Genealogy Chat

I don't agree it's the only change to the 1962q2 index. I'm sure the original index didn't list the kid under the fathers surname, and the index was changed by adding a handwritten reference as a footer on both the "Evans" page and the "Jones" page. I think the main purpose of the 1964q2 reregistration was to add the father's name, and the alteration of the mid-name was secondary.

You are right Sylvia.

I don't want to give details as the person whose birth we are looking at is most likely still living, but the surname and mother's maiden name remain the same on both entries. It is just the middle initial that is altered on the second registration.

Kath. x

mgnv ..............

I was basing my comment on Kath's post ..............

After a pm from the poster I've checked the two entries and the only difference between the two entries is that the middle initial on the 1962 entry was F and on the second entry was F-G.


She doesn't mention anything about the father's name being included.

Sylvia - that wasn't the case here - yes, the midname was extended, but I would guess the primary reason for the change was to add the father, as was done in 1964. At the end of 1964q2, the original 1962q2 index entry was updated by adding a handwritten footnote giving the "Evans" surname, and saying See J/64. Simultaneously, the original "Jones" index entry was updated by crossing out the original page # and adding the marginal note "See J 64"


As for changing the forename - here's the (reordered) first page of births from the GRO index for Culceth subdistrict in Leigh RD

Births Sep 1837 (>99%)
SLATER Ann Leigh 21 347
*Cleworth Female Leigh 21 347
*PARTINGTON Male Leigh 21 347
Speakman James Leigh 21 347
EDWARDS Catharine Leigh 21 347
WARD George Leigh 21 347
WARD Ellen Leigh 21 347
*LEIGH Female Leigh 21 347
*Wood Male Leigh 21 347
MARSH John Leigh 21 347


Here's the corresponding entries from the local index

Lancashire Birth indexes for the years: 1837
Surname Forename(s) Sub-District Registers At Mother's Maiden Name Reference
SLATER Ann Culcheth Wigan & Leigh RAMSDALE CUL/1/1
*CLEWORTH Sarah Culcheth Wigan & Leigh MARSH CUL/1/2
*PARTINGTON Joseph Culcheth Wigan & Leigh UNSWORTH CUL/1/3
SPEAKMAN James Culcheth Wigan & Leigh HAYES CUL/1/4
EDWARDS Catherine Culcheth Wigan & Leigh SNAPE CUL/1/5
WARD George Culcheth Wigan & Leigh TOWNLEY CUL/1/6
WARD Ellen Culcheth Wigan & Leigh TOWNLEY CUL/1/7
*LEIGH Elizabeth Alice Culcheth Wigan & Leigh URMSTON CUL/1/8
*WOOD Ralph Culcheth Wigan & Leigh SILCOCK CUL/1/9
MARSH John Culcheth Wigan & Leigh MEADWRIGHT CUL/1/10

I put in a query to LancsBMD, they checked, and said the 4 (*-ed) nameless kids all had a forename(s) added in column 10 (col for name entered after baptism, etc)

I would guess that this might be one of the few times that I've actually seen a birth registration corrected when there has been a simple mistake in a forename!

We've all had cases where someone has a second forename in later life, which may or may not have been given at baptism but which does not show on the birth registration, or where a child is registered as Male Jones but there is no later information.

Parents are supposed to correct registrations in such cases, but few rarely do!

Lets use some fictious names:

Births Jun 1962 (>99%)
EVANS John F JONES Carlisle 1a See J/64
JONES John F JONES Carlisle 1a 123 ?
If I click on the comment indicator (the ?), I get:
#COMMENT page no.123 crossed through handwritten addendum See 2067
Actually, the image shows the addendum is See J64 (and names the real page #) - also the Evans entry appears on this page as a handwritten footnote..
[I've sent in a correction for this mistranscription]

Births Jun 1964 (>99%)
EVANS John F-G JONES Carlisle 1a 1234
JONES John F-G JONES Carlisle 1a 1234

I don't know if this is relevant but there was a nearby Evans-Jones marr in 1964q1
Marriages Mar 1964 (41%)
EVANS David JONES Cleveland 1b 1[3_]57
JONES Mary EVANS Cleveland 1b 1257 [My transcription]
[In real life, the 2nd digit of the page # is 2, and you have to use FreeBMD's view images method to find Mary's forename - you want to use page 560 to get the image.
This problem arises because only 41% of this quarter has been transcribed - up to Holland, I think, so Jones isn't done yet]

Abt 25% of births & marr quarters are incomplete for the 1960s - B-1963q1 & M-1964q1 are the earliest of these although there are still a couple of incomplee Bs from the 1940s, viz:
Births Sep 1940 (76%) **************
Births Dec 1943 (94%) ***
The earliest incomplete death is 1973q3

%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

Illegitimate births were naming the mother were required to be registered, although there was no penalty for failing to do so until 1875. I think around 1875, the father could be named on illegitimate births, but only if both the chilld's parents agreed to this. In the early days, both parents had to appear before the registrar together, but this could be such an obvious impediment, I'm surprized the condition was ever imposed. It was later relaxed, so the parents could appear separately before any registrars, and later still, a form was introduced that the father could fill in, thus dealing with fathers going overseas - the form was to be signed before a notary, or commissioner for oaths, or some local equivalent.

Certainly thru 1969q1, the child's surname was not explicitly given.
It was presumed that the child's surname would be a parent's surname, so in the cases where these differ, the GRO index has two entries, each pointing to the same b.cert.

Thank you all for your replies :)

After a pm from the poster I've checked the two entries and the only difference between the two entries is that the middle initial on the 1962 entry was F and on the second entry was F-G.

Not sure why.

Kath. x

Re-registering usually (not always before anyone jumps on me) means that the parents have married in the time between the two entries

Look for their marriage

Further to Sylvia's post - on FreeBMD, click on the page # to see all the names the births on that page are indexed under - repeat for the other entry - it's sometimes informative.

it does mean that a correction has been made.


Go to freebmd, and then look at the image of the original entry and the revised entry

If you can send the details by pm I will have a look and see what I think. Might be tomorrow as I am going to bed shortly.

Kath. x

MISTAKE!!! meant to say one entry was 2nd Q 1962 - 7a 123

other entry was 1964 - 7a J64

can anyone help?

Thanks for replies so far :)

I'd go back to the page where you found the entry and have a look at the very bottom of the page to see if there is a hand written entry there.

Kath. x

well the birth could be anytime from mid feb and reg in April onwards . it could be then that the alteration was done late in the qtr

It means look at the June quarter of 1964. (although this seems strange as the birth is already registered in the June quarter of 1964 if you have the date correct in your post.)

Kath. x

I have found an entry on the birth index for 2nd quarter 1964 which has a volume number of (ficticious) 7a page 123 and page number 123 is crossed out and J 64 is written next to it.
can anyone explain what this means?
Thanks :-)