* GRO query
GRO query
Can anyone shed any light on this
Using FreeBMD, I have found two births in Halifax in the early 1930's to Walter William Hammond and Harriet Dorothy Hall (m 1919)
March 1930 Harry R Hammond, Mothers Name Hall 9a 492
&
September 1931 Janet Hammond, Mother's Name Hall, 9a 472
the parents subsequently divorced (I assume) because the wife married a Johnson in 1938, although the husband re-married in Q4 1935
Searching FreeBMD for births for Johnson/Hall
March 1930 Harry R Johnson, Mothers Name Hall 9a 492
&
September 1931 Janet Johnson, Mother's Name Hall, 9a 472
I believe that at least some of the Hammond children (there were more) remained with the mother and I have been told they used the Johnson surname. As yet I haven't ordered certificates to see originals, but I'm sort of assuming that there is a strong likelihood that these refer to the same persons.
Would the GRO index normally be updated to show a new surname?
Using FreeBMD, I have found two births in Halifax in the early 1930's to Walter William Hammond and Harriet Dorothy Hall (m 1919)
March 1930 Harry R Hammond, Mothers Name Hall 9a 492
&
September 1931 Janet Hammond, Mother's Name Hall, 9a 472
the parents subsequently divorced (I assume) because the wife married a Johnson in 1938, although the husband re-married in Q4 1935
Searching FreeBMD for births for Johnson/Hall
March 1930 Harry R Johnson, Mothers Name Hall 9a 492
&
September 1931 Janet Johnson, Mother's Name Hall, 9a 472
I believe that at least some of the Hammond children (there were more) remained with the mother and I have been told they used the Johnson surname. As yet I haven't ordered certificates to see originals, but I'm sort of assuming that there is a strong likelihood that these refer to the same persons.
Would the GRO index normally be updated to show a new surname?
Colin McDonald - Researching McDonald, McGillivray, Tait, Rountree families
- ColeValleyGirl
- Megastar
- Posts: 5465
- Joined: 28 Dec 2005 22:02
- Family Historian: V7
- Location: Cirencester, Gloucestershire
- Contact:
Re: GRO query
Possibly if they were legally adopted by the new father
Helen Wright
ColeValleyGirl's family history
ColeValleyGirl's family history
Re: GRO query
Unfortunately I have no info re possible adoption. I hope to talk to a direct descendent in a few days so may get more info.
Colin McDonald - Researching McDonald, McGillivray, Tait, Rountree families
-
- Superstar
- Posts: 269
- Joined: 08 Jan 2004 16:53
- Family Historian: V7
- Location: Thatcham, Berkshire, England
Re: GRO query
Could be the mother is a different Hall. Two sisters?
Victor
Victor
- LornaCraig
- Megastar
- Posts: 3190
- Joined: 11 Jan 2005 17:36
- Family Historian: V7
- Location: Oxfordshire, UK
Re: GRO query
Victor, that would be an extraordinary coincidence. How likely is it that two sisters would each have a son named 'Harry R' not only born in the same quarter but registered on exactly the same page, and then each have a daughter named Janet born in the same quarter and registered on exactly the same page? And then for the sister who was married to a Hammond to subsequently marry someone with exactly the same surname as her sister's husband (Johnson)? No, these are the same children, with the same mother.
Lorna
-
- Superstar
- Posts: 251
- Joined: 05 Nov 2020 12:16
- Family Historian: V7
- Location: Hertfordshire, UK
Re: GRO query
I have seen similar "duplicates". For example, this marriage from my tree.
Sybil MARBURY and Sybil HUMPHRIES are the same person. She was born out of wedlock and her mother Mary MANSELL registered her birth under the name of what I believe to be a totally fictitious father, who she declared to be deceased prior to the birth. Mary subsequently married a HUMPHRIES and daughter Sybil's subsequent marriage was recorded under both her birth name and the name of her step-father - as well as being mis-spelt in one entry!
Sybil MARBURY and Sybil HUMPHRIES are the same person. She was born out of wedlock and her mother Mary MANSELL registered her birth under the name of what I believe to be a totally fictitious father, who she declared to be deceased prior to the birth. Mary subsequently married a HUMPHRIES and daughter Sybil's subsequent marriage was recorded under both her birth name and the name of her step-father - as well as being mis-spelt in one entry!
-
- Superstar
- Posts: 269
- Joined: 08 Jan 2004 16:53
- Family Historian: V7
- Location: Thatcham, Berkshire, England
Re: GRO query
The alternative is they are both different families. Only by obtaining the birth certificates can thius be verified.
Checking the Hammond marriage. They were married in Norfolk.
I have had a look at Yorkshire BMD but Halifax has not been transcribed.
Could the FreeBMD made a transcription error?
Maybe Halifax Registration Office could clarify this
Victor
Checking the Hammond marriage. They were married in Norfolk.
I have had a look at Yorkshire BMD but Halifax has not been transcribed.
Could the FreeBMD made a transcription error?
Maybe Halifax Registration Office could clarify this
Victor
- AdrianBruce
- Megastar
- Posts: 2090
- Joined: 09 Aug 2003 21:02
- Family Historian: V7
- Location: South Cheshire
- Contact:
Re: GRO query
Using FreeBMD, there are 6 entries indexed on p.492. There are, however, only 5 entries on a register page. Therefore one has been indexed twice - the only possibility is Harry, viz:
Births Mar 1930 (>99%)
Buckley Hazel Parker Halifax 9a 492
Hammond Harry R Hall Halifax 9a 492
Johnson Harry R Hall Halifax 9a 492
Murphy John Fox Halifax 9a 492
Roberts Hilda McAndrew Halifax 9a 492
Rushworth Donald Moorhouse Halifax 9a 492
There is no pencilled annotation relating to Harry on either the Hammond index page, or the Johnson index page.
As I understand it, any re-registration will not affect the original entries and adoptions have zero effect on the original entries and any subsequent marriage will have no effect on anything unless there is a reregistration.
I therefore suggest that the entries for Harry represent the situation as at 1930 and either
- his mother has described herself as Harriet Dorothy Johnson late Hammond, formerly (i.e. maiden name) Hall;
or
- his parents are unmarried, specifically XXX Johnson and Harriet Dorothy Hammond formerly Hall, and both turned up to register the birth.
I don't know if it's possible to tell those two possibilities apart - the first would seem to involve an untruth about her marital state(s).
Births Mar 1930 (>99%)
Buckley Hazel Parker Halifax 9a 492
Hammond Harry R Hall Halifax 9a 492
Johnson Harry R Hall Halifax 9a 492
Murphy John Fox Halifax 9a 492
Roberts Hilda McAndrew Halifax 9a 492
Rushworth Donald Moorhouse Halifax 9a 492
There is no pencilled annotation relating to Harry on either the Hammond index page, or the Johnson index page.
As I understand it, any re-registration will not affect the original entries and adoptions have zero effect on the original entries and any subsequent marriage will have no effect on anything unless there is a reregistration.
I therefore suggest that the entries for Harry represent the situation as at 1930 and either
- his mother has described herself as Harriet Dorothy Johnson late Hammond, formerly (i.e. maiden name) Hall;
or
- his parents are unmarried, specifically XXX Johnson and Harriet Dorothy Hammond formerly Hall, and both turned up to register the birth.
I don't know if it's possible to tell those two possibilities apart - the first would seem to involve an untruth about her marital state(s).
Adrian
Re: GRO query
The simplest answer might be the best available - the Register Office index compiler probably couldn't decide from the copy Certificate how the child's last name should be recorded, so decided to index both possibilities separately in the Index, i.e. A married woman may have had a child by someone other than her husband. The Certificate may show the 'true' father's name but also record that the mother had a different married surname and maiden name. But only the Certificate could offer the actual solution.
As Adrian said, if there was a re-Registration it would have a different Page No. reference and would be cross-referenced. Adoption had/has no effect on Birth Registration; and 'no-one' would expect such information to be made publicly available simply by consulting in a general birth index: https://www.gro.gov.uk/gro/content/cert ... d%20person.
Mervyn
As Adrian said, if there was a re-Registration it would have a different Page No. reference and would be cross-referenced. Adoption had/has no effect on Birth Registration; and 'no-one' would expect such information to be made publicly available simply by consulting in a general birth index: https://www.gro.gov.uk/gro/content/cert ... d%20person.
Mervyn
-
- Superstar
- Posts: 269
- Joined: 08 Jan 2004 16:53
- Family Historian: V7
- Location: Thatcham, Berkshire, England
Re: GRO query
I have sent a message to support@freebmd asking if these two names can be verified or if there was a reason for them
Let's see if there is a respond and explanation
Hammond Harry R Hall Halifax 9a 492
Johnson Harry R Hall Halifax 9a 492
Victor
Let's see if there is a respond and explanation
Hammond Harry R Hall Halifax 9a 492
Johnson Harry R Hall Halifax 9a 492
Victor
- LornaCraig
- Megastar
- Posts: 3190
- Joined: 11 Jan 2005 17:36
- Family Historian: V7
- Location: Oxfordshire, UK
Re: GRO query
I’m not sure what significance to read into this, but although Findmypast has both ‘Harry R Hammond’ and ‘Harry R Johnson’ in Halifax, Q1 1930, (and the images of the index pages confirm both), the GRO website only has ‘Harry Raymond Johnson’. It does not have Harry Raymond Hammond.
Similarly, FMP has both ‘Janet Hammond’ and ‘Janet Johnson’ in Q3 1931 (with images of both index pages) but the GRO site has only Janet Johnson. It does not have Janet Hammond.
(Incidentally the page number for Janet is 474, not 472 as originally stated.)
Similarly, FMP has both ‘Janet Hammond’ and ‘Janet Johnson’ in Q3 1931 (with images of both index pages) but the GRO site has only Janet Johnson. It does not have Janet Hammond.
