On 25/08/2013 22:18, Renia wrote: > On 25/08/2013 21:53, Charles Ellson wrote: >> On Sun, 25 Aug 2013 19:08:36 +0100, Ian Goddard > > >> Probably in most cases (e.g. married woman) the information supplied > > As a newly married woman applying for a passport in the UK, you have to > send in your old passport, your birth certificate and your marriage > certificate. Is the marriage certificate required even if you do not change your name? -- Rod

On 25/08/2013 21:53, Charles Ellson wrote: > On Sun, 25 Aug 2013 19:08:36 +0100, Ian Goddard > Probably in most cases (e.g. married woman) the information supplied As a newly married woman applying for a passport in the UK, you have to send in your old passport, your birth certificate and your marriage certificate.

On 25/08/2013 18:48, Jenny M Benson wrote: > On 25/08/2013 18:18, Charles Ellson wrote: >> if a person's medical records >> are complete from birth to the present day then that (in conjunction >> with your GP endorsing your photograph) is possibly the least likely >> chain of information to be defeated by impersonation > > Don't know how widespread it is, but certainly my local (Welsh) > surgery's GPs won't endorse photographs for passports now. I thought my last British passport was acquired through the British Embassy in Athens, but it wasn't. My son's was, but I can't remember who endorsed his photo. Possibly our Greek doctor. By the time we needed to renew our passports, the British Embassy in Athens had closed and the nearest Embassy we could apply to was in Madrid! So, at great expense, we went the fast-track route and made an appointment to apply for and pick up our new passports on a particular day in London. For the previous passport, our doctor had signed, for a fee. But for this one, one of our sons' friends signed it, because he was a police officer and we had known him for years. I have looked on our surgery's web site, and they now charge £20 to endorse a passport photo.

On 25/08/2013 18:18, Charles Ellson wrote: > On Sun, 25 Aug 2013 19:02:54 +0930, Anne Chambers <anne@privacy.net> > wrote: > >> brightside S9 wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> My original post stated clearly that his passport has the >>> ZZZ-surname. >>> >> I thought a birth certificate wasn't proof of identity anyway. >> > It is the start of a chain of information which should end at your > current address and physical identity. For a living person born in > the UK, the birth registration should match to an identity card > number We don't have identity cards in the UK. > (which later became an NHS number) and if a person's medical records > are complete from birth to the present day then that (in conjunction > with your GP endorsing your photograph) is possibly the least likely > chain of information to be defeated by impersonation but not the > only one available. Current passport applications only seem to ask > for a copy of the birth registration and the photograph but what you > don't Two passport photographs must be signed by a person in authority who has known you for at least two years, such as a doctor or police officer. If it is a second or subsequent passport, it is required that you submit the old one for ID verification, which they return to you. It is more than 40 years since I applied for my first passport, which was by the same process, but, of course, I had no previous passport to send them. I don't know, but my ID may have been self-verified by my parents' application for their first passports at the same time. > see at a passport interview is what other information is being > accessed on the interviewing officer's computer screen; this can be > expected to be rather more databases than the many that we mere > mortals have available to find someone. I have never had a passport interview. Not even when one of my passports was renewed by the British Embassy in Athens. I just go and collect them. When my husband lost his driving licence in Rome a couple years ago through the action of a pick-pocket who acquired his wallet, the new licence was sent without him having to send a new photo. They accessed his passport details and used that photo.

