Family Historian User Group

I know that this is not related to FH but I have been confused today.

On a copy of a Birth Certificate it states, at the bottom, 'WARNING: A CERTIFICATE IS NOT EVIDENCE OF IDENTITY'

Today I had cause to visit the UK Passport site and on there was an article under the title Passport Security Stepped Up – New Rules On Birth Certificates in which it states:

From 4 May 2004, people applying for a UK passport for the first time will have to provide their full, ‘long’ birth certificate, which includes the names and place of birth of both parents, to prove identity and nationality. The move is one of several recent initiatives to improve passport security to combat fraud and identity theft.

The bit that I find interesting is 'to prove identity'

To say I am confused would be an understatement or is this a qestion of left hands and right hands?

ID:357

What happens if your birth certificate does not contain your parents places of birth. I know mine doesn't. In fact I do not think I have seen one that soes. Must be a newish thing.

Does that mean if you are over a certain age you are stuck?

Earlier full birth certificates did not give the surname of the child, just those of the parents. I think that the childs surname was added to the certificate some time in the mid 1900s. I have a birth cert for an illegitimate child born in 1857 and the certificate is listed in the GRO index under both the father's and mother's surname. From the child's marriage cert I can see that he took his mother's surname.

Peter E