(Incidentally the page number for Janet is 474, not 472 as originally stated.)
Lorna
- AdrianBruce
- Megastar
- Posts: 2090
- Joined: 09 Aug 2003 21:02
- Family Historian: V7
- Location: South Cheshire
- Contact:
Re: GRO query
When the GRO compiled its new index, they changed the rules. Cynically, I've often said that I'm not convinced that they knew that they'd changed the rules!
One of the changes made was to the indexing of a child with unmarried parents where both are named. Originally the child was indexed twice, under each parental surname. In the new index, there is only one index entry, under the father's surname.
However, I don't know the previous and current rules for indexing a registration where only the mother is named and the mother has two surnames as well as her maiden name. As a result, I've no idea whether what Lorna has found is diagnostic or not, so I suspect that, at the moment, the only way would be to buy the certificate to see what it says. If anyone is that curious!
One of the changes made was to the indexing of a child with unmarried parents where both are named. Originally the child was indexed twice, under each parental surname. In the new index, there is only one index entry, under the father's surname.
However, I don't know the previous and current rules for indexing a registration where only the mother is named and the mother has two surnames as well as her maiden name. As a result, I've no idea whether what Lorna has found is diagnostic or not, so I suspect that, at the moment, the only way would be to buy the certificate to see what it says. If anyone is that curious!
Adrian
- gwilym'smum
- Superstar
- Posts: 302
- Joined: 01 Feb 2016 16:28
- Family Historian: V6.2
- Location: South Cheshire
- Contact:
Re: GRO query
Hello
Have you tried the local register office index (not sure which it would be for Halifax) but there might be more details on there
Ann
Have you tried the local register office index (not sure which it would be for Halifax) but there might be more details on there
Ann
Researching Mayer, Parr/Parr, Simcock, Beech and all related families
-
- Superstar
- Posts: 269
- Joined: 08 Jan 2004 16:53
- Family Historian: V7
- Location: Thatcham, Berkshire, England
Re: GRO query
This is the reply I got from support FreeBMD
'One could speculate on how this situation could come about, for example the father was not the mother's husband, but being a different mother would be a remote possibility'.
Best thing one can do is check the local register office
Victor
'One could speculate on how this situation could come about, for example the father was not the mother's husband, but being a different mother would be a remote possibility'.
Best thing one can do is check the local register office
Victor
-
- Famous
- Posts: 169
- Joined: 12 Sep 2003 14:56
- Family Historian: V6.2
- Location: Ogwell, Devon
- Contact:
Re: GRO query
According o Newspaper report
The Decree Nisi was granted in March 1935.
Quoted as because of misconduct between Harriet Dorothy HAMMOND and Harry Raymond JOHNSON.
So suspect that Harry Johnson is the Father, but as they were unmarried and she was going by the HAMMOND name at the time, then are indexed twice, under Fathers Name and Mothers Name.
The Decree Nisi was granted in March 1935.
Quoted as because of misconduct between Harriet Dorothy HAMMOND and Harry Raymond JOHNSON.
So suspect that Harry Johnson is the Father, but as they were unmarried and she was going by the HAMMOND name at the time, then are indexed twice, under Fathers Name and Mothers Name.
Re: GRO query
I'm out of contact for a few days so cant really reply fully. Thanks to everyone, I'll read when back in circulation, ad respond then.
Colin
Colin
Colin McDonald - Researching McDonald, McGillivray, Tait, Rountree families
Re: GRO query
You have a normal case of a registration to unmarried parents, therefore the entry is indexed twice (under the surname of each parent). All such entries are indexed in the same way in the older printed indexes as seen on FreeBMD.
In this case the mother is, or has been, married to someone else ( but not to the father named on the registration) so a maiden name is shown for her as it is for any married woman.
So the most likely explanation is that on the birth registration the father will be "xxxx JOHNSON", the mother will be "Harriet Dorothy HAMMOND formerly HALL".
As with all index entries, there are other possibilities, although less likely, so you should obtain a certificate to be certain. If you do you should find that both parents signed as "joint informants", which confirms they are not married (to each other).
The newer GRO index uses different indexing rules for births to unmarried parents and where a father is named the entry will only be indexed under that surname regardless of marital status.
Birth registrations are never updated with surname changes for later adoptions or step parent relationships.
In this case the mother is, or has been, married to someone else ( but not to the father named on the registration) so a maiden name is shown for her as it is for any married woman.
So the most likely explanation is that on the birth registration the father will be "xxxx JOHNSON", the mother will be "Harriet Dorothy HAMMOND formerly HALL".
As with all index entries, there are other possibilities, although less likely, so you should obtain a certificate to be certain. If you do you should find that both parents signed as "joint informants", which confirms they are not married (to each other).
The newer GRO index uses different indexing rules for births to unmarried parents and where a father is named the entry will only be indexed under that surname regardless of marital status.
Birth registrations are never updated with surname changes for later adoptions or step parent relationships.