On Sun, 25 Aug 2013 19:08:36 +0100, Ian Goddard <goddai01@hotmail.co.uk> wrote: >Charles Ellson wrote: >> On Sun, 25 Aug 2013 12:08:40 +0100, Ian Goddard >> <goddai01@hotmail.co.uk> wrote: >> >>> Renia wrote: >>>> What the man needs to do, is change his name by deed poll, >>> >>> It's a more subtle (and possibly more stupid) problem than that. What >>> he needs to do is *prove* that he's the person named on birth >>> certificate as XXX YYY rather than ZZZ as given in his passport etc. In >>> effect changing his name by deed poll simply repeats the claim that he >>> was XXX YYY and says is now ZZZ. But it doesn't prove the claim. >>> >>> ISTM a rather stupid problem because the security check is on him, the >>> person described and shown in the photograph in the passport, all the >>> rest of the documentation and any other evidence the check might throw >>> up as ZZZ. If all that evidence shows him to be suitable then the birth >>> certificate isn't going to add to the sum of human knowledge. >>> >>> I think it rather depends on what the nature of the check is. If it's >>> an internal HR tick list mandated by ISO9000 or the like then he may be >>> doomed as such methods are designed to eliminate all possibility of the >>> intervention of intelligent thought. If they're just gathering a load >>> of data to ship off to Special Branch or whoever it is who does the >>> checks then I'd have thought the professionals should be able to work >>> round it - it's not likely to be a novel problem for them. But even in >>> the latter case HR may still have the tick list to fill before they >>> think they can proceed (and as it's HR I'm using the word "think" in its >>> loosest possible sense). >>> >> The problem possibly compares best with that of a person in the same >> circumstances undergoing an enhanced DBS check (which requires more >> proofs to be supplied by the applicant than a passport application >> does) for which the guidance does not seem to go beyond "If there are >> any discrepancies in the information provided by the applicant and/or >> the identity documents supplied, and fraud is not suspected, please >> seek clarification from the applicant." >> [https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/230541/ID_Checking_Guidance_DBS_v11.pdf] >> > >I was thinking more along the lines of SC as explained here: >https://www.sis.gov.uk/careers/working-for-us/security-vetting/what-is-security-clearance.html > >And note questions 3 h et seq on the application form here: >https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/28419/Form_NSV001.pdf > They simply ask for the applicant to explain any name changes! > Probably in most cases (e.g. married woman) the information supplied makes it merely a case of contacting relevant record holders to compare the answers with the records. It is rather more enquiring than the enhanced DBS check so possibly structured to make further enquiries to the applicant unnecessary if the information is available from the more routine GRO/DSS/MOJ etc. records; DBS checks are currently made by outside contractors who presumably do not have easy access. The details requested for parents etc. seem to be a bit more than they were 15 and 40 years ago, possibly not unrelated to cases/trials where security checks appeared to totally ignore people's siblings and in-laws.

This quote from the Sunday Times today:   > Previously anyone who built a “granny flat” with its own front door had to pay full council tax on it, unless the occupant was a dependant. Now ministers plan to offer a 50% discount if the occupant is a relative. The move acknowledges the trend for three generations to live in the same home. Eric Pickles, the communities and local government secretary, said: “Removing the family tax penalty on annexes and home improvements will help provide more affordable housing and strengthen the bonds that tie society together.”   http://www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto/news/uk_news/Society/article1305034.ece       Ignoring modern-day politics (please).     As some of you will know, I read a lot of seventeenth-century wills. In the area that I research, most probate inventories have survived. These make clear that the very elderly in rural districts, even if they had handed over control and ownership of their farms to their children, were still identified as having possessions (a bed, a chair, maybe books, maybe a few sheep). Sometimes they were clearly in a separate cottage on the steading. Not only that, but farmsteads were often split (either legally or practically) between siblings, so farmsteads could have elderly uncles as well as elderly fathers. Widows had right to a third or half of the farm so that created further living splits.   That's really just a comment. I'd be interested if people could follow through from that to the modern trend that is emerging.     Chris

