* Birth registered twice legal ?

[jsphillips]

Hi
I have a Birth certificate for a Bulstrode Henry Whitelocke 1st Sept 1869
It shows father Bulstrode Henry Whitelocke who later in 1872 went onto to have a number of children after this with a different partner. (they also never married) This is my wife's family and I know this last relationship is 100% correct.
When I look up the birth registration It is Pancras 1b 57 Q4 1869 and shows child correctly as Bulstrode Henry Whitelocke
Quite separately under this reference it shows Pancras 1b 57 Q4 1869 as Bulstrode Henry Barford ??
This is his mothers name.
How can the birth with same date be registered with same Reg office and data for 2 separate names ??
Should i contact the GRO or is this legally acceptable.

Under both of the names there is later :- no marriage, no death, no census,no emmigation
VERY STRANGE ? Just a complete disappearance.

[ColeValleyGirl]

It wasn't registered twice; it was indexed twice, once under the father's surname and once under the mother's. IIRC, this was standard practice if both surnames were given but the child was illegitimate.

[AdrianBruce]

It wasn't registered twice; it was indexed twice, once under the father's surname and once under the mother's. IIRC, this was standard practice if both surnames were given but the child was illegitimate.

Agreed. One giveaway is that if you use FreeBMD to look at that quarter / volume / page, there are eleven entries on that page. Since there are only ten on a physical page of that era, this is a sure sign that there are 11 indexes for 10 entries - and Bulstrode, since he occurs twice, is the entry with two indexes, for the reason Helen suggests.

[Mark1834]

Agree - I have a similar case from the 1920s, and there are two separate index entries, one for each surname.

It’s an odd case. Although the father was named on the birth certificate, he married somebody else just 3 months later, and his bride had just turned 17 (he was mid-20s)!

I’ve traced the jilted mother forward, and she later married and had her own family, but there is no trace of the child whatsoever, and the father’s descendants have never mentioned him.

I assume he was given up for adoption - I await the e-mail from the TV researcher on the latest “trace your family” program...

[jsphillips]

Thanks all
Interesting

[jsphillips]

Hi Mark1834
I have watched these programs
What was the name again of the program was it "Long Lost Family "?
Could you possibly please let me know how I can get in touch with the program or the researcher.(like yourself)
In my case the father Bulstrode Henry Whitelocke (Snr) had other children 1 year later by a new lady (all in order)
but never married her.
The child Bulstrode Henry Whitelocke (Jnr) seems to dissapear completely no trace at all. If as you say he was probably adopted then I would like to trace him and would like to know who to contact.
One of Bulstrode Henry Whitelocke's later children was Bulstrode Harry Whitelocke who my wife remembers as her grandfather.
Any help on tracing or contact would be most welcome

[Mark1834]

Did you not spot my tongue in my cheek...? Modern adoption records are closed for very good reason, and there is rightfully a very high bar for enabling identification and contact (and curiosity comes nowhere near).

Remember in your case you are talking about a birth 150 years ago. There was no formal adoption system then, and babies would have been placed by informal arrangement or through charities.

If you’ve exhausted the traditional research methods, I suspect the only remaining option is to follow up DNA links, but even that is several generations ago, so not a trivial exercise.

[jsphillips]

Thanks OK