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

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