On Sun, 25 Aug 2013 18:48:02 +0100, Jenny M Benson <nemonews@hotmail.co.uk> wrote: >On 25/08/2013 18:18, Charles Ellson wrote: >> if a person's medical records >> are complete from birth to the present day then that (in conjunction >> with your GP endorsing your photograph) is possibly the least likely >> chain of information to be defeated by impersonation > >Don't know how widespread it is, but certainly my local (Welsh) >surgery's GPs won't endorse photographs for passports now. > AFAIAA it isn't part of their NHS/GIG responsibilities and IMU not something that a GP has ever had any duty to do rather than being one of several classes of person likely to have relevant knowledge of a passport applicant and who could be regarded as trustworthy. There would certainly be areas where a GP might often never have the opportunity to gain relevant knowledge of patients to truthfully verify their identity if either or both of the patients or doctors tend not to be permanently established in the area; they must have "personally known the applicant for at least two years" to be able to sign which should automatically disqualify many new/younger doctors.

Charles Ellson wrote: > On Sun, 25 Aug 2013 12:08:40 +0100, Ian Goddard > <goddai01@hotmail.co.uk> wrote: > >> Renia wrote: >>> What the man needs to do, is change his name by deed poll, >> >> It's a more subtle (and possibly more stupid) problem than that. What >> he needs to do is *prove* that he's the person named on birth >> certificate as XXX YYY rather than ZZZ as given in his passport etc. In >> effect changing his name by deed poll simply repeats the claim that he >> was XXX YYY and says is now ZZZ. But it doesn't prove the claim. >> >> ISTM a rather stupid problem because the security check is on him, the >> person described and shown in the photograph in the passport, all the >> rest of the documentation and any other evidence the check might throw >> up as ZZZ. If all that evidence shows him to be suitable then the birth >> certificate isn't going to add to the sum of human knowledge. >> >> I think it rather depends on what the nature of the check is. If it's >> an internal HR tick list mandated by ISO9000 or the like then he may be >> doomed as such methods are designed to eliminate all possibility of the >> intervention of intelligent thought. If they're just gathering a load >> of data to ship off to Special Branch or whoever it is who does the >> checks then I'd have thought the professionals should be able to work >> round it - it's not likely to be a novel problem for them. But even in >> the latter case HR may still have the tick list to fill before they >> think they can proceed (and as it's HR I'm using the word "think" in its >> loosest possible sense). >> > The problem possibly compares best with that of a person in the same > circumstances undergoing an enhanced DBS check (which requires more > proofs to be supplied by the applicant than a passport application > does) for which the guidance does not seem to go beyond "If there are > any discrepancies in the information provided by the applicant and/or > the identity documents supplied, and fraud is not suspected, please > seek clarification from the applicant." > [https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/230541/ID_Checking_Guidance_DBS_v11.pdf] > I was thinking more along the lines of SC as explained here: https://www.sis.gov.uk/careers/working-for-us/security-vetting/what-is-security-clearance.html And note questions 3 h et seq on the application form here: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/28419/Form_NSV001.pdf They simply ask for the applicant to explain any name changes! -- Ian The Hotmail address is my spam-bin. Real mail address is iang at austonley org uk

brightside S9 wrote: > > > My original post stated clearly that his passport has the ZZZ-surname. > I thought a birth certificate wasn't proof of identity anyway. What ID did he use to get his passport ? -- Anne Chambers South Australia anne dot chambers at bigpond dot com

Roy Stockdill wrote:   <snip> > On the odd occasion I have been asked > to provide either a passport or driving licence, I am met with bewilderment on > the part of idiots when I tell them I possess neither because I don't drive and > I didn't bother to spend money renewing my passport when I ceased travelling > abroad. <snip>     I have a similar problem. Currently I don't have any photo identity (not being a driver and not having got round to renewing my passport - must do soon, before any fraudster reads this post).   I used to play a MMPG that is based in Sweden. My security card for this game stopped working earlier this year, so I had to get it replaced. Couldn't do it because the company wouldn't accept anything other than photo ID. At the same time they assured me that they don't keep a record of the photo. So why need the photo in the first place - they haven't got anything to compare it to! Anyway, they've now lost a client.     > abroad. Unfortunately, though I know I am in the right this can sometimes cause > problems, especially with banks.     This is partly a problem of technology transition. Using online banking, you simply don't have that sort of ID problem. Friends of mine who refuse to bank online complain about how long it takes to prove their identity at their local branch. They spend an afternoon doing something that would take a few minutes online. Crazy.   The problem is going to get worse. Increasingly now, I don't have utility bills and the like to prove identity - because I do everything online or paperless - so even if I had the photo ID, I'm running out of additional proofs of current address.     Chris http://rumbutter.info/

