Why would a baptism record be amended?

Q My grandmother, Marie Twiss, was born on 27 May 1876 at Hanover Cottages, Hammersmith. Her mother was Mary Haley, but there was no father’s name on the birth certificate, which was registered on 8 July 1876.

Marie was baptised on 19 July the same year. On the baptism entry, it showed the parents’ names as Henry and Marie Twist, and the address given was Hanover Cottages. Henry’s profession was clerk.

In January 1877, Henry’s details were removed, leaving just the mother’s name Marie (Mary) Haley. Each amendment was initialled, by “AS”, Alfred Scott, who administered the sacraments. Why would the record have been amended? Margaret Machin

A Looking at the two pieces of evidence you have, the birth certificate is clearly that of a child born to a mother who is not claiming to be married to the father of her child. There is no father named, and Mary Haley has no maiden name recorded. After 1874, an unmarried father could only be named on the register entry if he attended with the mother to sign as a “joint informant”, which is still the case today. He clearly didn’t do so when this birth was registered on 8 July 1876, although the birth actually took place in May.

Eleven days later, Marie’s baptism was recorded, but this time as the child of a married couple Henry and Marie Twist. The baptism is marked “private”, so it may have been carried out at home when the child was born, especially if there were concerns for the child’s health. So it is

The baptism is marked ‘private’, so may have been carried out at home

possible that both parents were not seen by the vicar, or clerk, making the record.

However, in January 1877 the entry was amended and Henry’s details removed, so the vicar must have become aware that there was a problem. There would have been no legal reason why that couldn’t be done, if it was felt that incorrect information had been supplied.

The key question is whether Henry Twist was actually Marie’s father. The baptism record certainly suggests he was, but it does concern me that his name has been removed completely in the correction, rather than the surname of the mother (Haley) just being added, as you might expect if this was the baptism of an illegitimate child.

Is it possible that Henry was the one who asked for the correction, perhaps if he discovered, or suspected, that he wasn’t Marie’s father after all?