg 437. > > Do I assume they were twins and the second entry just got recorded 2 pages > later ??? Why 2 pages ? I checked the original images on FreeBMD and the > pages seem to have been transcribed correctly, one 439, and one 437. As > this Jane never appeared in any censuses in the home, and I couldn't find > a death registration for her, it is rather strange. The liklihood of > another YELLAND / DOVE marriage is quite unlikely I would think. > > Any thoughts most appreciated. > Anne > ------------------------------------------