On 25/08/2013 18:18, Charles Ellson wrote: > if a person's medical records > are complete from birth to the present day then that (in conjunction > with your GP endorsing your photograph) is possibly the least likely > chain of information to be defeated by impersonation Don't know how widespread it is, but certainly my local (Welsh) surgery's GPs won't endorse photographs for passports now. -- Jenny M Benson

On Sun, 25 Aug 2013 12:08:40 +0100, Ian Goddard <goddai01@hotmail.co.uk> wrote: >Renia wrote: >> What the man needs to do, is change his name by deed poll, > >It's a more subtle (and possibly more stupid) problem than that. What >he needs to do is *prove* that he's the person named on birth >certificate as XXX YYY rather than ZZZ as given in his passport etc. In >effect changing his name by deed poll simply repeats the claim that he >was XXX YYY and says is now ZZZ. But it doesn't prove the claim. > >ISTM a rather stupid problem because the security check is on him, the >person described and shown in the photograph in the passport, all the >rest of the documentation and any other evidence the check might throw >up as ZZZ. If all that evidence shows him to be suitable then the birth >certificate isn't going to add to the sum of human knowledge. > >I think it rather depends on what the nature of the check is. If it's >an internal HR tick list mandated by ISO9000 or the like then he may be >doomed as such methods are designed to eliminate all possibility of the >intervention of intelligent thought. If they're just gathering a load >of data to ship off to Special Branch or whoever it is who does the >checks then I'd have thought the professionals should be able to work >round it - it's not likely to be a novel problem for them. But even in >the latter case HR may still have the tick list to fill before they >think they can proceed (and as it's HR I'm using the word "think" in its >loosest possible sense). > The problem possibly compares best with that of a person in the same circumstances undergoing an enhanced DBS check (which requires more proofs to be supplied by the applicant than a passport application does) for which the guidance does not seem to go beyond "If there are any discrepancies in the information provided by the applicant and/or the identity documents supplied, and fraud is not suspected, please seek clarification from the applicant." [https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/230541/ID_Checking_Guidance_DBS_v11.pdf]

On 25/08/2013 13:21, johnfhhgen wrote: > Although the Births and Deaths Registration Act 1953 fixes a limit of > twelve months, the information on the GROs own site at > https://www.gov.uk/correct-birth-registration/how-to-apply > seems to imply that with aupporting docymentation the Registr-General > *may* ahutorise a correction to the original entry enabling a > certificate to be issued in the current name. Yes, I have seen changes made to original entries decades after the event.

On Sun, 25 Aug 2013 19:02:54 +0930, Anne Chambers <anne@privacy.net> wrote: >brightside S9 wrote: > >> >> >> My original post stated clearly that his passport has the ZZZ-surname. >> >I thought a birth certificate wasn't proof of identity anyway. > It is the start of a chain of information which should end at your current address and physical identity. For a living person born in the UK, the birth registration should match to an identity card number (which later became an NHS number) and if a person's medical records are complete from birth to the present day then that (in conjunction with your GP endorsing your photograph) is possibly the least likely chain of information to be defeated by impersonation but not the only one available. Current passport applications only seem to ask for a copy of the birth registration and the photograph but what you don't see at a passport interview is what other information is being accessed on the interviewing officer's computer screen; this can be expected to be rather more databases than the many that we mere mortals have available to find someone. >What ID did he use to get his passport ? > Current evidences usable for changes of name are one or more of :- -Marriage certificate -Civil Partnership certicate -Gender Recognition certificate -Enrolled** deed poll [note "enrolled"] -Change of name deed -Certificate of naturalisation or registration -Statutory declaration or affidavit -Birth certificate (upon re-registration) -Certificate from the Court of the Lord Lyon of Scotland -IPS form PD2 for those about to marry or form a civil partnership (see direct.gov.uk/passports) [from IPS booklet - "Applying for a passport"] ** i.e. a deed poll which has not just been completed but which has additionally been recorded in the courts system.

