I've just found a birth registered in 1921 & 1932 for person of same name with same mother's name. The last one noted as a 'late registration'. -Camberwell Would this be because the parents were not then married? Otherwise how could the registration be left so long with out being 'chased up'? I have not found same birth name registered with Mother's name only. Only curious because I find a 3rd cousin had married this Lass also in Camberwell -1941.
Don't know the answer to this Wendy, so I took the liberty of emailing the GRO. Will let you know when I hear back.
Bless you Sis, I didn't think of that & I was looking in there at the time I have hunted for two days & believe I have the right lady for cousin's marriage. The really exciting part was that her parents were popular names in my file of recent searches, sadly not my Phillips/Scott family tho'. Parents were married 1906 so must have been some other reason for dual registration. St. Barnabas, Rotherhithe. Millicent the 97h child according to a 'tree' on Ancestry. Just looked at Feee BMD images. Typed page & it was missed out for some reason perhaps that was all it was -just another of life's little typos. Thanks again Sis sorry I didn't think to do this earlier.
I have a birth cert. for myself a short version, dated 1954, I was born 1938. It says information given by father, my dad died in 1950. I think in being evacuated during the War my original one was lost. Have looked up my birth and it is there in 1938. You never gave any names, is it possible the first child died and a second one was given the same name.? If you give the name I will do a look up on fmp for you.
Unknown Lusmum, not found her on 1939 so far. Probable death of her father 1932-St. Olave. Mother's whereabouts not known, problems accessing electoral registers. However I can offer this Donald Arthur Wallace Death Regist'n Jul-Aug-Sep 2002 West Surrey, Surrey, England Birth Date (available after June quarter 1969) 11 Mar 1919 Volume 7611C marriage 1941 Camberwell - Phillips
I believe I have just found the Mother in 1939 with another daughter. marriage mentioned which I had thought to be for a dtr of same name in 1941 tna_r39_0091_0091j_013/6281856 [Anc.] TNA_R39_0091_0091.Jpeg [ FMP, I think ] Probable death Deaths Jun 1957 SMITH Sophia F. 70 Bermondsey 5c-117
Millicent V Phillips married Donald A Wallace 4th quarter 1941 volume 1D page 1273 Camberwell London. Born 2q 1921 mother Scott, V1D Page D .SEE D'32 . This birth is hand written on the bottom of the page. Camberwell. Any help?
I have found the second birth registration in 1932, why it was that late I have no idea but makes me think that is why it is written by hand on the bottom of the page in 1921.
On another forum I found this. "I wonder how she managed to get her birth registered as it would need the consent of the Registrar General and he would require proof. Perhaps her baptism certificate was enough to satisfy him." Still waiting on GRO email.
@Lusmum , yes thanks that's the one [v-Violet] not found her in later years but I do think proof found that it was my cousin she married. Pity her parents were not of my lines too- that would be icing on the cake. @Sis Was that report on same person Sis? I do wonder if it was a mistake on part of Registrar generals office that her birth did't appear & they then entered it twice when queries were made about it. she may have need it for some schooling or similar.
No it wasn't the same person Wendy. Just a question very similar to yours. They seem to think that there is a fair number of similar instances. Have PM'd you.
I believe she was only registered once, in 1932, that's why it has been added by hand to the 1921 .That's why the SEE D'32 is there, but couldn't find what it means. Register was changed in 1965 and not any earlier notes about it as to what it means.
Thanks Lusmum. I used to see these notes when I was transcribing for FreeBMD but that was a few years ago now.So -later than I should have I've just taken a look at transcribers help page_ Code: https://www.freebmd.org.uk/late-entry-help.html about ¾ way down the page. So, may be v' late entry or one that was missed originally. Thanks Sis & Lusmum, I think that will have to be the explanation.
Understand now having looked at your link. The SEE D'32 is saying it's a late entry in 1932. Thank you, learned something new today. Happy hunting Val...
Here's the answer from the GRO. Have emailed it to you too @Ma-dotcom. "In some circumstances, where authorised by the Registrar General, an original entry is either corrected or alternatively superseded by a subsequent fresh register entry and requires an occasional copy of the updated or new entry to be sent to the Registrar General. The occasional copy of this updated or new entry is then allocated a new index / page number. For example, the original entry may be on page 670 and the occasional copy of the amended or new entry is allocated an occasional page reference 670A. Other than where there has been a re-registration of a birth to add or remove the father’s details, the previous record is not viewable. If it is a re-registration to add or remove the father’s details, then you can obtain both the original and re-registered entry providing that you can supply sufficient detail for us to identify the original entry."
Thank you Sis, I'm not sure it answers the actual query relating to differences in dates but probably does. However this may well help others who wonder about similar entries.
