Genealogy Chat

Can anyone help me with this mystery? I have a birth certificate (certifed copy of entry from GRO) for an ancestor born in Nov 1904. Her mother is Emma Mary Clifft and she registered the birth in Dec 1904. On the right hand side of the certificate there is a note that says that 'clerical error in column 5 corrected on 23 mar 1905 by the Registrar in the presence of the mother'. The amendment is that the 'Mary' in Emma Mary Clifft has been underlined - this is odd as Emma was always known as Emma from birth to death. Does anyone know why she would have gone back to make this amendment 4 months after registering the birth? Her husband and the child's father actually died in Jan 1905 i.e. between registering the birth and making the amendment if that's relevant. I'd be grateful for any thoughts?

Column 5 is the mother's name and maiden surname, isn't it? Maybe Emma just noticed that her name had been entered wrongly and wanted it corrected? Kate.

Are the names identical in the first and last columns - other than the underline? Or was one 'May' and not 'Mary', say? My great uncle was first registered as Edwin Vincent Russell CHRISTMAS before having the second of the given names changed from Vincent to Cecil (the name by which he was always known thereafter). I've never discovered why the name was changed - or not yet, anyway. It's not unknown for parents to change their minds about which aunt/uncle/brother/etc they want their child named for. In some cases, it's probably a matter of legacies. I believe Jane Austen's younger(?) brother acquired a new surname for that reason. Christine

One of Jane Austen's older brothers, Edward, changed his surname to Knight, which was the name of the family who adopted him and whose property he inherited. nell

Can I reiterate my comment earlier? Unless I am very much mistaken Victoria is asking about a correction made to the mother's name on the birth certificate which was due to a clerical error? Not the baby's name being changed at all? Kate.

Yes, Kate By the time I'd realised I'd slightly misread her query, I'd already posted my reply. I decided it was sufficiently useful, if not directly relevant to this query, to leave rather than deleting it. I saw that other answer(s) had addressed the problem more accurately, too, so if mine is wide of the mark, it shouldn't be too much of a nuisance. I hope Christine

Victoria,, perhaps the mother with a new baby;; only after 4 months got to sort it out ,,and had her name ammended to just Mother Emma Clift and not Emma Mary Clift, (formally ) the name given to the child....an overzealous registrar,,

Hi all Thanks for your replies Sorry for the confusion I have caused! The mother Emma Mary Clifft was always known as Emma (in living memory and on all other documents) - she went back to have her middle name of Mary underlined on the baby's birth certificate as though this was the name that she was known by. As this was four months or so after registering the birth and two months after her huband's death I just wondered if there was some need (e.g. legal) for her to feel she had to do this. Any ideas welcome.

Hi Sarah She was baptised as just plain Emma and on her birth cert. Her mother was called Mary and on censuses and other certificates she is either Emma Mary or just Emma. I was thinking along the same lines as you that for some legal reason she needed to show that she was a Mary and not an Emma - this would fit with the amendment just two months after her husband's death and I certainly agree with your observation on men!!! Victoria