From: Guy Etchells <guy.etchells@virgin.net> > The answer is very simple the firm which is doing the security checking > is in the wrong. > > In the UK a person's legal name is the name that he or she uses no other. > There is only one way to change a name and that is to use the new name. > > *A birth certificate***in the UK* is not, and never has been proof of > identity*, if the security firm thinks it is they are totally > incompetent and illiterate. > > To provide proof of identity one should ask a "person of standing" J.P., > doctor, teacher etc. to sign a photo to verify that the person in the > photo is the person "zzz surname". > Cheers > Guy> Guy is quite right - he invariably is! I have myself found a great deal of confusion and misunderstanding among official bodies, bureaucrats and companies as to what constitutes proof of identity. On the odd occasion I have been asked to provide either a passport or driving licence, I am met with bewilderment on the part of idiots when I tell them I possess neither because I don't drive and I didn't bother to spend money renewing my passport when I ceased travelling abroad. Unfortunately, though I know I am in the right this can sometimes cause problems, especially with banks. The fact is that anyone can call themselves anything they like, provided it's not for a nefarious purpose. There is an awful lof of paranoia around because of identity theft, etc. -- Roy Stockdill Genealogical researcher, writer & lecturer Famous family trees blog: http://blog.findmypast.co.uk/tag/roy-stockdill/ "There is only one thing in the world worse than being talked about, and that is not being talked about." OSCAR WILDE

On 25/08/2013 13:21, johnfhhgen wrote: > On 24/08/2013 12:58 PM, brightside S9 wrote: >> I'll ask the question here first, and then try uk.legal >> I have a friend who's birth was registered as forename 1 (let's say >> XXX) forname 2 (let's say YYY) and surname. (I know that it can >> happen, my wife registred the birth of my first son in hospital as the >> registrar came round the maternity ward and named him without my >> presence). >> My friend *thinks / guesses* that some family disagrrements over >> these registerd fornames led to him always being called with a >> forename ZZZ. >> His his baptismal certificate, driving licence, passport, employment >> records, bank account, credit and debit cards, NI records, and >> marriage certificate are all shown with forename ZZZ. >> He has known that his birth certificate doesn't show the ZZZ forename >> for some time but this has not raised any concerns for him until now. >> He has applied for a job which requires considerable security >> checking. Needless to say this forname discrepancy on the birth >> certificate aginst all the other documents listed above has resulted >> in him failing the security check *unless* he can prove that >> XXX-YYY-surname is the same person as ZZZ-surname. His parents are >> long deceased and no living family member has any idea why his birth >> registration forenames were unacceptable to either his mother, father >> or other family member and who chose to call him by the ZZZ forename. >> ISTR that it is permissable to call oneself any name one chooses >> provided it is not for nefarious purposes. But how could a neme change >> be made 'official', after 55 years of being known as ZZZ surname'? >> Has any of the contributors to this newsgroup come across such a >> situation as this before, and any ideas what he should do to prove >> that XXX-YYY-surname is the same person as ZZZ-surname. >> Thanks. > Although the Births and Deaths Registration Act 1953 fixes a limit of > twelve months, the information on the GROs own site at > https://www.gov.uk/correct-birth-registration/how-to-apply > seems to imply that with aupporting docymentation the Registr-General > *may* ahutorise a correction to the original entry enabling a > certificate to be issued in the current name. > Note that although the Applicatio Form demands the signatures of both > parents, the notes say ( > https://www.gov.uk/correct-birth-registration/who-can-apply ) > > > 2. Who can apply > > The following people can apply for a correction: > > * the mother > * the father (if his details are on the certificate) > > If you’re applying to change a child’s name and both parents are named > on the certificate, both must sign the application form. > > The child named on the certificate may be able to apply for a correction > if their parents aren’t available." > > Hope this may help, > Kind regards, > John Henley > > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to GENBRIT-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message > > The answer is very simple the firm which is doing the security checking is in the wrong. In the UK a person's legal name is the name that he or she uses no other. There is only one way to change a name and that is to use the new name. *A birth certificate***in the UK* is not, and never has been proof of identity*, if the security firm thinks it is they are totally incompetent and illiterate. To provide proof of identity one should ask a "person of standing" J.P., doctor, teacher etc. to sign a photo to verify that the person in the photo is the person "zzz surname". Cheers Guy

