Little known fact: Apparently a re-registration is required by law to reflect the fact that the parents have married since the child's birth. (from my local government web site) Dorri ---------------------------------------- > From: ovington1@sky.com > To: suffolk@rootsweb.com > Date: Sun, 10 Oct 2010 13:14:25 +0100 > Subject: Re: [SFK-UK] Birth Re-Registrations > > Hi Eddie > > Re the Acts Parliament relevant to Civil Registration (and more besides) see > :- > http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~framland/acts/actind.htm > > But as with all things they are open to a certain amount of interpretation > depending upon the individual person applying the law > > They can be heavy reading :-( > > The following goes some way to explain what you should find on various > Certificates and why > http://www.dixons.clara.co.uk/Certificates/indexbd.htm > > But the original birth registrations were not overturned, they will still be > there , where there is a change or addition there will be a new registration > at that time > > For them to reregister the births under the fathers & mothers names they > would both have to be present, in the original case if the mother went on > her own and was asked if she was married and answered no, the Registrar > should not have entered the fathers details (name and occupation) even if > they were living together as man and wife > > In the years up to about the last 40 or so there was little asked (if > anything) in the way of proof, so if a mother turned up and said she was > married that was taken as such > > The reasons for the later registration could be many, to legitimise the > births, for removing doubt over inheritance, the father wanting to claim > paternity etc > > These days there is a statutory declaration form which the party registering > the birth can give to the Registrar but I don't think that came in much > before the 1980's > > Nivard Ovington in Cornwall (UK) > > >> 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