If it had been just after 1926 I would have immediately thought of legal adoption, which until then had not been possible, to regularise the situation under law. But it could still be a possibility. How early in the 1900s? Could 1935 have coincided with either the coming of age (at 21) or the marriage of one of the children when the family wanted to make a "togetherness" statement? Just a couple of thoughts. Anne On 10 October 2010 12:37, Eddie Tricker <etricker@ozemail.com.au> wrote: > Hi all > > Looking for some help, by way of explanation, of a couple of birth > re-registrations for a couple of my family members. > > Two members of a family were born out of wedlock, so as is the case > each of these two children bore their mother's maiden surname at > birth. These births occurred in the early 1900s. > > The father subsequently married the mother, shortly after the birth > of the 2nd child. > > In 1935, the births of these two children were re-registered by the > father, with him indicating that he was the father, i.e he > re-registered them with his surname. > > On what grounds under English law, at that time, (1935), could the > initial birth registrations of these children be overturned; from > mother's maiden surname to father's surname??? > > Nivard (and anyone ) can you please offer me your wisdom on this matter? > > eddie tricker > Australia > > > > > > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > SUFFOLK-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the > quotes in the subject and the body of the message >