"Graeme Wall" <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote in message news:Ne9Qt.93525$q42.35925@fx15.fr7... > On 18/08/2013 18:46, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote: >> In message <mA6Qt.981856$rE.715567@fx05.fr7>, Graeme Wall >> <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> writes: >>> On 18/08/2013 17:05, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote: >>>> Can we as a hobby/profession start to abandon using only a month to >>>> refer to a quarter, when further precision isn't known? I'd suggest >>>> any of >>>> >>>> Apr-Jun 1891 >>>> 1891, Apr-Jun >>>> Q2 1891 >>>> 1891Q2 >>> >>> I tend to use <year> Mar/4, Jun/4, Sep/4 and Dec/4 >>> >> If I saw "2013 Mar/4" in something, I'd be wondering if it meant >> 2013-03-04, i. e. the fourth of March. Just saying (-:! > > Doesn't confuse me as I don't use the ISO format, but I see what you mean. > For exact dates I use the form 18 Aug 2013, saves confusing the rebel > colonies. > > -- > Graeme Wall > This account not read, substitute trains for rail. > Railway Miscellany at <http://www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail> Strangely, the ISO 8601 standard doesn't accommodate yearly quarters, despite there being an obvious precedent in their Week Number format: www.parallaxview.co/familyhistorydata/research-notes/dates-calendars#Quarters. The obvious syntax of yyyy-Qq (e.g. 1956-Q2) was proposed to FHISO (http://fhiso.org/call-for-papers-submissions/), who also approached ISO over the omission, but a number of commentators (including our Richard Smith in this thread) pointed out that the natural sorting capability of ISO dates is already broken for week numbers and would also be broken for yearly quarters. This, and the requirement to represent decades, centuries, etc., caused the STEMMA model to adopt a modified syntax in its V2 specification: www.parallaxview.co/familyhistorydata/research-notes/dates-calendars#DateValue. This is all very "computery", of course, but the relevance here is that the yyyy-Qq is unambiguous and in-keeping with the ISO standard as it stands. Tony Proctor

On 25/08/2013 13:56, Richard Heaton wrote: > Hi, > I have put together a series of lists of all the titles in all of the Digitalised Online British and Irish Newspaper I am aware of and which may be very helpful to identify whether a title is available and is so what dates could be available and where you can locate it based on the data provided by the sites (see link below). > > The Lists are split England (excluding London), London (which splits between Local newspapers and National Titles), Ireland, Scotland, Wales, Channel Islands, and Isle of Man. Most are sorted by County and then Town except London (which is a large file) which I have chosen to sort by title (which means titles from the 17th Century could be next to those for the 20th Century). > > This is a first attempt and there will be errors and omissions - not all papers printed within a given date range may be available (my experience of bound volumes is .. unlike books .. they may not be complete) . If you do look and spot any errors please let me know. Once it has settled down I will update it again before Christmas > > [I'll tidy up the various Times titles and links later today] > > Very Best > > Richard Heaton > > http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~dutillieul/BritishandIrishNews.html > > > > Very nice, Richard, a useful resource. -- Graeme Wall This account not read, substitute trains for rail. Railway Miscellany at <http://www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail>

