ESSEX-UK-L Archives

Archiver > ESSEX-UK > 2006-04 > 1146112843


From: Candy <>
Subject: Re: Birth at Southend on Sea - a dilemna
Date: Thu, 27 Apr 2006 14:40:43 +1000 (EST)
In-Reply-To: <200604270154.k3R1saqQ027805@lists5.rootsweb.com>


G'day all you wonderfully helpful people!

Thank you for your replies on this post. Yes, the D/47
had me foxed too. But I think Antony is partly
correct, I believe it was due to an ommission from the
original registration.

This is where Charles' comment also comes in to
play...
I haven't had this confirmed by the GRO yet, but the
same thing happened with Beatrice's and my
Grandfather's older brother Jesse who was born in Dec
Qtr 1888. I've had the copy Mum gave me of the index
page for a while but I've just checked with
ancestry... (see for yourself if you like as there
were other handwritten entries at the bottom on the
opposite page) it says J/23.

I presume that both Jesse and his sister Beatrice
needed to obtain their birth certificate. In 1923
Jesse was told that his birth wasn't registered in
1888 so the handwritten J/23 entry referred to the
date when Jesse's birth was actually registered and a
reference was added to the bottom of the original page
from which it had been ommitted... it had to be added
for people like me who don't expect to find my Gt
uncle's 1888 birth to be registered in June Qtr 1923!
That ties in with the index details Helen has kindly
provided. I'll let you know what the GRO says!

No doubt Beatrice was told a similar story in 1949.
I'd forgotten this had happened to Jesse until Charles
mentioned the delay.

Recently Beatrice's burial records were found on the
Abney Park Cem transription website. Then from her age
at burial I tracked her birth down to Southend 1898.
Beatrice never married, so if another child was named
Beatrice in 1949 it may have been her neice or someone
totally unrelated.

Great team work, well done! Thank you very much.

Regards,
Candy
NSW Australia


> Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2006 17:52:20 +0100
> From: Antony Lambert
> <>
> To:
> Subject: RE: [Ess] Birth at Southend on Sea - a
> dilemna
>
> It would usually mean Dec Q 1947. Probably an
> error in the original registration.
>
> Antony Lambert
>
>
>
> <<<<<<<1. December 1898:
> The entry "Bridge, Beatrice F. Southend See
> D/47" has been added
> manually at the bottom of the page.
>
> 2. March 1899:
> The entry "Bridge, Beatrice F. Southend See
> D/47" has been added
> manually at the bottom of the page.
>
> I have absolutely no idea what the cryptic "See
> D/47" means (I'm not an
> expert on the BMD indices), but I can only guess
> that the entry for Beatrice
> was mis-indexed, or registered late, etc.>>>>>>
>
> ______________________________> Date: Wed, 26 Apr
2006 15:13:43 EDT
> From:
> To:
> Subject: Re: Birth Dilemma - Southend on Sea
>
> Just checked the December 1/4 1947
>
> Beatrice F Bridge Bridge Southend vol 4a,
> page 1007a
>
> Helen
>
> ______________________________> Date: Wed, 26 Apr
2006 22:45:34 +0200
> From: "Charles Fuller" <>
> To:
> Subject: RE: [Ess] Re: Birth Dilemma - Southend on
> Sea
>
> So this raises the question, what happened that led
> to the event being
> registered 49 years later?
>
> Perhaps the lady died then and (because of the
> requirement to give the birth
> details) this highlighted a problem with the
> original registration?
>
> Regards,
> Charles Fuller.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [mailto:]
>
> Sent: 26 April 2006 21:14
> To:
> Subject: [Ess] Re: Birth Dilemma - Southend on Sea
>
> Just checked the December 1/4 1947
>
> Beatrice F Bridge Bridge Southend vol 4a,
> page 1007a
>
> Helen
>
> Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2006 21:48:47 +0100 (GMT Standard
> Time)
> From: "shan" <>
> To:
> Subject: RE: [Ess] Re: Birth Dilemma - Southend on
> Sea
>
> Maybe the beatrice registered 49 years later was
> named after the original
> beatrice
>
> Just a thought
>
>
> Regards
> Shan
>
> Manager for Ancestry Aid
>
> www.ancestryaid.co.uk

Send instant messages to your online friends http://au.messenger.yahoo.com

This thread: