Un­usual dou­ble regis­tra­tion

Who Do You Think You Are? Magazine - - WRITE IN -

I found the let­ter in the Septem­ber is­sue from Antony Marr, the re­tired Deputy Regis­trar, re­gard­ing dou­ble regis­tra­tion in­ter­est­ing as I have come across this in dif­fer­ent cir­cum­stances.

When re­search­ing my fa­ther’s sib­lings, I came across a Beatrice Maud born 1902 who I’d never heard of. I ap­plied to the GRO for a birth cer­tifi­cate for Beatrice Maud and was told that they were un­able to sup­ply a copy due to dis­crep­an­cies on the en­try. Af­ter speak­ing to the GRO, I found that the cer­tifi­cate was in the records but had been closed. I was also look­ing for a birth cer­tifi­cate for my fa­ther’s el­der brother, Arthur, but couldn’t find one.

It turns out that Beatrice be­came Arthur in 1924, as his sex had been misiden­ti­fied at birth. I did man­age to get a birth cer­tifi­cate for Arthur, dated 1924, which was re-is­sued from Beatrice to Arthur on the au­thor­ity of the Regis­trar Gen­eral. As you can imag­ine, this is only part of Arthur’s story and I have writ­ten at length about his ex­pe­ri­ence. Mal Smith, by email Ed­i­tor replies: That is a very un­usual rea­son for a dou­ble regis­tra­tion! Arthur must have lived a dif­fi­cult life.

Arthur was misiden­ti­fied as fe­male at birth and was called Beatrice

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from UK

© PressReader. All rights reserved.