In message <jdqdnZEkl-j1o4TPnZ2dnVY3goWdnZ2d@giganews.com>, Kiwi in Aus <Wwftw_98@Yahoo.com> writes: >Yes thanks I had found that, on a later census she is Melinda, 1871 >they get it right ;-) and he is a Marble Mason, thanks for looking >"J. P. Gilliver (John)" <G6JPG@soft255.demon.co.uk> wrote in message >news:gKk4fSb0HNGSFw3z@soft255.demon.co.uk... >> In message <s62dnXVjT5mtJ4jPnZ2dnVY3goqdnZ2d@giganews.com>, Kiwi in >>Aus <Wwftw_98@Yahoo.com> writes: >>>I have Francis PASCOE born 1819 in Constantine, Cornwall, England >>>Married Belinda MINERS born 7 Feb 1819 in Ladock, Cornwall, England >>>their first Child Belinda PASCOE was born 1841 in Falmouth, Cornwall, >>>England [] >>(transcribed as Bolenda Pascoe, 20) with Belinda 2 Mo, but _without_ >>Francis, in Falmouth in the 1841; there's something written by them, >>unfortunately crossed through: the first word I'm pretty sure is >>husband, but the second word could be ov/er, ostler (though I don't >>think so - I can only see five letters), ovlev, or anything similar. >>(Could it be ov/something meaning overseas?) Appears to be "High Street". [] Can anyone else make out the word below husband in that 1841 census? -- J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf Who can refute a sneer? - Archdeacon Paley, in his book Moral Philosophy

On 24/08/2013 12:58 PM, brightside S9 wrote: > I'll ask the question here first, and then try uk.legal > I have a friend who's birth was registered as forename 1 (let's say > XXX) forname 2 (let's say YYY) and surname. (I know that it can > happen, my wife registred the birth of my first son in hospital as the > registrar came round the maternity ward and named him without my > presence). > My friend *thinks / guesses* that some family disagrrements over > these registerd fornames led to him always being called with a > forename ZZZ. > His his baptismal certificate, driving licence, passport, employment > records, bank account, credit and debit cards, NI records, and > marriage certificate are all shown with forename ZZZ. > He has known that his birth certificate doesn't show the ZZZ forename > for some time but this has not raised any concerns for him until now. > He has applied for a job which requires considerable security > checking. Needless to say this forname discrepancy on the birth > certificate aginst all the other documents listed above has resulted > in him failing the security check *unless* he can prove that > XXX-YYY-surname is the same person as ZZZ-surname. His parents are > long deceased and no living family member has any idea why his birth > registration forenames were unacceptable to either his mother, father > or other family member and who chose to call him by the ZZZ forename. > ISTR that it is permissable to call oneself any name one chooses > provided it is not for nefarious purposes. But how could a neme change > be made 'official', after 55 years of being known as ZZZ surname'? > Has any of the contributors to this newsgroup come across such a > situation as this before, and any ideas what he should do to prove > that XXX-YYY-surname is the same person as ZZZ-surname. > Thanks. Although the Births and Deaths Registration Act 1953 fixes a limit of twelve months, the information on the GROs own site at https://www.gov.uk/correct-birth-registration/how-to-apply seems to imply that with aupporting docymentation the Registr-General *may* ahutorise a correction to the original entry enabling a certificate to be issued in the current name. Note that although the Applicatio Form demands the signatures of both parents, the notes say ( https://www.gov.uk/correct-birth-registration/who-can-apply ) 2. Who can apply The following people can apply for a correction: * the mother * the father (if his details are on the certificate) If you’re applying to change a child’s name and both parents are named on the certificate, both must sign the application form. The child named on the certificate may be able to apply for a correction if their parents aren’t available." Hope this may help, Kind regards, John Henley