Genealogy Chat

Hi - Hope someone can help with this! I was trying to find my grandads birth details on the BMD index. He was known as Phillip Holt b.1917. The closest match I could find was Phillip H Norcliffe. I know my grandad was illegitimate, and that his mother was called Adeline Norcliffe, so I took a chance and ordered a copy of his birth certificate. I received it the other day, and it was my grandad, but his name on the birth certificate is just Phillip Holt. The only mention of the surname Norcliffe is his mothers name. Does anyone know why his surname on the BMD index would be completely different to the one on his birth certificate? Hope that all made sense by the way! Jennifer

The surname is not recorded for the child on a birth cert...........'Philip' and 'Holt' have been taken to be his forenames. As he was illegitimate, he would by law have to take his mother's surname, unless the father attended when the birth was registered Reg

Hi Jennifer, If you'd like to know all the ins and outs of what can be entered on BMD certificates, this website is brilliant: http://home.clara.net/dixons/Certificates/indexbd.htm One quote from the website regarding the Fornames column (column 2) on the birth certificate could be useful to you: 'Where a child was illegitimate with no fathers details in the register it is quite common to find a name such as William Johnston in column 2 which might possibly suggest a surname for the father of the child.' This is likely to explain why your grandad was known as Phillip Holt. Chris

Ooh, thanks for that! Feels a bit strange really, because my maiden name was Holt, so I suppose technically speaking, it should have been Norcliffe! Unfortunately there are no details regarding his father on the birth certificate (which was the main reason I'd ordered it). I literally know his name and that's it (Holt obviously being his surname). Once again, thanks for your help, and I'll definitely have a look at that website. Jennifer

Just had a look at his marriage certificate and his name is given as Phillip Holt. Would it have been acceptable to give a forename as a surname?

Jennifer Your legal name is whatever you choose to call yourself, and always has been, as long as you are not doing it to defraud or deceive. It was very common for illegitimate children to have their real father's surname as part of their name - in fact, the Registrar usually suggested this, as he could not legally enter a father's name on a cert unless he was present, and it was his kindness to some sobbing woman, who knew very well who the father of her child was. As a surname did not appear on a birth cert in those days anyway for a child, it was even easier to call yourself whatever you wanted. OC

Thanks OC, I'm not quite so confused now. I didn't actually realise that the legal definition of a name didn't have to have documentation to go with it. (If that makes sense)

Jennifer Of course, these days, you WOULD have to have some sort of proof of your 'real' name, or evidence that you had changed it, and why. But that has only happened in the last twenty years really, and is more to do with the government being worried that we are all operating fifty bank accounts in false names,to avoid tax, lol. OC

If he was known as HOLT, there is a chance that his father would be named on a baptism entry, where as far as I'm aware there wasn't the same restriction on fathers being named, ...married or not. I have seen many parish baptism entries, where father of the child has been named... Gwyn